EPA-600/2-77-231
November 1977
Environmental Protection Technology Series
BLAST FURNACE CAST
HOUSE EMISSION CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, have been grouped into five series. These five broad categories were established to
facilitate further development and application of environmental technology. Elimination of
traditional grouping was consciously planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum
interface in related fields. The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY
series. This series describes research performed to develop and demonstrate instrumenta-
tion, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent environmental degradation from point
and non-point sources of pollution. This work provides the new or improved technology
required for the control and treatment of pollution sources to meet environmental quality
standards.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policy of the Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Vrginia 22161.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
V ^ RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK
PRO NORTH CAROLINA 27711
SUBJECT: Report entitled "Blast Furnace Cast House Emission Control
Technology Assessment" Report No. EPA-600/2-77-231
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contracted
with Betz Environmental Engineers, Inc. to produce a report on
the emissions from and state-of-the-art of emission control
for blast furnace cast houses. EPA has reviewed the produced
document and has decided that many of its conclusions are not
based upon scientific information contained in the report.
Examples of statements which EPA has decided are erroneous
and/or unsupported by the study are found on pages 4, 55, 66,
106, 125, 128 and 141. These representative statements are as
follows:
page 4 -
"Although this study does not specifically address
the point, the investigators feel that there probably
is a blast furnace and cast house size combination
for which the economic burdens of cast house fume
control, through either partial or total capture,
cannot be justified on economic grounds."
page 55 -
The entire section entitled "Pollution from Power
House Caused by Control of Emissions from Cast
House."
page 66 -
The statement "Government support of steel industry"
referring to the Japanese steel industry.
page 106 -
"These modifications to materials and operating
procedures would provide some cast house emission
control with little or no increase in energy consumption,
and, therefore, WOuld not increase pol1utioh from
energy^producing sources." (emphasis added)
page 125-128 -
Figures 7-15 through 7-17 relating power house
emissions to cast house emission control.
page 141 -
The section entitled "Safety Considerations".
-------
EPA-600/2-77-231
November 1977
BLAST FURNACE CAST
HOUSE EMISSION CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
by
William P. May
Betz Environmental Engineers, Inc.
One Plymouth Meeting Hall
Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania 19462
Contract No. 68-02-2123
Program Element No. 1AB604
EPA Project Officer: Robert C. McCrillis
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
ABSTRACT
The objective of this study was to pursue a research program
combining the present state-of-the-art with feasible additional
ideas and approaches that would produce concepts applicable to
emission controls when casting from a basic iron furnace.
Background information was obtained from a study of existing
literature and by visiting selected blast furnace installations
in the United States, Japan and Europe. Periodic meetings were
held with an ad hoc group of experienced blast furnace operators
and engineers set up by the American Iron and Steel Institute.
Through a questionnaire which was sent to all members of the
AISI, operating and physical characteristics data was received on
151 standing blast furnaces.
Wide variance in the data received prompted consideration of
emission reduction by changes in operation methods and selection
of suitable process materials.
Each cast house must be considered on its own, not only
because of the large variance in operating details, but also
because of the geometric shapes and proportions of the cast house
itself.
This research program can only address itself to general
designs and feasible methods of control and not to specific
detailed design.
The work on this program was performed under Contract No. 68-
02-2123 for the Environmental Protection Agency Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina.
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract i
List of Figures vi
List of Tables x
Acknowledgement xii
Section 1
Introduction 1
Section 2
Conclusions 3
Section 3
Recommendations 6
Section 4
Profile of Iron Producing Operations 8
Blast Furnace Process Description 8
Fuels and Burden Materials 10
Products Generated by the Blast Furnace 12
Blast Furnace Physical Design Considerations 12
Cast House Design and Functions 13
Cast House Arrangements-United States
Blast Furnaces 13
Iron Production Statistical Data 22
Future of Ironmaking 30
Direct Reduction 30
11
-------
CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section 5
Cast House Emissions 33
Particulate Emissions from Cast Houses 33
Alternative Filtering Equipment for
Emission Control 35
Emission Evaluation of the No. 1 Cast House
at Dominion Foundries and Steel, Limited 41
Cast House Emission Factors 48
Pollution from Power House Caused by
Control of Emission from Cast House 55
Gaseous Emissions from Casting 61
Section 6
State-of-the-Art For Cast House Emission Control 63
U.S. Technology 63
Japanese Technology 65
European Technology 93
Literature Search 102
Section 7
Concept Designs For Emission Control On Existing
Blast Furnace Cast Houses 104
No Pollution Control System
Installation but the Application of
Process Revisions and Process Control
Modifications to Present Practices 104
Partial Control of Cast House Emissions with No
Changes in Process 106
111
-------
CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section 7 (Cont'd)
Partial Control of Cast House Emissions
Including Process Changes .............................. 124
Total Emission Control by Cast House Evacuation
Without Considering Process Changes .................... 124
Partial Control vs . Total Control ...................... 141
Safety Considerations .................................. 141
Section 8
Classifications of Existing United States Blast
Furnaces [[[ 144
Section 9
Concept Designs for Emission Control on New Blast
Furnace Cast Houses ......................................... 146
Section 10
Additional Research and Development for the Control
of Cast House Emissions ..................................... 149
Bibliography [[[ .153
Glossary [[[ 156
Appendices
A. Production Data from Blast Furnaces
Averages of Values Obtained from Questionnaire
Survey of Steel Mills .................................. &-1
Values Obtained from Questionnaire Transmitted
to Steel Mills by AISI ................................. A-5
Questionnaire as Submitted to Steel Mills
-------
CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Appendices (Cont'd)
B. Engineering Data
Air Flow Calculations for Tap Hole and Iron
Trough Curtain Enclosure B-2
C. Misc. Emission Evaluation Data of the No. 1
Cast House at Dominion Foundry and Steel
Company
Sampling Procedures C-l
Field Data Sheets C -8
Calibration Data C-26
Calculations C -28
Testing Parameters C-33
Analytical Methods C-41
Laboratory Results C-49
Process Operating Data C-51
Spark Source Mass Spectrometric Analysis
of Fifteen Samples of Blast Furnace
Cast House Emissions C-59
Spark Source Mass Spectrometric Analysis
of Blast Furnace Cast House Baghouse
Sample C-73
D. Bethlehem Steel Corporation Cast House
Emission Evaluation Data
v
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page Figure Title
No. No.
4-1 Blast Furnace Cross Section
11 4-2 Blast Furnace Plant with Auxilliary
Equipment
1H 4-3 Back-Filled Cast House
16 4-4 Republic-Cleveland #1 Cast House
17 4-5 Open Cast House
23 4-6 Iron Production in U.S.A.
24 4-7 Blast Furnace Production vs.
Furnace Volume
25 4-8 Domestic Blast Furnaces Classification
by Size and Average Production
34 5-1 Carbon-Iron Diagram
37 5-2 Cyclone Collection Efficiency
Curves
50 5-3 Floor Plan - No. 1 Blast Furnace
at DOFASCO
51 5-4 Cast House Internal Concentrations
vs. Room Air Changes
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Con't)
56 5-5 Power House Emissions Caused by
Total Evacuation of Cast House-50 air
changes per hr.
57 5-6 Power House Emissions Caused by
Total Evacuation of Cast House-60 air
changes per hr.
58 5-7 Power House Emissions Caused by
Total Evacuation of Cast House-70 air
changes per hr.
59 5-8 Cast House Particulate Emissions vs.
Production
68 6-1 Representation of Nippon Steel
Corporation1s Secondary Dust Collection
System
74 6-2 Nippon Kokan K.K. Fukuyama Works
Blast Furnace #5 Emission
Capture System
75 6-3 Nippon Kokan K.K. Fukuyama Works
Blast Furnace #5 Emission Capture System
78 6-4 Nippon Steel Corporations Cast House
Emission Control System
81 6-5 Schematic Diagram of Cast House
Dust Collection at Oita No. 1
B.F. Nippon Steel Corporation
82 6-6 Nippon Steel Corporation Oita
Works Blast Furnace No. 1
Emission Capture System
83 6-7 Nippon Steel Corporation's Oita Works
Blast Furnace f1 Emission Capture
System Details
VII
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Con't)
88 6-8 Schematic Diagram of Cast House
Dust Collection at Kamaishi No. 1
B.F. Nippon Steel Corporation
89 6-9 Nippon Steel Corporation's Kamaishi
Blast Furnace #1 Emission Capture
System
90 6-10 Nippon Steel Corporation's Kamaishi
Blast Furnace #1 Emission Capture
System Details
95 6-11 Plan View of Cast House Flows at
B.S.C. Redcar and Llanwern Blast
Furnaces
108 7-1 Plan View Single Tap Hole Furnace
Partial Emission Control Concept
109 7-2 Front Elevation Single Tap Hole
Furnace Partial Emission Control
Concept
110 7-3 Side Elevation View Single Tap Hole
Furnace Partial Emission Control Concept
111 7-4 Telescoping Metal Plates. Top Plate
Hinged
112 7-5 Roll-up Curtain Lock-Bottom with
Guy Wire at Rear
113 7-6 Roll-up Curtain
114 7-7 Roll-up in area between crane
and trusses
115 7-8 Venetian Blind Type Metal Slats
116 7-9 Fold-up Metal Plates
viii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Con't)
117 7-10 Fold-up Metal Plates
118 7-11 Plan View Multiple Tap Hole Furnace
Partial Emission Control Concept
119 7-12 Retractable Hood for Partial Control
121 7-13 Collecting System for Partial Evacuation
122 7-14 Partial Control Values
126 7-15 Cast House Side Wall Inlet Velocities due
to Total Evacuation Ventilation Rates
127 7-16 Horse Power Requirements for
Cast Houses Total Evacuation
128 7-17 Power Plant Emissions Resulting from
Cast House Evacuation
129 7-18 Total Evacuation Values
120 7-19 Installed Cost of Cloth Collector System
for Total Control or Complete Evacuation
131 7-20 Installed Unit Cost for Cloth Collector System
for Total Control or Complete Evacuation
142 7-21 Fuel Consumption for Total
Evacuation of Cast House
150 10-1 Approximate Time Schedule
for Additional R&D Efforts
IX
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page Table Title
No. No.
26 4-1 Blast Furnace Classification by
Size and Average Production
27 4-2 Standing Basic Iron Blast
Furnaces Reported through
B.E.E./AISI Questionnaire
43 5-1 Particulate Sampling Results from
DOFASCO Emission Evaluation Program
44 5-2 Sulfur Oxides Sampling Results from
DOFASCO Emission Evaluation Program
45 5-3 Average Particulate Results as related to
Process Data from DOFASCO Emission
Evaluation Program
46 5-4 DOFASCO conducted Emission Factor
Evaluation Program on No. 1 Blast
Furnace Cast House Control System
49 5-5 Temperatures, Velocities and SO2
Concentrations Inside Cast House. Plan
of locations of sampling points
attached.
70 6-1 survey Information - Japanese
Blast Furnace Emission Control
73 6-2 Fukuyama Works - Blast Furnace and
Cast House Technical and Statistical
Information
x
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Con't)
84 6-3 Oita Works - Blast Furnace No. 1 and
Cast House Technical and Statistical
Information
91 6-4 Kamaishi Works - Blast Furnace No. 1
and Cast House Technical and Statistical
Information
96 6-5 European Technology - Table of
Statistics of Plants Visited
101 6-6 French Technology - Results of Testing
at USINOR-Bunkerque Injecting High
Sulfur Fuel
123 7-1 Cost Breakdown per Annum of 94.4 m3/sec.
(200,000 CFM)
Curtain System
132 7-2 Cost Breakdown per Annum of 94.4 m3/sec.
thru to 472.0 m3/sec.
7-10 (200,000 CFM to 1,000,000 CFM)
Total Evacuation Systems
XI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are particularly grateful to the American Iron and Steel
Institute for the ad hoc committee which assisted in our efforts
to obtain technical background and operating procedures on blast
furnace operations. Without this assistance we would have had
less potential to visit blast furnace installations and learn
some of the operating procedures first hand. Individuals on this
committee contributed freely of their time to help us in this
program.
We gratefully acknowledge the cooperation given us by DOFASCO
which allowed free rein in our testing efforts and permitted
access to all of its available operating information. Without
this assistance we would not have had sufficient quantitative
emission information on which to base our efforts.
The steel industry in all parts of the world showed active
interest in this project and offered supportive assistance.
The EPA Project Officer was Robert C. McCrillis of the
Metallurgical Process Branch, Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
xn
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This report is concerned with the definition of technology
for controlling blast furnace cast house fugitive emissions which
implies the existence of the need to control such emissions. The
contract scope-of-workr which this report addresses, did not
direct B.E.E. to evaluate the impact of cast house emissions on
ambient air quality.
Because domestic environmental control efforts and resources
have been concentrated in other areas, the priorities given to
controlling these emissions has been low. Consequently, the
state-of-the-art for reducing blast furnace cast house emissions
has not been extensively developed in the United States.
This study focuses on the state-of-the-art of curtailing or
controlling the escape of fumes from the cast house. This study
also considers the nature and scope of further studies which may
be required to furnish data which would enable EPA to evaluate
the feasibility and engineering aspects of cast house controls.
The approach employed to obtain data for the many variables
was to submit a questionnaire to all the operating blast furnace
plants. (A copy of the questionnaire is presented on page A37-
A39 in Appendix A). The development and transmittal of the
questionnaire was accomplished through the AISI ad hoc committee
which was comprised of members representing the operating,
environmental, and engineering groups of steel firms. Meetings
with the ad hoc committee were held periodically to up-date the
proceedings and to provide answers to B.E.E. questions. This
committee was also instrumental in arranging domestic plant
visits for the investigators.
Prior to initiating meaningful discussions with the AISI ad
hoc working group B.E.E. agreed to provide the AISI an
opportunity to critique a draft of the report. Comments prepared
by the A.ISI ad hoc committee and the Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory of EPA on this study appear in the report.
To aid in the study, improved quality cast house emission
data was necessary. Because casting emissions are fugitive in
nature, existing data available at the initiation of this study
consisted of cast house emission factors developed through the
use of various methods, such as time lapse photography and
sampling in cast house roof monitors using inverted high volume
ambient samplers. Such methods are less precise than the present
state-of-the-art for quantifying stationary source emissions. To
obtain additional data, B.E.E. obtained approval from Dominion
-------
Foundries and Steel, Limited (DOFASCO) to sample emissions from
its No. 1 blast furnace cast house using EPA sampling methods.
This furnace employs full emission control using a total cast
house evacuation technique. Air volumes exhausted, pounds of
particulate removed, as well as ambient conditions in the cast
house are reported in Section 5.
This report employs iron making and blast furnace
terminology. To aid the reader, a technical glossary is included
beginning on page 156.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
The technology of blast, furnace emission control through
ventilation and/or emission reduction needs further study and
development. Technology for emission reduction through fume
cleaning exists and can be accomplished by any number of air
pollution control devices, including wet scrubbers, fabric
filters (baghouses) and, to a lesser degree, mechanical
collectors. The fabric filter, however, as reviewed in Section 5
is the most suitable control device for this application. Doubt
exists as to the effectiveness that can be expected from a dry
electrostatic precipitator due to particulate matter
characteristics. The results of this study program further
indicates that through process modifications (including
development and application of materials and operating practices)
the generation of objectionable emissions can be reduced, but the
extent is presently unknown.
At the initiation of this study, particulate emission factors
in the order of 0.1 to 0.15 Kg per tonne (0.2 to 0.3 Ibs. per
ton) of hot metal cast were considered representative. Based
upon sampling conducted by B.E.E. employing EPA methods at
DOFASCO, in Hamilton, Ontario on its blast furnace cast house No.
1 and sampling by Bethlehem Steel Corp. on its Johnstown "E"
blast furnace while casting basic iron, an emission factor range
of 0.1 to 0.3 Kg per tonne (0.2 to 0.6 Ibs. per ton) may be more
appropriate. Both of these sampled facilities utilize total cast
house evacuation to capture emissions. Additional cast house
emission testing is needed to better define fugitive emissions.
Based upon B.E.E.'s observations during casting of 16 domestic
furnaces, it is inappropriate to consider a single emission
factor for all basic iron casting operations. The high value of
the 0.1 to 0.3 Kg per tonne range of emission factors was
obtained from the DOFASCO testing program, and it is B.E.E.'s
judgement that the casting operation at this facility generated
above average fume quantities. The observed differences in the
levels of fume generated from cast house to cast house can be
attributed to variations in operating practices and materials
used in the blast furnace and cast house.
DOFASCO conducted a program (Table 5-4) over a three month
period (September - November, 1976) which consisted of weighing
the dust collected in the hopper of the dust collector serving
cast house No. 1 and relating this amount to tons of metal cast.
The average emission factor obtained was 0.26 Kg/tonne of hot
metal cast (0.52 LBS/T). Section 5 reviews the development of
emission factors.
-------
There is one operating cast house emission control system in
the United States on a ferromanganese blast furnace and none on
blast furnaces regularly producing basic iron. The installation
employs total cast house evacuation, an approach that is energy
intensive since it involves movement of large volumes of air.
The Japanese steel industry has developed alternative
technology for cast house emission controls. During the past ten
years they have developed their systems to the point where they
now have integrated their iron making and emission control
systems., Primarily, the Japanese approach is fume capture at the
source through the use of close fitting hoods and covers wherever
the hot metal is exposed to the atmosphere inside the cast house.
The state-of-the-art of cast house emission control is discussed
in Section 6. Japanese blast furnace and cast house physical
characteristics, as well as operating practices, differ from
those in the United States and it is these differences that may
preclude successful direct application of Japanese technology to
United states facilities. Much will be learned about this
technology when it is applied to the United states blast furnaces
under construction in Maryland and Indiana.
The Japanese partial control concept has advantages and may
show promise upon further development. This concept approaches
emission capture by applying ventilation where it can be most
effective, in the tap hole and iron trough zones of the cast
house. These are the zones where particulate matter
concentrations have been observed to be greatest.
Although this study does not specifically address the point,
the investigators feel that there probably is a blast furnace and
cast house size combination for which the economic burdens of
cast house fume control, through either partial or total capture,
cannot be justified on economic grounds.
"Although the report deals with methods of controlling blast
furnace cast house emissions, the AISI ad hoc committee believes
that the implementation of any such technology should be based on
ambient air quality considerations. There are not any air
quality data presented which demonstrate that blast furnace cast
house emissions have a substantial impact on ambient air
quality."<*>
"Given that (1) most iron and steel plants are in non-
attainment areas and (2) casting of hot metal from blast furnaces
produces an observable emission exiting the cast house, then it
is reasonable to conclude that cast house emissions do have a
detrimental impact on ambient air quality. The State of Maryland
Bureau of Air Quality Control concluded in October 1971 that the
blast furnace cast houses in a large iron and steel plant in that
State contribute substantially to the high particulate
concentrations experienced at nearby monitoring stations and that
<»>AISI ad hoc working group prepared comment
-------
air standards would probably not be met unless blast furnace cast
houses were controlled in addition to those sources already
subject to a compliance plan."<2>
<2>EPA Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory prepared comment.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
Continuing effort is necessary to provide a practical answer
to the curtailment of cast house emissions. Data and technology
which are presented in this preliminary study are not sufficient
in depth to specify a method of abatement that would justify the
expenditure of large capital funds. The data acquired under the
scope of this contract are not extensive enough to set an
emission rate pattern. Concepts advanced have not been proven
through demonstration activities, but are set forth as ideas, or
suggested as methods to follow.
B.E.E. recommends that the following additional programs be
pursued to quantitatively arrive at values which could be applied
effectively to all cast houses to achieve a practical system(s)
of emission control:
1. Conduct additional extensive particulate
matter emission testing using state-of-
the-art techniques at future new and
retrofitted blast furnaces which have
emission capture systems to establish a
data base for quantity and classification
of effluents from cast houses.
2. Conduct a two-phase study and
demonstration program to determine the
emission reduction potential of process
modifications. The first phase should be
a paper-type study to determine the need
and the details of direction to be
followed in an in-depth study of
production procedures, materials and
practices, which could reduce the
generation of emissions from casting.
Based upon the results of the first phase
study, conduct a demonstration effort to
quantitatively assess performance of pre-
selected process modifications and
materials in reducing generated
emissions.
3. Encourage the development and
demonstration of an effective and
acceptable partial control system for the
-------
tap hole and iron trough zone. One or
more of the concepts in this report could
be designed and adapted to existing cast
houses. This program would be an
engineering plus installation and
performance effort.
4. Conduct an investigative-type program to
assess the suitability and operative
qualities of the Japanese control systems
used on new. United States cast houses.
This program would prove or disprove the
practical aspects of operation and
economics of the new systems as they
relate to United States iron producing
practices and would provide a basis for
modifications in design, if necessary.
Section 10 outlines the scope of the above studies and
estimates costs and schedules required to complete the studies.
-------
SECTION 4
PROFILE OF IRON PRODUCING OPERATIONS
BLAST FURNACE PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The blast furnace is a large cylindrical shaped reactor into
which coke, iron ore and limestone are charged at the top. Hot
air is blown in at the bottom of the furnace through tuyeres.
The combustion of the coke provides the heat and reducing gas to
reduce the iron oxides to iron and to provide the heat to melt
the iron and other impurities in the charge. As the iron moves
downward through the furnace, it is heated by the upward flow of
gas and chemically reacts with the CO and hydrogen in these gases
to remove oxygen from the ferrous oxides. See Figure 4-1, Blast
Furnace Cross Section.
The impurities in the ore, called gangue, are melted in the
lower zone of the furnace and chemically combine with the
limestone and coke ash to form slag. Limestone and/or dolomite
is added in the correct portions to control the slag chemistry.
With the proper ratio of constituents, the slag melting
temperature, viscosity, and sulfur removing capabilities can be
controlled. The limestone and dolomite that are added at the top
of the furnace, are in the form of CaCO^ and MgCO_3 and these
compounds; are calcined during their decent in the furnace and
arrive in the melting zone as CaO and MgO.
The molten iron and slag are collected in the hearth of the
furnace and are periodically removed. To remove the iron and
slag, a small diameter hole is drilled through the furnace wall
into the hearth. The iron and slag flow out through this hole in
to the iron trough. The iron trough is located in the cast house
floor at the tap hole and accumulates approximately 3 to 12 cubic
meters (106 to 424 cubic feet) of molten metal, which is topped
by the lighter slag. When the trough is full, a skimmer and dam
at the outlet end of the trough separate the metal and slag so
that they exit the cast house from separate runners, which are
essentially troughs formed into the cast house floor by packing
clay and silica sand into a metal form. The slag is carried
through its runners to either a granulation facility, open dry
slag pits or slag ladles. The iron flows by gravity in its
runners and is collected in ladles adjacent or underneath the
cast house floor.
In general, as the temperature of the molten iron increases,
the silica increases and the sulfur decreases in the hot metal.
The control of the hearth temperature is effected by the flame
temperature at the tuyeres which in turn is controlled by hot
-------
Figure 4-1
BLAST FURNACE CROSS SECTION
SMALL BELL
LARGE
BELL -^
IP
oe
o
0
1
<$
—
o
—
o
z
o
z
111
u
If)
V *
LU
o
UJ
0
-------
blast temperature, fuel injection rate, moisture injection rate
and oxygon injection rate.
The gases leaving the top of the furnace are first cleaned in
a gravity settling tank called a dust catcher, where the larger
particles contained in the gas are removed. The gas is then
cleaned in a high energy venturi scrubber and cooled to remove
any moisture. The clean cooled blast furnace gas is used in the
stoves to preheat the blast air and in steam boilers for the
generation of steam.
The blast air is supplied by large compressors which are
either driven by a steam turbine or an electric motor. In most
integrated steel plants, the blast furnace blowers are steam
driven because steam is available from the boilers that burn the
blast furnace top gas. The air is then heated in a regenerative
type stove to a temperature between 1000°C and 1250°C before
being blown into the furnace through the tuyeres. Each furnace
will usutilly have three or four stoves. These stoves will
normally be operated with one stove heating the blast air and one
stove being heated by burning the blast furnace top gas in the
stove. Figure 1-2 is a representation of a blast furnace with
auxilliary equipment.
The objective of the individual blast furnace operator is to
gain maximum production or minimum hot metal cost by optimizing
the operation of his furnace within the constraints of raw
material supplies, coking and agglomeration capacity, hot metal
demand and specifications. The specification of the iron is
controlled by adjustments in furnace practice that keep the
percent of the constituents within the limits specified.
FUELS AND BURDEN MATERIALS
The isize, physical strength and uniformity of the burden
materials charged into the blast furnace are most important
factors. However, because of availability and economics, it is
not always possible to achieve ultimate control of these factors.
There is some degree of relationship between the characteristics
of the burden and the volume of fume at the taphole and iron
trough area. Although the proper selection of burden materials
could result in a reduction of the fume generated, it is
impossible to eliminate all tap hole emissions.
One of the most important factors to be considered in the
reduction of pollution through the use of optimum materials is
the characteristics of blast furnace coke. Close control of
optimum physical and chemical properties of the coke can produce
a stronger coke, which could in turn decrease fume production at
the tap hole. Inferior coke that degrades into fines and dust
during heindling, and also within the furnace, creates
10
-------
Figure 4-2
BLAST FURNACE PLANT WITH AUXILLIARY EQUIPMENT
STOVE
STACKS
OUST CATCHER
i GAS'WASHER
LIMESTOME
TURBO-
BLOWERS
BY-PASS
STACK
BAG* HOUSE
DAMPERS
IRON LADLE
CONVE.VOR
"^ — ***** :^»fc» >^^*^ I
SLAG LADLE
CAST HOUSE
CAST HOUSE EMISSION: CONTROL SYSTEM
-------
unsatisf eictory furnace operation and can result in coke messes at
the tap hole. The stability factor is a relative measure of coke
strength, and it has been noted that when the number is below 50
furnace operation is rough and more coke messes can occur.
Generally, it is felt that ideal burden materials and coke
would have a decided effect on the volume of emissions from
casting operations.
Upgrading the quality of the burden materials would increase
the cost of producing hot metal. However, because of the need to
increase the furnace efficiency to obtain higher productivity at
a lower cost, burden material studies will probably be carried
out independent of any problems concerning air pollution.
PRODUCTS GENERATED BY THE BLAST FURNACE
The blast furnace operation is designed to produce molten
iron with a high percentage of Fe and minor percentages of
impurities, using a minimum fuel rate. The pig iron normally
consists of 94.0% iron, 3-4% carbon, 0.60 to 2.0% silicon,
approximately 0.03% sulfur, and 2.0% manganese. The hot metal at
a temperature of about 1480°C (2700°F) flows in open runners in
the cast house floor to specially built ladle cars.
The l:ormation of slag in a blast furnace is a result of the
chemical composition of fluxes and impurities. This formation
occurs in the bosh and becomes molten in the hearth.
A high temperature at the tuyeres favors a good separation of
slag and hot metal, and removes, as CaS and MgS in the slag, most
of the sulfur that originated in the coke and supplementary fuel.
The slag contains most of the lime, silica, magnesia, alumina and
alkalies originally present in the ore and flux, and some ferrous
and mangeinous oxides. Slag may exit the hearth together with the
hot metal and/or may be flushed from the cinder notch at
intervals.
BLAST FURNACE PHYSICAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Innovations in design and operating characteristics of blast
furnaces are being advanced by the steel companies1 operating and
engineering personnel.
Technological advances point toward larger, more productive
units, as is evident in the dimensions and output features of the
new furn
-------
tilting spouts, shorter runners, deeper, longer troughs and the
elimination of slag pots. New furnaces now may have multiple tap
holes and no cinder notch which eliminates slag flushing.
Technically the larger blast furnaces are superior and in the
future, a large unit may replace several smaller units. The
average output per furnace may increase many times and the fuel
rate will be reduced due to more efficient operation.
New, modern furnaces will have special equipment for
screening, weighing and charging the raw materials to the
furnace. There will also be special hot blast stoves to heat the
blast air to 1100°C to 1300°C and equipment to permit operation
of the furnace at elevated top pressures of 1.5 to 3.0
atmospheres. Other technological improvements can be
incorporated in the installation of a new large furnace.
CAST HOUSE DESIGNS AND FUNCTIONS
The cast house is a structure surrounding the blast furnace,
enclosing the runners and operating area, and providing weather
protection for the operators and equipment. This enclosure also
contains the fumes generated during the cast. The mud gun for
closing the tap hole with clay and also the drill for opening the
tap hole are swung into position from supports adjacent to the
furnace tap hole in the cast house. The local furnace operating
control equipment is situated in an enclosure within the cast
house. The cast house may also be used to store materials for
relining runners, etc. There are many sizes, shapes and other
construction variations in the existing structures. A
compilation of most of the types and configurations as prepared
by AISI follows.
Cast House Arrangements - United States Blast Furnaces
Single Tap Hole Blast Furnaces
I. Cast house crane runway aligned so that the crane bridge
moves to or from the blast furnace proper.
1. With hard slag pits and solid, back-filled type cast
house floor. (See Figure 1-3).
A. Slag pits at opposite end of cast house from blast
furnace proper.
Hot metal bottles or ladles spotted under:
a. Lean-to.
Crucible #3
13
-------
Figure 4^3
BACK-FILLED CAST HOUSE WITH CRANE PARALLEL
TO IRON TROUGH WITH SLAG PITS
4. FCE
PLAN!
FCE
LEAK!-TO
CRANE
SECTION A-A
14
-------
b. Extension of cast house roof.
Republic Warren #1
c. Under a lean-to and in an arcade under
main roof.
Republic Cleveland #1 (See Figure 4-4).
B. Slag pits located adjacent to cast house building.
Hot metal bottles or ladles spotted under:
a. Lean to.
YSBT Brier Hill #2, YS&T Indiana Harbor
#2; Hanna Furnaces #1, #3, and #4
b. Under a lean-to and in an arcade under
main roof.
Republic Cleveland #4; Kaiser #1, #2;
U.S.S. - South Works #10
i
2. With hard slag pits and open cast house floor (not back-
filled to yard level).
A. Slag pits located at opposite end of cast house
from blast furnace proper.
Hot metal bottles or ladles spotted under:
a. The main cast house floor and roof.
National Great Lakes "A", U.S.S. -
Lorain Nos. 3 S 4
B. Slag pits located adjacent to the cast house
building and
With hot metal bottles or ladles spotted
under:
a. The main cast house (Fig. 4-5).
YSST Indiana Harbor #1 6 #3; Interlake
Chicago "A" S "B"; McLouth #1 & #2; Lone
Star #1, National Great Lakes "C"; Inland
"A" & "B"; Armco Bellefonte*, Armco
Amanda**; U.S.S. - Fairless #1, #2, #3,
*will have hard slag pits after current
reline
**Work 25% complete on cast house for
second tap hole
-------
Figure 4-4
CLEVELAND N0.1 CAST HOUSE
,HOT WIETAL
SLAG
PITS
4 FCE
LEAM-TO
SECTION A-A
16
-------
Figure 4-5
OPEN CAST HOUSE WITH CRANE PARALLEL TO
IRON TROUGH
SLAvG PITS
PLAN
* FCE
/o|o|-o|o\
CRANE
SLAG PITS
SECTION A-A
17
-------
U.S.S. - South Works Nos. 11 & 12.
b. Under a lean-to and under the main cast
house floor:
Republic Gadsden #2, Great lakes "B" &
»D"; Kaiser #4
3. Granulating or pelletizing pits and a solid cast house
floor
A. Pits located at opposite end of cast house floor
from blast furnace proper.
Hot metal bottles or ladles spotted under:
a. Lean-to.
Republic Buffalo #1
B. Pits located adjacent to the cast house building
and: (Figure U-5) .
Hot metal bottles or ladles spotted under:
a. Lean-to.
Shenango "A";Alan Wood #2 & #3
b. Main cast house roof in an arcade.
Republic Buffalo #2
c. Lean-to and main cast house roof in an arcade.
YS&T Campbell #1, #2, #3, & #4
H. Granulating or pelletizing pits and open cast house floor
(not back-filled to yard level) .
A. Pits located adjacent to the cast house building and:
Hot metal bottles or ladles spotted under:
a. Lean-to.
Shenango "B"
5. With slag pots and solid cast house floor (back-filled to
yard level) .
18
-------
A. Slag pots spotted under a lean-to and hot metal bottles
or ladles spotted under:
a. Lean-to.
Republic Youngstown #2; Wheeling-Pittsburgh Jane;
U.S.S.-Geneva t1
b. Cast house roof in an arcade.
Interlake Toledo "B»*;, U.S.S.-Gary Nos. 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, S 12; U.S.S.-Homestead
Nos. 3, 4 and 6 & 7**
B. Slag pots and hot metal bottles or ladles spotted under
a cast house roof extension.
J8L Aliquippa A-5; Bethlehem Johnstown "G"
C. Slag pots spotted under cast house roof extension and
hot metal ladles under a lean-to.
Bethlehem Lackawanna "B"
D. Slag pots spotted under cast roof extension and in
arcade under main roof and hot metal bottles under a
lean-to.
National Weirton #4
6. With slag pots and open cast house floor.
A. Slag pots spotted under an extension of the main cast
house roof and hot metal bottles or ladles spotted under
the cast house floor.
Johnstown "E», "H", "L"; Lackawanna "C", "F", "G", "H",
»J»; Sparrows Point "A", "B", "C", "D", "E", "F», "G",
"H", "K"
B. Slag pots spotted under a lean-to and hot metal bottles
or ladles spotted under cast house floor.
Bethlehem "C", Inland #1, #2, #4, #5, t6, U.S.S.-Edgar
Thomson #1, 2, 3, 5, £ 6
C. Slag pots spotted under a lean-to and hot metal ladles
spotted under a lean-to and cast house floor.
*Furnace has auxiliary slag pits
**Furnaces have auxiliary slag granulation
19
-------
Inland #3
7. With slag pots and open cast house floor and:
A. Slag pots spotted either under an extension of the cast
house, a lean-to or under the cast house floor and:
a. Hot metal bottles spotted under a lean-to.
National Weirton #1
b. Hot metal bottles spotted under cast house roof.
Bethlehem "B", "D", »E"
c. Hot metal bottles spotted under cast house roof and
a lean-to.
Republic Youngstown f1 8 f3, JSL C-1
B. Slag pots spotted under a completely separate roof and
hot metal bottles under a lean-to.
CF&I "A", "D", "E", "F"
II. Cast house crane runway aligned perpendicular to radius of
the blast furnace proper over the iron trough.
1. With hard slag pits and solid cast house floor.
A. Slag pits at opposite end of cast house from
furnace proper and hot metal bottles spotted under
an extension of cast house roof.
Republic Cleveland #5, #6, Republic Chicago #1
B. Slag pits adjacent to cast house and hot metal
bottles spotted under cast house roof,
Cyclops Corp. Portsmouth f1; Crucible #1
a. Hot metal bottles spotted under lean-to
attached to the main cast house «,
U.S.S. - Duquesne No. 1
2. With slag pots and:
A. An open cast house floor, slag pots under a lean-to
and hot metal bottles under the cast house roof .
Interlake Toledo "A"*
*Furnace has auxiliary slag pits
20
-------
B. A solid cast house floor, slag pots under the cast
house roof and under an extension of the roof, hot
metal bottles spotted under an extension of the
cast house roof or a lean-to attached to the main
cast house roof.
JSL Pittsburgh P-3*; U.S.S.-Duquesne No. 3; U.S.S.-
Lorain Nos. 1,2 5 5
3. With slag granulation or pelletizing and solid cast
house floor .
A. Hot metal bottles spotted under extension of cast
house roof .
D.S.S.-Duquesne No. H
III. Blast furnace without cast house crane.
1. With hard slag pits and solid cast house floor. Pits
adjacent to and opposite from hot metal bottles spotted
under a lean-to.
Republic Gadsden #1
2. With slag pots and solid cast house floor.
A. Slag pots and hot metal ladles spotted under lean-
to. '
W-P Steubenville #3, #U, #5; Armco Hamilton #2*
B. Slag pots spotted under cast house roof extension
and hot metal ladles spotted under lean-to.
Armco Hamilton f1*
C. Slag pots spotted under cast house roof and an
extension, hot metal bottles under a cast house
roof extension.
JSL Pittsburgh P-6*, P-1*
D. Slag pots spotted under a lean-to and the hot metal
bottles under the main roof in an arcade.
U.S.S. - Youngstown Nos. 2, 3, U, 65
*Furnace has auxiliary slag pits
21
-------
IV. Two blast furnaces with a common cast house - all with solid
cast house floor and a cast house crane.
1. With slag pots spotted under lean-to and:
A. hot metal bottles under a lean-to.
National Granite City "A" & "B"; U.S.S.-Geneva Nos.
2&3
B. Hot metal bottles under lean-to - no cast house
crane.
W-P Steubenville 910 8 #2, Sharon #2 6 #3
2. with slag pots spotted under an extension of the cast
house and:
Hot metal bottles under a lean-to
J&L Aliquippa A-1, A-2, A-3 & A-4
3. With slag pots spotted under an extension of the cast
house roof and under the cast house roof.
Hot metal bottles under a lean-to.
National Weirton #2 & #3
4. With slag granulating pits adjacent to the cast house
and:
Hot metal bottles under a lean-to.
W-P Monessen #1 6 #2
IRON PRODUCTION STATISTICAL DATA
It if; reasonable to predict that the trend of increasing iron
production in the United States will continue based on history as
plotted on Figure 4-6. The number of blast furnaces will
decrease as larger furnaces replace two or more smaller
production units. 500 million net tons of world-wide production
capacity is anticipated in 1980s, U^S. production, based on an
economic up-turn, should total about 100 million tons or 20% of
the world°s output. Classification of existing furnaces is shown
on Figures 4-7, 4-8, and Table 4-1 while Table 4-2 is a listing
of standing basic iron blast furnaces for which the B.E.E./AISI
questionnaire was completed.
22
-------
100
to
o
CO
e
o
GC
UJ
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1945
Figure 4-6
IRON PRODUCTION IN U.S.A.
ACTUAL PRODUCTION
Alii
ING, S HAP W6, AND
OF srett-us.
SffCS-1^75
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
BASIC IRON PRODUCTION-U.S.A.
-------
Figure 4-7
U.S. BLAST FURNACE PRODUCTION
vs. FURNACE VOLUME
IU
§
O
z
2
cc
O
UJ
it
(/)
_l
m
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
CURRENT FURNACE PRODUCTION KILOGRAMS/DAY x 107
0.7
REF: B.E.E. STEEL QUESTIONNAIRE, SEE APPENDIX A,
PAGES A-21 THROUGH A-24 FOR DATA
24
-------
Figure 4-8
DOMESTIC BLAST FURNACES CLASSIFICATION
BY SIZE AND AVERAGE PRODUCTION111
RANGE M.T./D./B.F
NO. B.F._
% NO. B.F.
GROUP PRODUCTION
WORKING VOLUME
RANGE (M3)
HEARTH DIA.
RANGE (M)
GROUP NO.
635-
.F. 1249
8
5
816-
1618
19
13
726-
2034
58
38"
1270-
2948
47
31
421-
700
4.6-
6.8
1
701-
840
6.0-
7.1
2
841-
1270
5.9-
8.5
3
1271-
1560
7.9-
9.1
4
1588-
5625
19
13
1561-
2831_
7.8
12.2
(1) DATA FROM BEE/AISI QUESTIONNAIRE, SEE APPENDIX A,
PAGES A-21 THROUGH A-24.
-------
TABLE 4-1
BLAST FURNACE - CLASSIFICATION BY SIZE AND AVERAGE PRODUCTION
(1)
NJ
Working Volume
Cubic Meters
Average
Hearth Dia.
Meters
Average
Daily (2)
Production
Metric Tons
Total Reported Standing Blast Furnaces
(1)
(2)
As reported in the BEE/AISI questionnaire, see Appendix A
pages A-21 through A-24.
Current daily production as reported on questionnaire.
No,
420
561
701
841
991
1131
1271
1421
1561
1701
1841
1981
2121
2261
2401
2541
2681
- 560
- 700
- 840
- 990
- 1130
- 1270
- 1420
- 1560
- 1700
- 1840
- 1980
- 2120
- 2260
- 2400
- 2540
- 2680
- 4000
4.9
6.1
6.4
7.0
7.7
8.0
8.3
8.8
8.8
10.0
9.8
10.0
-
-
11.1
—
12.2
703
983
1260
1159
1537
1699
2059
2278
2402
3734
2981
3713
-
-
4923
—
5625
3
5
19
23
15
20
21
26
12
1
1
2
0
0
2
0
1
151
-------
TABLE 4-2
STANDING BASIC IRON BLAST FURNACES
REPORTED THROUGH B.E.E./AISI QUESTIONNAIRE(A)
Alan Wood Steel Company
Swede Furnaces, Swedeland
and Ivy Rock, Pennsylvania
Armco Steel Corporation
Ashland, Kentucky
Houston, Texas
Hamilton and Middletown,
Ohio
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Burns Harbor, Indiana
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Sparrows Point, Maryland
Lackawanna, New York
Johnstown, Pennsylvania
CF & I Steel Corporation
Pueblo, Colorado
Detroit Steel Corporation
Portsmouth, Ohio
Ford Motor Company
Dearborn, Michigan
Inland Steel Company
Indiana Harbor, East
Chicago, Illinois
No.
Furnaces
Reported
Daily
Production
(tonnes)
1814
6160
4512
2
4
10 (D)
5
3(E)
9945
8441
17930
9741
5964
2902
3220
4027
15319
(A) Questionnaires dated Jan. through April 1976.
(B) Houston #1 reported inactive and without production values.
(C) Hamilton #2 reported inactive and without production values.
(D) Sparrows Point A,B,E,F,G,K reported as inactive.
(E) Johnstown "G" reported as inactive.
27
-------
TABLE 4-2 (Cont-d)
No.
Furnaces
Reported
Daily
Production
(tonnes)
Interlake Steel Corporation
Chicago and Riverdale,
Illinois
Toledo, Ohio
Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
Aliquippa, Pennsylvania
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Cleveland, Ohio
Kaiser Steel Corporation
Fontana, California
Lone Star Steel Company
Lone Star, Texas
McLouth Steel Corporation
Trenton, Michigan
National Steel Corporation
Weirton, West Virginia
Granite City, 111.
Buffalo, N.Y.
Republic Steel Corporation
Youngstown, Ohio
Warren, Ohio
Cleveland Ohio
Buffalo, New York
South Chicago, Illinois
Gulfsteel, Gadsden, Ala.
5(G)
1
2
4
2
3
2
1
4
2
1
2
2698
862
5760
2078
4190
7101
1633
4852
7710
4354
2245
3672
2358
7065
1581
2358
2414
(F)
(G)
(H)
Interlake, Toledo "A" inactive and without production values,
J & L Aliquippa #A-1 and A-4 reported inactive and without
production values.
Republic Buffalo #1 reported inactive and without production
values.
28
-------
TABLE 4-2 (Cont-d)
No.
Furnaces
Shenango, Inc.
Shenango, Pennsylvania
Steel Company of Canada
United States Steel Corporation
Duquesne, Pennsylvania
Edgar Thomson, Braddock,
Pennsylvania
Rankin, Pennsylvania
Gary, Indiana
South Chicago, Illinois
Fairless, Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania
Fairfield District,
Jefferson County, Ala.
Geneva, Utah
National, McKeesport, Pa.
Lorain, Ohio
Youngstown, Ohio
Youngstown Sheet and Tube
Campbell, Campbell, Ohio
Indiana Harbor, East
Chicago, Indiana
1
4
4(D
5
4
3
3
6
3(K)
1
4(M)
4(N)
4(0)
Reported
Daily
Production
(tonnes)
1088
10,322
5079
7471
5938
19609
6676
6848
4875
3582
998
6984
3135
2903
6018
(I) Duquesne # 1 reported as inactive and without production values.
(J) Gary #5 & #9 reported as inactive.
(K) Geneva #3 reported as inactive and without production values.
(L) Lorain #5 reported as inactive and without production values.
(M) Youngstown #4 reported as inactive and without production values.
(N) Campbell #1 & #2 reported as inactive and without production
values.
(0) Indiana Harbor #1 & #2 reported as inactive and without production
values.
29
-------
Larger furnaces are either under construction or being
considered at Fairfield and Gadsden, Ala., Sparrows Point, Md.,
and at two locations in Indiana. These furnaces will produce
from 5000 to 8000 tons of hot metal per day and will replace
smaller anits now in existance.
Direct reduction processes will not significantly replace the
blast furnace operations in the foreseeable future. Thus the
blast furnace, in some modified form, will continue to be the
basic producer of ferrous metal.
FUTURE OF IRONMAKING
The steel industry is faced with an increasing shortage of
fuels which will soon necessitate increased recognition of the
requirements for more efficient equipment. Foreign plants have
achieved a substantially greater savings in energy usage than has
the U.S. To effect the goals that must be realized in the not
too distant future, the U.S. must replace a major portion of its
out-dated equipment.
At some mills it may be practical to consider the replacement
of several existing inefficient blast furnaces with a single
large more efficient blast furnace with a demonstrated integrated
emission control system. The industry has already shown its
recognition of the efficiency of the larger blast furnaces by new
expansions, including those that are underway or proposed at
Sparrows Point, Md. ; East Chicago, Ind. ; Fairfield,, Ala.;
Gadsden, Ala. and Portage, Ind.
Direct Reduction
An alternative method which is being developed to produce
basic iron is the direct reduction process. This method would
eliminate cast house emissions. Situations which could
accelerate the development of direct reduction are:
1. A shortage of coking coal
2. Availability of electric power at acceptable cost
3. A requirement for reduced operating capacities which is
limited with the blast furnace.
4. Economical locally available ore or concentrate
of unusual properties
5. Availability of labor at acceptable cost
6. Limited availability of capital
30
-------
Essentially, any process that does not use the blast furnace
for iron processing can be considered a direct reduction process.
The use of a blast furnace is considered an indirect process
because two or more steps are required to obtain low carbon iron,
blast furnace and the B.O.F. With direct reduction, a single
process will give low carbon iron.
A wide variety of equipment has been utilized in various
direct reduction processes. The following is a partial list of
equipment that has been utilized at one time or another:
Reverberatory Furnace
Stationary Vertical Retort
Concentric Vertical Shafts
Reciprocating Vertical Retort
Rotary Kiln
Tunnel Kiln
Travelling Grate
Hearth Furnace
Rabbied-Hearth Furnace
Sealed Canisters
Electric Arc Furnace
Electric Resistance Furnace
Electric Induction Furnace
Fluidized Beds
More than 300 direct reduction processes have been conceived,
of which only a few have reached extensive pilot plant
development or commercialization. There are four main categories
of direct reduction processes:
1. Kilns
2. Shaft Furnaces
3. Fluidized Beds
4. Retorts
The kiln process primarily utilizes solid fuels such as coal
and coke breeze, while the other processes use primarily gaseous
reductants. Fluidized beds require finely sized iron ore
materials and normally require briquetting of the reduced
product.
The Midrex process is the most widely used of all the
commercial direct reduction processes. The process is flexible
with respect to both feed and fuel. The existing plants
generally operate with natural gas, but it is claimed that the
process could operate with any fuel including naphtha and gas
from coal. The process achieves a metallization of between 92%
to 96%.
31
-------
Armco Research developed a direct reduction process which
utilizes a vertical moving bed shaft furnace with a continuous
counter-current flow of reducing gas. West Germany's Krupp
Industrie - und Stahlbau has become a licensee of the Armco
process. Krupp also has its own process which uses a rotary
furnace.
In Italy, the Kinglov Metor process uses coal as the reducing
agent in a shaft type furnace.
Lurg;L obtained the R-N patents and world rights in 1964, and
the technical expertise from both Stelco-Lurgi and the R-N
developments have been pooled to form the Sl-Rn Process. Crushed
coke is 'the reductant and is utilized in a rotary kiln.
The growth of the direct reduction process is expected to
increase. The future growth is dependent on:
1. Future blast-furnace practice
2. Transporatron
3. Geography
4. Future steelmaking practice
5. Availability and price of steel scrap
6. Existing capacity for pig iron.
7. The availability of natural or other suitable gas.
32
-------
SECTION 5
CAST HOUSE EMISSIONS
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM CAST HOUSES
The primary source of fugitive emissions from casting is from
the hot metal as it exits the blast furnace at the tap hole.
This is primarily due to cooling of the hot metal as it comes in
contact with the tap hole and encounters the atmosphere. A
violent cast with excessive hot metal turbulence tends to create
greater quantities of fume than does a smooth, controlled cast.
A tap hole diameter of 40 mm (1.5 inches) is desirable and should
not exceed 60 mm (2.5 inches) in order to assist in maintaining a
controlled and smooth cast. However, drill bit problems
frequently require oxygen lancing of the tap hole which tends to
enlarge the tap hole. Also, long wearing, good quality clay will
prevent tap hole enlargement during casting due to erosion from
slag.
The tap hole in a given furnace may be drilled at an angle
between 6° to 20° up from horizontal. The new, multiple-tap-hole
furnaces are usually drilled at an angle approaching the lower
slope. The lower angle lowers the iron trajectory while casting
and thus would provide a better condition for close fitting
emission capture hoods at the trough area.
The trough is a pool adjacent to the tap hole normally
extending from 7.6 m. (25 feet) to 15.2 m. (50 feet) to the dam
and skimmer. It is usually 0.9 m. (3 feet) to 1.2 m. (U feet)
wide and approximately 0.6 m.(2 feet) deep and serves as a
holding pit to separate the hot metal and slag before allowing
them to follow the runners to the ladles and slag pits or pots.
The trough is lined with clay and coke breeze as are the runners
for the molten metal and slag. Frequent castings necessitate
considerable maintenance on troughs and runners and improved
lining materials are constantly being evaluated. The runners
must be thoroughly dried after each remaking to prevent violent
reactions between the molten material and moisture, which result
in the generation of larger than normal quantities of highly
concentrated fume emissions.
The generation of fume from the runners is dependent on the
pool areas exposed to the atmosphere and the metal temperature.
As the metal cools, carbon emerges from the saturated solution as
"kish", a form of graphitic carbon that is light and flaky (See
Figure No. 5-1). "Kish" is readily air-borne, but probably it
settles out short distances from its source. This is indicated
in the DOFASCO information because carbon comp rised only 3% by
33
-------
Figure 5-1
CARBON-IRON DIAGRAM
0°
UJ
QC
I
cc
UJ
Q.
2
UJ
1600 -
1400 -
1200 -
1000 -
800
LIQUID
(NoKish Emitted)
LIQUID
•f
GRAPHITE
(Cg)
(KishEmitted)
WT. % CARBON
REF:MAKING, SHAPING, AND TREATING
OF STEEL-BY U.S. STEEL
34
-------
weight of the material found in the hoppers of control equipment
on blast furnace cast house of #1 furnace. Iron oxides comprised
75% of the captured fume with small percentages of manganese,
silicon oxides, and sulfates.
The hot metal cast from the blast furnace should be
transported to the steel making facilities with minimum
temperature losses. Two or more ladle cars, commonly known as
bottles or torpedo cars, are used to accept the molten metal from
the runner spouts. These cars may be located outside the cast
house or in an arcade under the cast house floor. Capacities
vary from 150 tonnes (165T) to 600 tonnes (660 T) , the latter
used only in some foreign plants. If the ladles are allowed to
cool, the fume from pouring can become very dense due to rapid
cooling of the hot metal.
Slag is either run into pits adjacent to the cast house or
handled by open pots for conveying to a remote area for
treatment.
ALTERNATIVE FILTERING EQUIPMENT FOR EMISSION CONTROL
While state and local opacity regulations may be met at some
installations by venting the cast house directly to a stack
without a control device, emissions could exceed applicable
process weight regulations. Therefore, four major types of air
pollution control devices are evaluated for possible application
in the control of cast house emissions. The four categories are:
Mechanical Collectors
Wet Scrubbers
Electrostatic Precipitators
Fabric Filter Collectors
Mechanical Collectors
Mechanical collectors are inertial separators which operate
by the principle of imparting centrifugal force to the particle
to be removed from the gas stream. This force is produced by
directing the gas in a circular path or effecting an abrupt
change in direction.
Single-Cyclone Collector—
A cyclone is an inertial separator without moving parts. It
separates particulate matter from a carrier gas L»y transforming
the velocity of a inlet stream into a double vortex confined
35
-------
within the cyclone. In the double vortex the incoming gas
spirals downward at the outside of the vortex and upward at the
inside of the cyclone outlet. The particulates, because of their
inertia, tend to move toward the outside wall where they are
captured and discharged from the bottom of the cyclone.
Multi-Cyclone Separators—
A multi-cyclone separator consists of a number of small-
diameter cyclones operating in parallel, having a common gas
inlet and gas outlet. The flow pattern differs slightly from
that of a normal cyclone, in that the gas, instead of entering
the side, enters the top of the tube and has a swirling action
imparted to it by stationary vanes located in the inlet of the
tube.
Figure No. 5-2 illustrates typical mechanical collector
particulate removal efficiency curves. The curves demonstrate
that the particulate removal efficiency begins to drop when the
particle size decreases below 15 microns.
Applicability to Cast House Emissions—
v
From observations of the cast house fumes and from the
attached efficiency curves (Figure 5-2), mechanical type
collectors could possibly meet the allowable emission rates of
certain cast houses. Therefore, mechanical collectors could be
considered as a viable solution to selective cast house emission
problems. However, of the four devices mechanical collectors
normally provide the lowest total particulate matter removal
efficiency.
Wet Scrubbers
Wet scrubbers use a variety of methods to wet the particles
in order to remove them from the gas stream. There is a wide
range in the cost, the collection efficiency and the amount of
power required.
The process of contacting a contaminated gas with a scrubbing
liquid results in dissipation of mechanical energy in fluid
turbulence and ultimately in heat. The power dissipated is
termed tine contacting power.
The principal mechanisms by which liquids may be used to
remove aerosols from gas streams are as follows:
(1) Wetting of the particles by contact with a
liquid droplet and
36
-------
Figure 5-2
CYCLONE COLLECTION EFFICIENCY CURVES
100
o
LU
O
LL
LU
1
LU
LU
-J
O
H
DC
2
PARTICLE DIAMETER (MICRONS)
-------
(2) Impingement of wetted or unwetted particles on
collecting surfaces followed by their removal
from the surfaces by flushing with a liquid
The t.iree basic types of wet scrubbers are tray scrubbers,
spray cyclonic scrubbers and venturi scrubbers. Of the three,
the venturi scrubber is the most effective and requires the least
amount of maintenance. The primary function of the tray scrubber
is the absorption of gaseous pollutants. The presence of
particulate could have a tendency to plug the tray-type scrubber.
The spray cyclonic scrubber relies on spin imparted to the gas at
the inlet for disengagement of the solids from the scrubbing
water. Maintenance requirements would be appreciable because of
the abrasiveness of the particulate. The suspended particles in
the recirculated liquor stream would eventually erode and
possibly plug the water spray jets.
Applicability to Cast House Emissions—
The application of the venturi scrubber is a technically
viable solution to the control of cast house emissions. It has
an inherent advantage over all the other systems because it
removes some gaseous pollutants. However, if water treatment
facilities are inadequate and must be installed or expanded, a
venturi scrubber system will require more installation space than
is required by a precipitator or a baghouse. The venturi
scrubber can only be recommended as a secondary alternative
control device due to its high energy requirements (pressure
drop) when compared to alternative control devices.
Electrostcttic Precipitators
The electrostatic precipitation method of particle removal
uses the iiorces acting on electrically charged particles in the
presence of an electric field to separate solids from a gas
stream. In the process, dust suspended in the gas is
electrically charged and passes through an electric field where
electrical forces cause the particles to migrate toward the
collection surface. The dust is separated from the gas by the
collection electrode.
Particles in a gas stream normally have a small inherent
electric charge which is too small for effective electrostatic
collection. Consequently, the precipitation process must provide
a means for particle charging. In all commercial precipitator
applications, the charging is accomplished by a high-voltage,
direct-current corona.
Applicability to Cast House Emissions—
Although a precipitator could be designed to operate on cast
house emissions, consistent effectiveness is doubtful due to the
38
-------
low resistivity of the carbon (kish) in the emissions. Carbon
will accept the necessary electric charge, but carbon is also
conductive and will readily give up its charge. As a result dust
reentrainment can occur when the collecting plates of the dry
type electrostatic precipitator are rapped.
In the wet electrostatic precipitator a water wash is used to
dislodge the particulate matter from the collecting plates or
tubes and to remove it from the precipitator in a water solution.
The presence of water in the wet precipitator will reduce
reentrainment somewhat because the water will entrap a portion of
the carbon.
Because of resistivity problems and the fact that an
electrostatic precipitator is normally the most costly of all
control devices, it is not considered to be the best alternative
for this application.
Fabric Filters
Fabric filters are very large vacuum cleaners with bags of
various configurations made of porous fabrics which can withstand
thermal, chemical and mechanical rigors of individual
applications. The usual physical arrangement of fabric filter is
in a series of cylindrical bags. Particles suspended in the gas
stream impinge on and adhere to the filter medium and are removed
from the gas stream. Frequently, this deposit of dust becomes
the filtering medium for succeeding particles.
The use of an effective cloth cleaning mechanism allows
operation of fabric filters at high air-to-cloth ratios while
maintaining normal pressure drops. The most effective cloth
cleaning mechanism for woven fabric type filters is the
mechanical shaker. The mechanical design of the shaker must be
such that all operating parts are located external to the gas
stream for ease of inspection and maintenance. There are reports
of high maintenance associated with shaker mechanisms and bag
failure in other steel making operations which may warrant
additional investigation as to the total suitability of this
cleaning technique.
The air-to-cloth ratio on a fabric filter is defined as the
cubic feet per minute of air passing through a square foot of
filter fabric. It is readily apparent that this also is the
filtration velocity in feet per minute through the fabric. The
gross air-to-cloth ratio is calculated using the total amount of
filter fabric in a collection system. The net air-to-cloth
filter ratio is calculated based on removing a certain percentage
of the fabric for cleaning and in some cases another percentage
for maintenance. Sizing is generally done based on a net air-to-
cloth ratio. However, for use on a partial cast house emission
capture system this aspect becomes irrelevant since intermittent
39
-------
baghouse operation (operational only when casting) allows
cleaning of the entire baghouse during periods of baghouse
inactivity, which occurs between casts.
A baghouse could be designed to provide a maximum pressure
drop across the cloth of 1493 Pascals (6" w.g.) at operating
conditions. A pressure drop of approximately 498 Pascals (2"
w.g.) through the inlet and outlet manifolds and damper valves
must be added to the fabric pressure drop for a total baghouse
resistance of 1991 Pascals (8" w.g.) Although many formulas have
been developed to predict pressure drop, none have proved to be
completely accurate. The mathematical model has yet to be
developed that accurately predicts fabric filter performance, and
the best projections come from operating experience on similar
units.
Applicability to Cast House Emissions—
Because of relatively low energy requirements and high
efficiency, fabric filters are considered to be the most suitable
of all control devices for use with a cast house emission capture
system. Additionally, the characteristics of the gas treated are
compatible with this device.
Because the casting of hot metal is an intermittent activity,
the baghouse for a partial control system would also operate
intermittently, allowing the baghouse to be thoroughly cleaned
between casts. For this application, a structural, non-
compartmentalized, pressure-type unit that utilizes a shaker-type
mechanism for cleaning either woven Orion or Dacron fabric could
be applied to keep capital and operating costs low. A
non-compartmentalized baghouse would necessitate by-passing for
maintenance activities that could not be completed during periods
between casts.
For e.n application on a complete cast house evacuation
system, a, compartmentalized unit would be necessary if continuous
cleaning was desired. This would be necessary if the baghouse
were operating 24 hours a day for both cast house ventilation and
emission control.
Ventilation of a system of close fitting covers and hoods
within tl?,e cast house requires that attention be given to high
gas tempe'rature and possible spark carryover. A baghouse on such
a system would require gas cooling techniques, such as dilution
air or wa.ter evaporation, as well as spark drop-out chambers.
The baghouse installation on blast furnace No. 1 at Dominion
Foundry and Steel, Ltd utilizes a structural intermittent
baghouse which operates effectively in an air-to-cloth ratio
range of from 2.5:1 to 3.5:1. Because of the relatively low
40
-------
concentrations of particulate matter suspected, air-to-cloth
ratios in the order of 4:1 are not considered excessive.
EMISSION EVALUATION OF THE NUMBER ONE CAST HOUSE AT DOMINION
FOUNDRIES AND STEEL, LIMITED
B.E.E. conducted a program to evaluate cast house emissions
from a blast furnace located at DOMINION FOUNDRIES AND STEEL,
LIMITED (DOFASCO) in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. All testing was
conducted in accordance with the procedures and specifications
established by the EPA.
Testing was performed to determine the amount of cast house
emissions upstream of the emission control device. Evaluated
parameters were:
Gas Flow - ACFM and SCFM
Gas Temperature - °F
Moisture Content - Volume %
Particulate Emissions - Grains/DSCF and Lbs./Hr.
Particle Size Distribution - Andersen Inertial
Impactor - Weight %.
Sulfur Trioxide Emissions - PPM by volume and
Lbs./Hr.
Sulfur Dioxide Emissions - PPM by volume and
Lbs./Hr.
Procedures
Field Sampling—
The emission testing program was conducted from August 24,
1976 through August 28, 1976, using the following methods of
sampling:
1. Sample and traverse locations were determined as per
Method One of the Federal Register, Volume 36, Number
247, December 23, 1971, appropriately amended.
2. Gas flow, temperature, and static pressure measurements
were made as per Method Two of the same Federal
Register.
3. Moisture content sampling was conducted by Method Four.
41
-------
U. Particulate sampling followed Method Five of the same
Register.
5. The particle size distributions were performed using an
Andersen Model 2000 inertial impactor according to
Andersen specifications.,
6. Sulfur trioxide and sulfur dioxide sampling was
conducted simultaneously with the particulate sampling
program by substituting isopropanol and hydrogen
peroxide in the impingers.
All methods are outlined on pages c-1 through C-7 in Appendix
Equipment Calibration—
In accordance with the accepted procedures published by the
EPA, all gas volume metering equipment, temperature measuring
equipment, and flow rate metering equipment had been calibrated
within 60 days of the actual test dates. Calibration data and
the applied methodology are contained in Appendix Cr pages C-23
through C-27-
Analytical Methods—
All particulate filters and Andersen plates were tared and
weighed by B. E. E. personnel in DOFASCO»S on site laboratory. The
remaining samples were returned to B.E.E. LABORATORIES„ INC., of
PLYMOUTH MEETING, PENNSYLVANIA for analysis. Refer to Appendix
C, pages C-U1 and C-42 for a detailed description of the
methodology used to analyze the samples.
Calculations—
All gas flow, moisture content,? particulateg and sulfur
oxides calculations were performed by a computer. Raw data
generated from these parameters were introduced into the
equations of Methods Two through Five and Method Eight of the
Federal Register. Particle size distribution data reduction was
accomplished by using the three curves presented in the Andersen
operations manual. Appendix C, pages C-28 through C-32 lists all
equations used.
Summary of Results
Particulate/Moisture and Sulfur Oxides Testing—
A detailed listing of all evaluated parameters of the
particulate, moisture, and sulfur oxides testing program is
presented in Appendix C, pages C-35 through C-10. A tabulation
of pertinent results appear in Tables 5-1 and 5-2. Note that the
12
-------
TABLE 5-1
Run
Number
1*
2
3
4
5
6**
7
8**
9
2&3 Avg
4&5 Avg
7&9 Avg
Cast
Number
'3475
3480
3481
3482
3487
3488
3489
3492
3493
PARTICULATE
Damper
Setting
100%
100%
100%
40%
40%
70%
70%
70%
70%
100%
40%
70%
SAMPLING RESULTS
Concentration
KG/M3
0.0016
0.0005
0.0003
0.0005
0.0007
0.0006
0.0004
0.0002
0.0004
0.0004
0.0006
0.0003
(gr/DSCF)
0.5623
0.1844
0.1001
0.1670
0.2322
0.2056
0.1284
0.0535
0.1230
0.1422
0.1996
0.1257
Emission Rate
KG/HR
635
215
118
119
176
241
149
57
122
175
148
135
(Ibs./hr.)
(1399.4)
( 476.1)
( 260.3)
( 262.2)
( 390.3)
( 531.3)
( 328.7)
( 126.3)
( 268.0)
( 386.2)
( 326.2)
( 298.4)
* High rate of emissions during this run were due to weight of gasket particles caused by excessive
temperatures in testing equipment. Subsequent testing conditions were altered to eliminate
problem.
** Testing results for these runs have been affected by upset process conditions and are considered
unreliable.
-------
three exhaust conditions sampled are designated by 100, 70 and 40
percent., These three conditions were used to develop the exhaust
CFM vs. Particulate Emission data. At the 40% damper setting the
cast housse atmosphere was too concentrated with fumes to provide
satisfactory working conditions.
TABLE 5-2
SULFUR OXIDES SAMPLING RESULTS*
Run Damper Sulfur Trioxide
Number Setting (ppm) Kg/sec. Ibs/hr
Sulfur Dioxide
(ppm) Kg/sec. Ibs/hr
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1-2 Avg
4-5 Avg
6-8 Avg
100%
100%
100%
40%
40%
70%
70%
70%
70%
100%
40%
70%
0.19
0.23
0.48
17.4
8.7
1.2
0.77
1.5
1.2
0.0052
0.0066
0.0139
0.3025
0.1603
0.0339
0.218
0.0404
0.0287
0.30
13.0
1.17
0.0086
0.2318
0.0312
0.69
0.87
1.83
39.8
21.1
4.46
2.87
5.32
3.78
1.13
30.5
4.11
41.0
51.8
2.0**
57.6
60.3
47.3
32,
48,
46.4
59.0
42.6
0.9021
1.1818
0.0464
0.8003
0.8968
1.0815
0.7364
1.0017
3.1** 0.0616
1.0420
0.0882
0.9401
118.7
155.5
6.1**
105.3
118.0
142.3
96.9
131.8
8.1**
137.1
11.6
123.7
*Test data for reference only.
**Unexplainable low values.
Table 5-3 summarizes and relates the valid particulate test
data to process data. Pertinent process data are presented in
Appendix C, pages C-51 through C-58.
DOFASCO Conducted Emission Factor Evaluation Program—
Between August 30, 1976 and November 19, 1976 DOFASCO
conducted an independent emission factor evaluation program on
its No. 1 blast furnace cast house. This program related the
weight of particulate matter captured by the cast house control
system baghouse to the tons of hot metal cast for 14, two and
three-day periods. Table 5-4 presents the results of the
program. The emission factor values obtained by this method are
in the same range as the values obtained from the stack sampling
program.
-------
TABLE 5-3
AVERAGE PARTICULATE RESULTS AS RELATED TO PROCESS DATA
Cast House
Test
Run Cast
No . No .
2 3480
3<2> 3481
Average
at High
Rate
7 3489
9 3493
Average
at Medium
Rate
4 3482
5 3487
Average
at Low
Rate
NM3M
9776
60
9796
53
9786
9759
•62
9068
57
9413
6534
66
7142
71
6839
Evacuation
Rate
C° ACFM ? °F
345,200 6
140
345,900 @
128
345,500
344,600 @
144
320,200 ?
135
332,400
230,700 @
150
252,200 @
159
241,500
Particulate
Emissions
KG/HR LBS/HR
216 476
118 260
149 329
122 268
119 262
177 390
Metric
Tons
Metal
Cast
236
267
326
257
237
275
Tons
Hot
Metal
Cast
260
294
.359
283
262
303
Duration
of
Cast
Minutes
30
44
33
30
36
36
Emission
KG/metric THM
0.46
0.32
0.39
0.25
0.23
0.24
0.30
0.38
0.34
Factor
IDS/ THM
0.92
0.65
0.78
0.50
0.47
0.48
0.60
0.77.
0.68
% Open
Fan
Setting
of C.H.
Emission
Control System
100%
100%
70%
70%
40%
40%
Castd)
House
Terap.
op
.
_
36°C
(98°F)
_
_
38°C
(103°F)
-
-
44°C
(113°F)
Visible
Emissions
Escaping
O.st House
(3)
None
(3)
None
None '3'
None (3>
Yes
Yes
(l)Ambient temperature inside cast house at the point identified'as No. 10 in Figure 5-3
(2)During this test run an opacity observation was conducted on the baghouse by-pass stack.
The smoke density value obtained was 23.1%, see Appendix C, page C-17 for data sheet.
(3)While no noticeable visible emissions are reported, ocoassional WISPS were noticed
emanating from the area of the cast house that abuts the slag pits and were suspected
of originating from the pits external of the cast house.
-------
TABLE 5-4 (1)
DOFASCO Conducted Emission Factor Evaluation Program
On No. 1 Blast Furnace Cast House Control System
Period
Lbs. of Dust
Total Daily
Avg.
KG Lbs KG Lbs
Tons of
Hot Metal
Cast
Tonne Tons
Emission Factor
KG/Tonne Lbs/Ton
Aug. 30-Sept. 3
Sept. 24-Sept. 27
Sept. 27-Oct. 1
Oct. 12-Oct. 15
Oct. 15-Oct. 18
Oct. 18-Oct. 22
Oct. 22-Oct. 25
Oct. 25-Oct. 29
Oct. 29-Nov. 1
Nov. 1-Nov. 5
Nov. 5-Nov. 9
Nov. 9-Nov. 12
Nov. 12-Nov. 15
Nov. 15-Nov. 19
2259
2468
1778
2250
1669
2186
1687
1642
1061
1805
2341
1052
1143
1569
4980
5440
3920
4960
3680
4820
3720
3620
2340
3980
5160
2320
2520
3460
564
822
445
750
557
547
562
411
353
451
585
351
381
392
1245
1813
980
1653
1227
1205
1240
905
780
995
1290
773
840
865
6688
5852
7365
6184
6366
8334
6174
7281
6487
8853
8443
5943
6487
6004
7373.6
6451.2
8119.4
6817.9
7017.2
9187.0
6806
8026.0
7151.4
9759
9307.3
6551.5
7151.4
6618.3
.338
.422
.241
.363
.262
.261
.273
.226
.163
.203
.277
.177
.176
.261
.675
. 843
. .482
.727
.524
.523
. 546
.451
.327
.407
.554
.354
.352
.522
Average Emission Factor
Data collected by DOFASCO and transmitted
to Betz Environmental Engineers, Inc. through
the AISI by letter of December 6, 1976.
.52 Ibs./
of hot meta
.26 KG/Tonne
of hot metal
-------
The data in Table 5-3 are grouped according to "damper
setting" which does not correlate well with cast house evacuation
rates. The damper setting variation of 30% between the high and
medium rates resulted in a maximum evacuation rate variation of
only 7.4% between test no. 3 at 9796 NM3 per minute and test no,
9 at 9068 NM3 per minute. Grouping tests nos. 2,3,7 and 9
together results in a calculated average emission factor of 0.32
kilograms per metric ton of hot metal (0.63 Ibs. per ton). It is
likely that the test results are accurate only to the nearest
tenth which gives an emission factor of 0=3 kilograms per metric
ton (0.6 Ibs. per ton).
The weight results obtained by DOFASCO (Table 5-4) average -
0.26 Kg/tonne hot metal (0.52 Ibs./THM) over the three month
period. This emission factor should be considered reliable for
DOFASCO B.F. No. 1 since the quantities of material weighed
allows error factors that would not greatly affect the rate of
emissions. It also includes a spread of time and casting rates
over hundreds of casts which balance out the highs and lows to
provide an average result.
Particle Size Distribution Results—
A particle size classification was performed on the bypass
stack at the No. 1 blast furnace at DOFASCO. An Andersen In-
Stack sampler, which is basically a cascade impactor, was used to
classify the sizes of particulate material in the stack. The
tests were conducted simultaneous to the particulate tests at a
point 90° from the particulate sampling point. A visual
inspection of the plates after testing indicated that
fractionation of the larger sized particulate probably occurred.
The Kish (graphite) material is the large type particle which
should have been collected on the very first plate of the
collector. Because approximately 60% of the total material
captured in the particulate tests was removed from the nozzle,
probe and front half of the filter holder, the expected particle
size test data should show significant quantities of large size
(greater than 7 microns) particulate matter. A cyclone collector
is not provided by Andersen ahead of the first plate to collect
the larger particles (over 7 micron) but it is felt by B.E.E.
that this cyclone is needed to remove the larger size particles.
Therefore, it was decided that these data are not reliable and
could be misleading and consequently are not included in this
report.
Particulate Matter Characterization—
The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory of EPA
arranged for spark source mass spectrometric analysis of the
captured particulate matter. This work was conducted by Northrop
Services Inc. Research Triangle Park, N.C.
47
-------
The results of elemental analysis of the EPA Method 5 filters
and the particle size distribution sampling train filters are
contained in Appendix C, pages C-59 through C-72, and identified
as report, no. SS7704. Due to high levels of several elements in
the filters themselves, full characterization of the samples was
not possible.
EPA obtained from DOFASCO a sample of particulate matter from
the baghouse hoppers for elemental analysis. The results of this
analysis appears in Appendix Cr pages C-73 through c-79 and is
identified as report no. SS7705. In addition to elemental
analysis, a particle density of 3.69 grams per cubic centimeter
was determined for this sample using a helium pycnometer.
Cast House Atmosphere—
The data in Table 5-5 were recorded to determine the effect
of reducing the evacuation volumes on interior cast house ambient
conditions. At the 40% open setting of the fan damper the cast
house atmosphere was very dense with fume. At both the 70% and
100% settings the cast house had adequate ventilation to satisfy
the operators. The attached Figure 5-3 plots the personnel
sampler locations inside the cast house. Figure 5-4 is a
graphical representation of particulate matter concentration
values.
Dust samplers were attached to workers on the cast house
floor to collect dust above and below 5 microns from the cast
house atmosphere during blast furnace casting. Employees wearing
the samplers moved about the cast house in a normal manner.
Samples were collected during two (2) cast for each of 10% and
100% fan damper setting conditions. The samplers used were
"Bendix Micronair Gravimetric" designed for industrial
atmospheres utilizing battery-powered piston pump to Sample 1.6
liters per minute. A cyclone was used to remove all particulate
matter larger than 5 microns while particles less then 5 micron
were captured on an 0.8 micron pore size Millipore filter in a
plastic cassett. The cyclone catches were weighed on site by
DOFASCO Laboratory personnel. The filters were returned to
B.E.E. LABORATORIES, INC., for analysis.
Temperatures were measured in the cast house during casting
with a mercury thermometer. SO2 concentrations were obtained
during casting using MSA indicator tubes at locations 8 and 10 as
shown on Figure 5-3. These locations were the nearest to the hot
metal allowed by the DOFASCO Safety Department.
CAST HOUSE EMISSION FACTORS
Particulate emission factors have been estimated at six
locations as follows:
48
-------
TABLE 5-5
TEMPERATURES, VELOCITIES AND SO2 CONCENTRATIONS INSIDE CAST HOUSE
Locations*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
:*
3
Temperatures d)
6C(°F)
40% 70% 100%
Open Open Open
40(104) 36(98) 33(92)
44(111) 38(101) 36(98)
Velocity (2)
MPS (FPM)
40% 70%
Open Open
2.5(500) 4.0(800)
1.5(300) 3.5(700)
1.5(300) 3.5(700)
1.3(250) 3.0(600)
1.3(250) 3.0(600)
_ _ _ _
0000
0.5(100) 1.0(200)
0.8(150) 1.5(300)
1.5(250) 2.0(400)
1.5(250) 2.0(400)
1.75(350) 3.0(600)
100%
Open
6.0(1200)
5.0(1000)
5.0(1000)
4.0( 800)
4.0( 800)
- -
0 0
1.5( 300)
2.0( 400)
3.0( 600)
3.0( 600)
4.0( 800)
SO (3)
MG/M32 (PPM)
40% 70%
Open Open
48(40) 24(20)
' 60(50) 36(30)
100%
Ooen
6(5)
6(5)
Conditions Inside Cast House
Figure 5-3 Shows Location of 12 Points
* ^Temperature values were obtained using a mercury thermometer.
(2)velocity values were obtained using a hot wire anemometer.
(3)sO2 values were obtained using color indicator tubes which may
be in the 75% to 100% accuracy range.
-------
8
a
a.
<
In
ao
1
Figure 5-3
f\f\O m AM DCODCCCKITATIVfC f\C r\r\CAC*f*f\ Dl A OTT C
'wi i • k *-•••« • ik v • ik.v^^.1-* • «-» i i v •_ %^r rn^v^i J-IVJX^N^ i^kir^xj> i i
CAST HOUSE SHOWING PERSONNEL .SAMPLING LOCATIONS
B5' APPROXIMATELY
SLAG RUNNER,
RON TROUGH.
APPROXIMATE CAST
HOUSE VOLUME
SAO^OOCU.FJ^
r*Y
O
.A.
DAM
CAST HOUSE
SIDE WALL
OPENINGS
LAG SPOUTS
RUNNER
"N
--
SLAG
P\T
IRON SPOUT
CURTAIN PARTlTIOKl MOT COM 5 IDE RE" D \M
VOUUM^ O«.AwVB
-------
Figure 5-4
DOFASGO No. 1
CAST HOUSE INTERNAL CONCENTRATION
OF PARTICULATE MATTER VS.
TOTAL CAST HOUSE AIR CHANGES
200
150
CO
O>
100
50
PERSONNEL SAMPLER
RATE 1.60 L/MIN.
CATCH
TOTAL DUST
10 2O 30 40 50 60
TOTAL CAST HOUSE AIR CHANGES/HOUR
60 CHANGES = 9630 M3/MIN. (340,000 CFMI
44 CHANGES = 7080 M3/MIN.|250,000CFMI
70
80
90
-------
1. DOFASCO blast furnace No. 1 fumes are controlled by a
total cast house evacuation system with a cloth
collector filtering 300,000 CFM. From hopper weight
collections, the loading has been determined as
averaging 0.26 kilograms per metric ton (0.52 Ibs/ton)
of hot metal. Values were obtained from DOFASCO
Environmental Department.
2. The average test weight for DOFASCO blast furnace No. 1
over four casts was 0.3 Kg per tonne of hot metal (0.6
Ibs per ton). Tests were conducted by B.E.E. using EPA
sampling methods.
3. Bethlehem Sparrows Point "J" furnace fume was measured
by high volume samplers at the building roof monitor.
Average collection was 0.15 kilograms per metric ton
(0.3 Ib/ton) of hot metal.
U. The C.F.51 cast house emissions were measured by time
lapse photography and determined to be 0.125 kilograms
per metric ton (0.25 Ib/ton) of hot metal. Testing was
conducted by Celesco Industries (report number 156).
Uethlehem Steel Corporation's Johnstown "E" Blast
]rurnace, normally a ferromanganese furnace, is the only
blast furnace cast house in the United States employing
-------
85 air changes per hour based upon an approximate cast
house volume of 9300 cubic meters. The average
particulate matter emission factor for the 19 test runs
was 0.11 kilograms per metric ton of hot metal (0.22
Ibs. per ton) for the combined front-half and back-half
catches of the EPA sampling train and 0.10 kilograms per
metric ton of hot metal (0.20 Ibs. per ton) for the
front-half catch only. See Appendix D, page D-1 for a
table of Particulate Emissions Test Results.
Bethlehem Steel Corporation conducted emission tests
during the weeks of September 13 and September 20, 1976,
on an experimental emission control system it installed
to capture the emissions which evolve from the taphole
and trough during casting at their Bethlehem Plant,
Blast Furnace "E." See Section 6 for a description of
this system.
Tests were conducted under three different
experimental conditions, as follows:
A. The "Original", unsecured curtain
arrangement with the fan exhaust rate at
approximately 42.5 actual cubic meters
per second (90,000 ACFM).
B. The curtains removed with the fan exhaust
rate at full capacity, approximately
143.5 actual cubic meters per second
(304,000 ACFM).
C. The curtains weighted and secured. The
fan exhaust was set at approximately 75
actual cubic meters per second (159,000
ACFM) which appeared to be the highest
flow rate which could be used without
danger of imploding the curtains.
Each emission test consisted of two individual
traverses; one traverse was conducted on the horizontal
axis of the exhaust duct and the other traverse was
conducted simultaneously on the vertical axis of the
duct. Sampling was commenced when the drill began to
open the taphole; sampling was terminated within 5
minutes after the mud gun closed the taphole.
A summary of the data collected during the test
program is presented in tabular form in Appendix D.
Table I on page D-2 presents the results of the sampling
conducted on the horizontal axis of the exhaust duct;
Table II on page D-3 presents the results of the
sampling conducted on the vertical axis of the exhaust
53
-------
duct; Table III on page D-4 presents the average of the
corresponding values given in Table I and Table II.
These average values in Table III were reported by
Bethlehem Steel Corporation as the overall test results
and are summarized as follows:
EMISSION FACTOR
EXPERIMENTAL Kilograms per Metric Ton
CONDITION (pounds per ton)
Front-half Back-half Total
"A" 0.05 0.025 0.075
(0.10) (0.05) (0.15)
»B» 0.13 0.08 0.21
(0.26) (0.16) (0.42)
"C" 0.125 0.02 0.145
(0.25) (0.04) (0.29)
Tests EBF-1 through EBF-3 were conducted under
condition "A", Tests EBF-5 through EBF-7 were conducted
under condition "B" and tests EBF-9 through EBF-11 were
conducted under condition "C." Tests EBF-4, EBF-8 and
EBF-12 were not reported by Bethlehem Steel Corporation
because a standard particulate emission test was
conducted only on the horizontal axis of the exhaust
duct; simultaneous samples collected on the vertical
axis of the duct were taken with an Anderson sampler in
an attempt to collect particle size distribution data.
Because of an extremely large isokinetic variation in
the Anderson sampler tests, the results were considered
questionable by Bethlehem Steel Corporation and
consequently were not reported.
Emission tests were conducted in accordance with
EPA Method 5. The impinger catch was evaporated to
dryness and the residue reported as the back-half catch.
Bethlehem Steel Corporation considers the most
appropriate index of the relative capture efficiency of
the system under the three test conditions as
particulate measured by the front-half of the sampling
train. The front-half particulate catch is not subject
to the uncertainties which are inherent in the back-half
of the EPA sampling train according to Behtlehem. An
example of the uncertainties which can be associated
with the back-half of the sampling train is shown by a
comparison of the back-half catch measured on the
horizontal axis of the exhaust duct with that measured
on the vertical axis of the exhaust duct for tests EBF6.
The tests conducted on the horizontal duct axis measured
54
-------
0.128 kilograms per metric ton (0.256 Ib. per ton) and
0.144 kilograms per metric ton (0.288 Ib. per ton) for
tests EBF-5 and EBF-6, respectively, whereas the tests
conducted on the vertical duct axis measured 0.05
kilograms per metric ton (0.10 Ib. per ton) and 0.045
kilograms per metric ton (0.09 Ib. per ton). The back
half samples were discarded and consequently it was not
possible to analyze the residue to determine its
chemical composition.
The average emission factor obtained during the DOFASCO NO. 1
Blast Furnace cast house emission testing program of 0.3
kilograms per metric ton of hot metal (0.6 Ibs. per ton) and the
0.1 kilograms per metric ton (0.2 Ibs. per ton) emission factor
obtained at Bethlehem Steel Corp./ Johnstown Blast Furnace "E"
while producing basic iron represent the range of credible
emission factor data. Based upon B.E.E. observations of the
casting of 16 United States blast furnaces representing 7
domestic steel companies, it is felt that the casting operations
at the DOFASCO NO. 1 Blast Furnace generates above normal fume
quantities. Until additional emission factor data is obtained,
the range of 0.1 to 0.3 kilograms per metric ton (0.2 to 0.6 Ibs.
per ton) should be used. It is B.E.E.'s judgement that a single
emission factor for all domestic operations is not valid and that
the observed differences in the levels of fume generated is due
to variations in operating practices and materials used in the
blast furnace and cast house.
POLLUTION FROM POWER HOUSE CAUSED BY CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM
CAST HOUSE
Figures 5-5, 5-6 and 5-7 graphically depict estimated
emissions from power houses which utilize various fuels and which
supply electrical energy to operate a blast furnace cast house
which has total evacuation capture system for emission control.
Figure 5-5 is based upon a capture system designed to provide 50
cast house volume air changes per hour, while Figures 5-6 and 5-7
are based 60 and 70 cast house volume air changes per hour,
respectively. Figure 5-8 charts particulate emissions from cast
houses using the emission factor range of 0.1 to 0.3 kilograms
per metric ton of hot metal cast (0.2 to 0.6 Ibs. per ton).
The four conditions or curves on Figures 5-5, 5-6 and 5-7
relate power house emissions with the fuel utilization at the
power house. These figures consider particulate matter, sulfur
dioxide, and nitrogen oxide emissions from the power house and
are based on complying with EPA new source performance standards
(NSPS). Consequently, a power generating source which does not
meet these emission limits whether it is a public utility or the
steel mill's own power house would generate emissions greater
than those presented in these figures.
55
-------
Figure 5-5
POWER HOUSE EMISSIONS CAUSED BY TOTAL
EVACUATION OF CAST HOUSE
50 CAST HOUSE AIR CHANGES PER HOUR
UJ
181
(200)
159
(175)
136
(150)
ASSUMES NEW SOURCE
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)
T
EMISSION CONTROL
CONDITION NO. 2
CONDITION NO. 3
CONDITION NO. 4
CONDITION NO.
CUBICLE CONTENTS OF CAST HOUSE
CUBIC METERS x 103
(CUBIC FEET X105)
-------
Figure 5-6
POWER HOUSE EMISSIONS CAUSED BY TOTAL
EVACUATION OF CAST HOUSE
60 CAST HOUSE AIR CHANGES PER HOUR
OC
l
Ul
-j
CO «
§i
Q. o
UJ CC
UJ
g co
^ CO
Q- co
UJ
181
(200)
159
(175)
ASSUMES NSPS
EMISSION CONTROLS
I I I
CONDITION NO. 2-n
CONDITION NO. 3-i
CONDITION NO. 4-i
CONDITION NO. 1-,
CUBICLE CONTENTS OF CAST HOUSE
CUBIC METERS x 103
(CUBIC FEET X105)
-------
Figure 5-7
POWER HOUSE EMISSIONS CAUSED BY TOTAL
EVACUATION OF CAST HOUSE
70 CAST HOUSE AIR CHANGES PER HOUR
Ul
00
si
§§
-I I-
°-o
I" E
UJ
h- Z
UJ
I I I
CONDITION NO. 2
CONDITION NO. 3i
CONDITION NO. 4-
CONDITION NO. 1-
ASSUMES NSPS
EMISSION CONTROL
CUBICLE CONTENTS OF CAST HOUSE
CUBIC METERS x 103
(CUBIC FEET X105)
-------
Figure 5-8
CAST HOUSE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS vs. PRODUCTION
en
O
CO
c/j
LJ
IU
S5
«j
u
(/>
=
O
£
1270
(1400)
1088
(1200)
907
(1000)
I?
> UJ
oc >-
in
(/) O.
0">
i_ Z
O
O I-
726
(800)
542
(600)
CAST HOUSE PRODUCTION
METRIC TONS PER DAY x 103
(TONS PER DAY x 103)
*BASED UPON AN EMISSION FACTOR RANGE OF 0.1 TO 0.3 KILOGRAM
PER METRIC TON HOT METAL (0.2 TO 0.6 LBS. PER TON)
-------
"It should be noted however, that the areas in which steel
plants exist are, for the most part, non-attainment areas. In
these areas, new electrical generation facilities will not only
have to meet NSPS, but must also have emission offsets so that
the net result of new construction will be less pollution and,
therefore, progress toward attainment. In clean areas, the new
facility must meet prvention of significant deterioration (PSD)
increments, which in some cases, would force control to levels
below NJJPS. Furthermore, the state implementation plans (SIP's)
were developed to protect the health of the public and in many
cases are more strict than NSPS, which is a technology based
standard. In the instance of stricter SIP*s, the stricter SIP
rules would be the controlling regulations."**>
The following are the fuels considered for
each condition:
Condition No. 1
53.1* coal
10.0% oil
36.9% nuclear
Condition No. 2
100% coal
Condition No. 3
85% coal
15% oil
Condition No. 4
51.6% coal
18.1% oil
30.0% nuclear
Condition No. 1 is the 1986 projection of Duquesne Light Company,
Pittsburgh, Pa. while Condition No. 1 is a Bureau of Mines
projection. Conditions No. 2 and No. 3 are B.E.E. hypothetical
fuel usage estimates.
Sample calculations for each of the four power house fuel
condition curves appears in Appendix B, pages B7 through B14.
The calculations are presented for an evacuation rate of 189
cubic meters per second (400,000 CFM).
o>EPA Industrial Environmental Reserach
Laboratory prepared comment.
-------
GASEOUS EMISSIONS FROM CASTING
Since the sulfur content of steel is generally maintained
below a maximum of 0.020% to retain desirable physical properties
in the steel, the sulfur in the hot metal from the blast furnace
is also held to a minimum.
The sulfur input to a blast furnace is from fuel, scrap or
other additions from the burden. Most of these items depend a
great deal on market conditions and cannot be readily controlled.
The hot metal sulfur content is affected by operation of the
furnace, and may be reduced by an external desulfurization
process which is not only costly but would provide another area
for fume emission.
Of the total sulfur leaving the furnace, approximately 95% is
reported to be locked in the slag; the remainder is in hot metal
and top gas. Because of limited contact with air and moisture,
the sulfur in the slag runners does not readily oxidize to sulfur
compounds such as SO_2 and H2S. The odor threshold for odorous
sulfur compounds is less than 1 ppm therefore a very small
quantity of these gases may be detected as odorous. Sulfurous
gases emissions to atmosphere will increase as casting time
increases due to the increase in contact with air at runner
surfaces. When the sulfur content of fuel is increased, the
volume of slag per ton of hot metal is also increased. The
basicity of the slag increases slightly as the cast proceeds.
A decrease in the CaO basicity ratio reflects an increase in
sulfur content of hot metal. Hot metal production is increased
and the coke rate is decreased.
The sulfur content of hot metal is decreased by increased
slag volume and increased basicity ratio. This can only be done
by increasing coke rate and consequently reducing the hot metal
production. It would follow, then, that to increase blast
furnace productivity and reduce coke rate, it would be necessary
to decrease slag basicity; lower lime consumption decreases the
slag volume and also the melting point of the slag. A decrease
in iron content of the slag follows a decrease in the basicity of
slag and the corresponding yield increase.
Desulfurization of the hot metal could be accomplished in the
ladle or some other location external to the cast house.
A reported typical sulfur case, based on 500 Kg coke to make
one tonne of hot metal (1000 Ibs. coke per ton) with 1% sulfur in
coal, shows U.05 Kg/tonne (8.1 Ib./ton) of sulfur in coke which
divides to 3.85 Kg/tonne (7.7 Ibs/ton) in molten slag and 0.2
Kg/tonne (O.U Ibs/ton) in hot metal which is 0.02% sulfur. This
case produces 200 Kg of slag per metric ton of hot metal (400
61
-------
Ibs/ton). The slag carries about 95% of the sulfur. The rest is
in the top gas and hot metal.
Other Gases
Traces of gaseous elements such as carbon monoxide (CO)
normally occur in the tap hole emissions. Gaseous emissions from
runner curing may come from the coke oven gas used to dry the
clay and pitch linings and also from volatiles in clay and pitch
during the drying process. These emissions occur for short
durations during maintenance only. It is not unusual to have CO
concentrations in the upper areas of the cast house structure,
particularly around the blast furnace, which are sufficient to
warrant the need for air packs by operating personnel. These CO
concentrations come primarily from other sources in the furnace
proper, including leakage through the furnace shell itself rather
than from the tap hole during casting.
62
-------
SECTION 6
STATE-OF-THE-ART FOR CAST HOUSE
EMISSION CONTROL
U.S. TECHNOLOGY
As of the date of this report there are no operating fugitive
air pollution control systems serving basic iron blast furnaces
in the U.S.A. The cast house enclosing the ferromanganese blast
furnace at Bethlehem Steel Corporation's Johnstown works has an
emission control system utilizing the total evacuation concept.
The quantity of emissions generated when casting a ferromanganese
blast furnace were observed by B.E.E. to be substantially higher
than from the basic iron blast furnaces observed. A ventilation
rate of 189 cubic meters per second (400,000 CFM) is being used
to totally evacuate the Bethlehem Steel Johnstown ferromanganese
cast house and to filter the particulate matter through a cloth
baghouse. Baffles were provided in the cast house to help
localize the fumes for entrainment in the top hood. The baghouse
collector extracts about 227 to 454 kilograms (500 to 1,000 Ibs.)
of dust per day from the exhaust volume. The system is
considered by B.E.E. to be effective.
United States Steel Gary #13, with a furnace working volume
of 2,832 cubic meters (100,000 cubic feet), has as its record a
daily production a rate of 6,906 metric tons (7,614 tons) of hot
metal and a current normal production of 5,624 metric tons (6,200
tons). The furnace has 3 tapholes of 48.26 millimeters (1.9
inches) diameter and casts 12 times per day.
When Gary #13 was blown in, consideration was given to
containing the violent reaction at the tap hole by installing a
domed hood, 1.82 meters (6 feet) wide by 0.91 meters (3 feet)
high over the iron pool (which is about 12.19 meters (40 feet)
long) to the skimmer. The tap hole on Gary #13 has an angle of
14°. The blast pressure is maintained at 1.735 E + 05 Pa(25
psig) from tapping to closing and the trough is not normally
drained after each cast. Prior to the hood installation, coke
messes had occurred several times a month and after installation,
upset conditions persisted that precluded the further use of the
hood. No further attempt has been made to install any other
kinds of hooding or to experiment further with the trough cover.
The new large blast furnaces that are being constructed at
Sparrows Point and East Chicago will have Japanese production and
emission capture design modifications incorporated into their
construction. Efforts are being made to collect all of the fumes
generated through the use of an integrated iron making and fume
63
-------
capture system. The fume capture system will include close
fitting trough and runner covers and hoods.
Bethlenem steel Corporation has installed a partial
drop-curtain type experimental hood at the tap hole area of
Furnace E at Bethlehem, Pa. to determine the degree of
effectiveness of fume control from this method of enclosure as
used for primary capture of fugitive emissions. The retractable
curtain was intended to capture fumes from the iron pool which
extends from the tap hole to the skimmer while allowing a free
area underneath for the mud gun and tap hole drill to function.
As reported by Bethlehem Steel Corp. and witnessed by B.E.E.
on video-tapes, the experimental "E" Furnace system as initially
installed was limited in its effectiveness, since the hood
curtains were very susceptible to being drawn up into the exhaust
take-off by the exhaust air flow. This occurred on two occasions
and resulted in damage to the curtains. To avoid this problem
Bethlehem implemented the following actions:
1. Restricted the air flow substantially by throttling the
damper on the system fan to approximately U2.5 actual
cubic meters per second (90,000 ACFM).
2. Baised the east curtain of the tri-curtain enclosure.
The fourth side of the enclosure was a combination of
the blast furnace and a steel plate..
Emission tests were conducted under these conditions, the results
of which are reported in Section 5. The capture efficiency of
the systeir was impaired, however, due to:
1. Seduced air flow
2. Short circuiting of air with the east curtain raised.
3. Air currents deflecting the unsecured curtains from a
position directly above the iron trough.
Bethlehem then took "E" Blast Furnace out of service in order
to remove the curtains and make modifications to upgrade system
performance. A series of emission tests were conducted with the
curtains removed and with the fan damper in the 100% open
position. This condition resulted in an exhaust rate of
approximately 141.5 actual cubic meters per second (300,000
ACFM). Again Bethlehem took "E" Blast Furnace out of service to
install the modified curtain system which was designed to enable
the hood to operate with the third (east) curtain in the down
position and to permit increased exhaust flow rates. These
modifications were:
-------
1. Installation of weights (a length of pipe) on the lower
edges of all three curtains.
2. Installation of guy wires on the west end of the north
and south curtains.
3. Fabrication of temporary "supports" to secure the east
curtain in the down position. Two sections of pipe were
bent on one end; the bent end of one section was
inserted through an eyelet on the east end of the north
curtain and the bent end of the other section was
inserted through an eyelet on the east end of the south
curtain. The opposite ends of the pipes were secured to
a railing on the cast house floor (south pipe) and to a
bar attached to a building column on the north side of
the cast house.
With the curtain system secured as described above, the fan
exhaust damper was opened substantially wider than the setting
used in the earlier tests. Based upon Bethlehem's visual
observations the exhaust volume was increased to the maximum flow
that the fabric curtains could tolerate without collapsing inward
due to negative pressure within the hood. As observed by B.E.E.
in the video-tapes the fume capture efficiency of this system was
markedly superior to the earlier attempts. The system as used,
however, is not considered feasible by Bethlehem Steel Corp. or
B.E.E. for a permanent installation because of the limited
durability of the curtains, the difficulties of securing the
curtains to obtain the necessary stability and the safety hazards
associated with suspending weights above the trough.
Conceptually, this zoned capture system at Bethlehem shows
promise because it can be relatively effective in capturing a
high percentage of the fumes. However, the operating and
maintenance problems, along with construction details and
durability of the entire system, will have to be satisfactorily
worked out to achieve an operable installation.
In summation, the state-of-the-art of controlling cast house
emissions in the United States has not been developed extensively
and minimal research and development efforts have been reported.
JAPANESE TECHNOLOGY
The Japanese first implemented cast house emission control in
the mid-1960's on new blast furnaces and have improved the
technology during the intervening years. They have retrofitted
cast houses with capture-control systems, but these are generally
associated with complete blast furnace and cast house rebuild
projects. According to Nippon Kokan K.K. (NKK) , 100% of all
65
-------
Japanese tlast furnace cast houses have some degree of emission
control.
The Japanese technology presented herein is a review of
meetings with Nippon Steel Corporation and Nippon Kokan K.K.
(NKK) at their main offices in Tokyo and plant visits to the
Oita, Kamaishi and Fukuyama works in February 1976. Although
these meetings and visits do not allow a detailed assessment of
the technology of cast house emission control in Japan, they do
allow an assessment to be made of the state-of-the-art for
controlling cast house emissions in Japan.
In general, the Japanese do show that blast furnace cast
house emission control can be effectively implemented. Several
factors, including the f oil owing „ Japanese cast houses are all large and relatively
new installations
(>. Multiple tap hole furnaces which allow flexibility
in operating practice.
In addition to the above, two other factors have assisted in
the development and application of cast house emission control
technology:
1. A very strong national concern for maintaining
environmental quality
2. A competitiveness between steel companies to
install environmental control measures
The Japanese approach considers emission capture as a part of
blast furnace cast house design.
Japanese workers usually spend a lifetime working for a
single employer. This tenure and dependence plus other historic
cultural patterns of behavior have resulted in a high standard of
work performance by all levels of Japanese workers. This has
considerably reduced the malfunction potential, operating
malfunctions are the single most important reason that doubt
exists as to the successful application of Japanese technology to
other situations, such as U.S. operations.
66
-------
There are three major concerns about air pollution in Japan:
SOx, NOx, and dust. No central government laws govern the
emissions from cast houses. Local government laws and
restrictions vary from location to location, but generally these
rules or laws limit visible emissions to zero and limit total
steel works emissions to a certain amount of kilograms per hour.
All cast house dust collection systems observed and discussed
have certain similarities. In addition to local hoods (identified
as primary systems) installed close to dust sources,
considerations were given to secondary dust collection systems in
which dust is removed from the cast house at its roof or with
special retractable hoods installed using the upper part of the
cast house building as a major component of the hoods. Although
tap holes and iron troughs are the major dust sources in the cast
house, the effectiveness of local hoods is reduced because of the
need to remove them during the operation of tap hole drills and
mud guns. As a result, a significant fraction of the total
emissions escape capture by the primary system. To cope with
this problem, the Japanese have successfully developed secondary
dust collection equipment which can effectively capture the
emissions escaping the primary system. Figure No. 6-1 is a
schematic representation of a concept as developed by Nippon
Steel Corporation. Through the years, various attempts have been
made by the Japanese to improve local hoods so that optimum dust
collection can be achieved without sacrificing working efficiency
in the cast house.
AISI Comment
The following comment on the differences between Japanese and
United States blast furnace operating practice has been provided
by the AISI ad hoc working group on blast furnace cast house
emission control:
"We believe that the distinctions between Japanese and United
States practice is discussed inadequately in the report. We
offer the following paragraphs as an amplification:
Presently, there is only one operating blast furnace in the
United States with emission control. This blast furnace is a
ferromanganese furnace which has a total cast house
evacuation system, an approach that had to be made due to the
unusual emissions from this type of hot metal. These
emissions are quite different from those from basic hot
metal.
All blast furnaces in the United States, except for 10, are
equipped with one tap hole and one iron runner system from
that tap hole. All blast furnaces in Japan have more than
one tap hole and more than one iron runner system from the
tap holes. Further, all of the operating blast furnaces in
67
-------
Figure 6-1
REPRESENTATION OF NIPPON
STEEL CORPORATION'S SECONDARY
DUST COLLECTION SYSTEM
SECONDARY DUST
COLLECTION DUCT
SIDE CURTAIN
(MOVABLE)
MUD GUN
COVER (WHICH IS
REMOVED WHEN THE
TAP HOLE IS OPENED
OR CLOSED)
CAST HOUSE
CRANE
TAP HOLE OPENER
FLOOR
TAP HOLE
IRON TROUGH
68
-------
Japan, by virtue of either being greenfield plants or having
been completely rebuilt since 1960, have modern cast houses
which are provided with ample space for storage of cast house
material and movement of support equipment. They were
designed to handle the hot metal tonnages from the blast
furnace at present rated capacity. In the United States, on
the other hand, the great majority of the present operating
furnaces were built before 1960 and utilize original cast
houses that were designed to handle less than 50% of the
present-day capacity. These older cast houses tax the
operations to be able to maintain present levels of
productivity while properly maintaining trough and iron
runners. Utilization of present Japanese technology to
capture fugitive emissions within the cast house would impose
further limitations on proper maintenance of trough and iron
runners at present operating levels.
Very few blast furnaces in the United States are provided
with stockhouse screening and ore and coal bedding systems
that minimize variations in hot metal chemistry and
temperature on a cast-to-cast basis. All Japanese furnaces
are provided with sizing and bedding systems for all
materials utilized and all burden materials are screened to
remove unwanted fines before they are charged to the furnace.
With the higher degree of control of the essential elements
in the hot metal and its temperature, the Japanese have
practically eliminated "scrappy," off-iron that necessitates
increased iron runner maintenance. In the United States, the
wider variation of hot metal chemistry and temperature makes
iron runner maintenance more severe than in Japan. The use
of runner hooding would add to this disadvantage. It should
be noted that the iron runner system in the modern Japanese
furnaces, and they are all modern, are removable and require
one to three relines per month whereas the American blast
furnace iron runner system requires daily maintenance."
Nippon Kokan K.K. (NKK)
NKK provided survey information on all Japanese blast furnace
operations. This information is presented in Table 6-1.
NKK's Technical Approach and Philosophy-
NKK's philosophy of cast house emission control is to look
first at primary evacuation through the use of hoods and covers
and then at secondary or total building evacuation.
Primary Evacuation System— NKK employs two styles of local
tap hole hooding. Style No. 1 is with the hood fixed over the
tap hole and trough in the immediate vicinity of the tap hole.
Style No. 2 has two hoods, one on either side of the trough at
69
-------
TABLE 6-1
SURVEY INFORMATION
JAPANESE BLAST FURNACE
EMISSION CONTROL
1. Primary (local hoods)
Percentage of all Japanese plants with capture hoods
. 100% at iron spouts
. 80% at tapping holes
. 66% at runners
. 4% at slag holes. The reason for this low
percentage is because there are few Japanese
plants employing slag holes.
Control Systems
. 83% use baghouses
. 8% use electrostatic precipitators
. 6% use scrubbers
. 4% use combination of above
Evacuation flow rates;
, Average 133 actual cubic meters per
second (282,500 ACFM)
Secondary (total house) Evacuation
Control Systems
. 95% use baghouses
. 5% use electrostatic precipitators
Evacuation Flow Rates
. Average 167 actual cubic meters per
second (353,000 ACFM).
3. Total primary and secondary: 45 to 80 air changes per
hour (based on cast house internal volume).
70
-------
the tap hole. In addition to hoods at the blast furnace tap
holes, hoods are also installed at the skimmers and iron spouts.
It is from these three locations that evacuation is applied.
Between the hoods, trough and runner covers are installed to
create a sort of a flue or duct over the exposed hot metal which
prevents emissions from escaping the influence of the primary
system hoods. Style No. 2 hoods are moveable and are preferred
to the fixed type style No. 1 hood because the hoods can be
installed closer to the iron and consequently are more effective.
Occasionally, however, hoods on both sides of the trough cannot
be installed because of insufficient clearance.
Through February 1976, none of the primary hoods has had to
be replaced, the oldest being approximately five years old. NKK
experienced no problems with hoods being destroyed during
developmental stages of cast house emission control. The primary
evacuation hoods and covers must be periodically relined.
It is the opinion of NKK officials that most of the dust
generated in the blast furnace is captured by primary evacuation.
Secondary evacuation is implemented because of local
environmental regulations. Secondary evacuation prevents visible
fugitive emissions from escaping the building through the roof
monitors.
NKK has never attempted to determine the percentage of
emissions which are generated in the tap hole and iron trough
vicinity. A very rough estimate of 80% was mentioned.
Secondary evacuation System—The total evacuation system
employed by NKK does not use curtains or shields to try to
isolate any one area for total evacuation. The system uses a
roof monitor takeoff. The roof monitor has an emergency by-pass
to the atmosphere. If an upset condition occurs and the
evacuation system cannot be used, a duct damper will open,
exhausting the cast house by natural ventilation. NKK does,
however, install the total evacuation take-off duct at a location
in the roof near the blast furnace.
NKK does not have furnaces with a single taphole. Therefore,
they could not relate to the application of a cast house emission
control system employing the primary capture concept to single
taphole furnaces.
NKK's officials believe that the implementation of blast
furnace cast house emission control has been cause for some
reduction in operational efficiency^ but they were unable to
indicate the extent.
NKK has only applied baghouses on cast house emissions. They
have not tried any other types of control. The Keihin Works
which is scheduled for shutdown in 1978 is the lone NKK operation
71
-------
which has only primary or local evacuation. The size of the
blast furnace is 1,830 cubic meters (6U,600 cu. ft.), inner
volume. The evacuation rate from the tapping hole area is 50
normal cubic meters per second (106^000 ACFM). The evacuation of
the iron spout area is 38 normal cubic meters per second (81,000
ACFM). No modifications were necessary to the cast house to
implement this system.
NKK is presently building an integrated steel mill on
Ogishima Island in Tokyo Bay. This facility is located in a
highly populated area and will have a cast house evacuation flow
rate of 250 actual cubic meters per second (530,000 ACFM) and a
250 actual cubic meters per second ([530*000 ACFM) local
evacuation.
Fukuyama Works-
The Fukuyama Works of NKK located on reclaimed land in the
inland sea of Hiroshima Prefecture is the largest of their two
integrated steel mills. This works was visited on February 23,
1976. A second mill ~ the Keihin Steel Works - is located in the
Tokyo area. Steel making at Keihin will be discontinued after
operations at a new mill under construction on Ogishima island
are completed. Table 6-2 presents technical and statistical
information pertaining to blast furnace No. 1 at the Fukuyama
Works.
During the cast house visit, casting from only one tap hole
was witnessed. The cast house contained a noticeable amount of
fumes, especially near the conclusion of the cast. The fumes
lingered in the secondary system zone but eventually were
evacuated from the cast house. Discussions with NKK personnel
and field observations yielded the following salient items:
1. Some primary system hoods and ducts are refractory
lined, but to what extent could not be determined.
2. NKK has experienced some problems with burning
holes in the primary system baghouse fabric.
Consequently, drop-out chambers have been installed
on the inlets to the primary system baghouses.
3. Gas temperatures in primary baghouses normally run
between 60°C (1UO°F) and 80°C (170°F).
4. NKK normally uses negative pressure baghouses with
stacks. They have previously tried positive
pressure systems, but because of fan problems they
switched to negative systems.
5. Primary systems do not have dilution air
capabilities.
72
-------
TABLE NO. 6-2
FUKUYAMA WORKS - BLAST FURNACE AND CAST HOUSE
TECHNICAL AND STATISTICAL INFORMATION
1. BLAST FURNACE.NO. 1
2,323 m3 (82,000 ft3) blast furnace inner volume, blown-in 1966 with a
cast house emission control system - the first one in Japan. Needed
improvement, more capacity and increased efficiency. System modified
in 1969 during a reline.
Primary System: 1 baghouse - 75 AM3/Sec (159,000 ACFM)
Secondary System: 1 baghouse - 83 AMJ/Sec (176,000 ACFM)
System not effective because of insufficient ventilation rates. Subsequent
system rates on other cast houses have been increased.
2. BLAST FURNACE NO. 2
2,828m3 (99,850 ft3)blast furnace inner volume.
Primary System: 1 baghouse - 75 AM3/Sec (159,000 ACFM)
Secondary System: Under Construction: 2 baghouses - 125 AMJ/Sec (159,000 ACFM)
per baghouse.
Air-to-cloth ratio is 0.017 meters/sec (3.4 ft./min) on secondary system
baghouses.
3. BLAST FURNACE NO. 3
3,016m3 (106,500 ft3) blast furance inner volume.
Primary System: 2 baghouses - 125 AM3/Sec (265,000 ACFM) per baghouse
Secondary System: 2 baghouses - 83 AMJ/Sec (176,000 ACFM) per baghouse
Air-to-cloth ratio is 0.017 meters/sec (3.4 ft./min)
Initially installed primary system only, secondary system was added
latter.
4. BLAST FURNACE NO. 4
4,197m3(148,200 ft3)blast furnace inner volume.
Primary System: 1 baghouse - 83 AM3/Sec (176,500 ACFM)
'- • '- - J —- 2 baghouses - '" —1/c
per baghouse.
r-ij.uia.Ly oy a i.em; .L uaijiiuuac: wj ni-i /——— % —.-,_ ^ ~ ..v~~.,
Secondary under construction: 2 baghouses - 125 AM3/Sec (265,000 ACFM)
bs '
Air-to«cloth ratio: 0.017 meters/sec (3.4 ft./min) on secondary system
baghouses.
5. BLAST FURNACE NO. 5
4,617m3 (163,000 ft3) blast furnace inner volume. See Figures No. 6-2 and
6-3 for sketches of the cast house emission capture system.
Primary System: 2 baghouses - 125 AM3/Sec (265,000 ACFM) per baghouse
Secondary System: 2 baghouses - 83 AM-ySec (76,500 ACFM) per baghouse
Air-to-cloth ratio is 0.017 meters/sec. (3.4 ft./min.) all baghouses.
Primary System Flow Rates - Cast from one tap hole
Tapping hole: 33 AM3/Sec (70,500 ACFM)
Spout: 42 AM3/Sec (88,250 ACFM) each os 2 ducts.
Skimmer: 17 AM3/Sec (35,500 ACFM)
Iron Kunner: 33 AlWSec (70,500 ACr.M.)
Spare: C3 AM3/3ec (176,500 ACI-'H)
Primary System Flow Rates - Cast from two tap holes simultaneously.
Tapping hole: 25 AM3/Sec (53,000 ACFM) each of 2 hoods
Spout: 25 AM3/Sec (53,000 ACFM) each of 4 ducts
Skimmer: 17 AM3/Sec (35,500 ACFM) each of 2 hoods
Iron Runner: 29 AM3/Sec (62,000 ACFM) each of 2 hoods
73
-------
Figure
NIPPON KOKAN K.K.
BLAST FURNACE No.5
FUKUYAMA WORKS
EMISSION CAPTURE SYSTEM
HOODS W/DUCTS OVER EACH SPOUT, / A CRANE FOR THIS
NOT READILY REMOVABLE. HOODS / ARE A OPERAT ES
EXTEND APPRO*. 12' BELOW FLOOR / PARALLEL TO FURNACE
TO PROVIDE CLOTHE CLEARANCE /
BETWEEN HOOD 4 TOP OF LADLE / / AUXILfcRV IRON
CAR.. SEE FU5URE. tj:.6-;i FCR / / SPOUT HOOD/W DUCT
B'J'.1.
r
TILTIN6 SPOUT
CENTER. SECTION
COVER,
F--T STEEV REFRACTORX
LINED COVER.S fo'xA'
SECONDARY SYSTEM
CURTAIN TYPE. WALL
STATIONARY, EXTENDING
DOWN TO WITHIN 3O'OF FLR.
4— SKIMMER
RUNNER TO PIT
COMPLETELV OPEN
NO COVER.S OR HOODS
10' OPENING BETWEEN
COVERS
CRAWEC PARALLEL
TO FURNACE.
CAST HOUSE FLOOR.
COMPLETELY OPEN.
SLAQ PITS.
HOT METAL BOTTLES DIRS.CTLV
B^N^ATM CA=oT MGUVc. Fl.OO^.
BLAST FURNACE COMMON; TO
TWO CAST HOUSES.
332
= ~™G°«*
A CRANE FOR
THIS AREA OPERATES
PARALLEL TO FURN.
RECTANGULAR VERT 1C
HOOD ON EACH 5IDE
OF TAPING HOUE AT
FLR. LEVEL W(TAKE-
OFF DUCTS THAT
DROP BENEATH FLOOR
SEE. FIGURE Uo.G-3
TAP HOLES W\TH
EMISSION CAPTURE
SYSTEMS SiMiLAR.
TO ABOVE;
PIVOT POST
SWIVEL
JOINT
.SWING ARM 4 DUCT SUPPORT
COVER OVER
SKIMMS.R ^
H3
~\
^
**.
41 Dl A!-.1=.TI_'<
8'SQ. HOOD
^COVERW/STACK
.FLAT COVERS
IRON RUNNERS
5ECTIOK1 /\-A
>^^7T"JI
CON^'ERSION FACTORS
1 ft. = .305 m
1m = 25 .4 mm
S'TOIQ" THICK KE.Ffi.'ACTOKN' Ak\" I-.
\BRICK NEEDS PERIODIC ~"
SECTION B-B
74
-------
Figure 6-3
NIPPON KOKAN K. K. FUKUYAMA WORKS
BLAST FURNACE NO. 5 EMISSION CAPTURE SYSTEM
TAP HOLE AND IRON SPOUT HOOD DETAILS
EXPANDED
METAL
J.
CAST MOUSE FLOOR
FROMT ELEVATION!
TAP HOLE HOOD
'.LR.OAD
32'
RAILROAD
1
-H
"bO
^i
f
S"
C
^v
->
— — __ ^
( )
^"7
l
cp
TILTIK1G SPOUT / \-CENTER SECT»OKl REMOVABLE
PL A*XI CONVERSION FACTORS
' 1 ft. = .305 m
IRON SPOUT HOOD
1 m = 25.4 mm
TA
-------
6., No data were available on quantity of "dust
collected" by baghouses0
7.. Baghouse dust was not being sent to a new
pelletizing plant because of start-up problems.
Within a year of our visit dust will be pelletized
then returned to the blast furnace. Dust is now
used for fill material.
8, Blast furnace No_ 4 primary system had no hood at
the tapping hole0 The theory is that tapping and
plugging fumes will be captured by the secondary
system.
9. B.F. No. 5 top gas pressures 1.171 E + 05 Pa to
9.806 E + 04 Pa (21.33 psig to 14.22 psig)
10. It could not be determined to what extent the
soaking bar technique is used at Fukuyama.
11. NKK docs not design to a specific parameter of cast
house volume air changes per hour. They did
indicate, howeverw that air change rates of
anywhere from 45 to 80 per hour can be found
throughout Japan.
12. The following air sampling data was obtained by NKK
in 1973 at the system baghouses on blast furnace
No. 5 cast house:
Primary System
Baghouse inlet 0.538 grams/NM3
Baghouse outlet 0,02 grams/NM3
Secondary System
Baghouse inlet 00078 grams/NM3
Baghouse outlet 0.011 grams/NM3
Improvements, in the form of increased primary and secondary
evacuation, rates, have been made to the emission capture systems
since the above data were collected,, Consequently, the present
evacuation rates of 250 Am3/Sec (530,000 ACFM) for the primary
system and 163 Am3/Sec (353*000 ACFM) for the secondary system
cannot be used to determine an emission factor. NKK was not able
to provide; information on evacuation rates employed during
sampling. The data does show that for this installation the
primary system baghouse inlet contains particulate matter at a
concentration which is almost seven (1} times greater then the
concentration at the secondary system baghouse inlet.
76
-------
Nippon Steel Corporation
Nippon Steel's first attempts at blast furnace cast house
emission control took place in about 1968 and were associated
with a new furnace. The first attempt did not have a curtain
type secondary system. It had hoods over runners and troughs and
spouts. Secondary system improvements were made with the
implementation of a curtain.
Improvements in both operating tactics and physical features
of covers and hoods has taken place through the years to increase
performance life and decrease maintenance.
Nippon Steel Corporation has twenty-six blast furnaces;
fourteen are equipped with secondary dust collection equipment;
the remaining furnaces will be equipped with secondary dust
collection equipment as their repair schedules occur. Of the two
Nippon Steel Corp. blast furnaces visited under this contract,
Oita No. 1 has complete equipment which can be considered typical
of new blast furnaces, while Kamaishi No. 1 has equipment typical
of relined and improved blast furnaces. Nippon Steel Corp.
experienced great difficulty in installing the secondary hoods
and monitors in Kamaishi No. 1 because belt conveyors and other
existing equipment hampered the remodeling of the cast house
building.
Nippon Steel Corporation's Technical Approach-
Nippon Steel approaches blast furnace cast house emission
control through two means: (1) primary dust collection, which is
defined as dust collection at tapholes and cinder notches, and
(2) hoods over iron troughs, spouts, etc. Nippon Steel feels
that primary dust collection is not always completely effective
in capturing emissions during tapping and plugging because
dusting (emissions) is most severe at this time and a portion of
the primary capture system must be removed for drill and mud gun
accessibility.
In order to improve upon the dust capture system, a secondary
system is normally employed. The secondary system involves total
cast house evacuation. This approach is to try to localize total
evacuation to the areas around the taphole. A movable curtain is
dropped into the working area of the blast furnace during tapping
and plugging and lifted above the crane during other times to
enable the crane to be used effectively. Nippon Steel feels this
approach improves the effectiveness of the secondary system
because the total effort of evacuation is concentrated in those
areas of higher dust generation.
Figure 6-4 is an illustration from Nippon Steel Corporation's
publication entitled "Blast Furnaces" and presents its dust and
fume collecting system. Nippon Steel feels that the details of
77
-------
NIPPON STEEL
CAST HOUSE EMIBI
'S
SYSTEM
1. The flow sheet on the right is one for a two-tapping-hole cast house.
2. Code
A Tapping ho e
8 Skimmer
C Tilting runrer for hot metal
D Tilting runrer for slag
E Curtain-type collecting hood or monitored collector
F Hood for fi rnace-top conveyor
Dumpers
1—4 Ddmpers for Main Duct
5 Dumper at collector inlet
6—1 7 Flow control dumpers for branch pipes
Note: Dumpers 7 and 8, 9 and 10, 1 3 and 14, or 1 5 and 16 may be
installec together at the same location.
3. Other Information
(1) Flowsheet
Piping installed on ground
Piping buried underneath cast house or under concrete
s abs
(2) Dumper opsration
Collector systems (1) to (4) are operated by controlling Main
Dumpers 1 to 4.
Dust and Fume Collecting Systems at Furnace Top and
Cast House
Flow Sheet of Cast House Collecting System
iT~. '- V
•'',•' ~^a£. ^o'e Opener.—
BF...Cente.r. \
1. Dust and fume collection at Tapping Holes
2. Collection at Skimmer
3. Collection at the lips of Iron and Slag Runners
4. Cast-house secondary collection (with curtain-type hood)
4! Cast-housL- secondary collection (by monitoriny)
Note: Either 4 or 4' is used for the cast house.
5. Hood for furnace-top conveyor
O&0 Furnace-top collectors (independent of
collectors 1 to 5)
(1) Cover for Main Iron Trough
(2) Jib crane for Main Iron Trough Cover
(3) Runner Cover
78
-------
both it's primary and secondary collection systems are
proprietary.
The secondary system normally employs three curtains that
cover three sides of the blast furnace; the fourth side is the
blast furnace. The top of the hood would be the roof of the cast
house. Curtains are dropped down two times during a casting
cycle, during tapping and plugging. At all other times the
curtain is raised to allow for normal activity. The area
enclosed by the curtain is important. If it is too small,
capturing dust will be ineffective. If it is too large, the
system fan will need to be larger than is necessary to be
effective.
During tapping and plugging the secondary system is operated
to its fullest extent, while the primary system evacuation rate
is reduced. At all other times the secondary system is closed,
while the primary system is operated to its fullest extent, with
the flow from the various pick-up points in the primary system
varying between one another.
I
The hoods over the runners, spouts and troughs are fixed.
Ducts from the hoods drop beneath the floor so they are out of
the way of the crane. Between these hoods the runners, troughs
and spouts have removable covers which are placed to enclose the
hot metal, forming a flue or duct between the covers and the
hoods.
Nippon Steel uses both top and side hoods. The top hood is
more effective, while the side hood is used primarily because of
accessibility. That is, the top hood cannot be effectively used
because of lack of space.
Not all runner covers are refractory lined. Covers are lined
only in the areas of most turbulence where iron can come in
contact with the covers. Generally this is in the area of the
tapping hole and the iron trough.
Immediately after the installation of a control system there
is normally some problem with the crane operator and his
awareness of the presence of hoods, covers and ducts. Through
time, his increased awareness of the system decreases equipment
damage.
Nippon Steel feels that an important design parameter for the
primary control system is the curvature of the covers for the
troughs and runners. The curvature has to be great enough to
allow for the proper flow of air for cooling and proper
evacuation at the hood. The normal temperatures of the air or
gas in the primary system hoods and ducts were not indicated.
79
-------
Nippon Steel feels that the amount of dust generated by a
blast furnace cast house varies with operating conditions. It is
not in a position, however, to discuss these operating conditions
and variables in detail. There are no data available on the
amount of dust generated or captured at any of it's works.
Nippon Steel's rough estimate of the percentage of dust generated
in the vicinity of the tapping hole is in the 30 to 40% range.
Blast furnaice flushing is not a normal activity at Nippon's
mills.
Nippon has tried control devices other than baghouses.
Presently, baghouses are the only devices it recommends and the
only devices it is pursuing. "The efficiency of the fabric
filter is excellent, and a fabric filter doesn't have the
wastewater problem associated with a wet scrubber."
Nippon Steel feels that the key element in the successful
implementation of a blast furnace cast house emission control
system is the awareness of the operator and effective operations.
This includes the operators timing in switching from the primary
to the secondary dust collecting system, his awareness of
maintaining and checking covers, etc. There basically is no
difference in a blast furnace emission control system for a new
or old casx house system except possibly for space limitations
and certain physical restraints on older type operations.
Nippon Steel does not have any single tap hole furnaces. It
feels that the operation of a single tap hole furnace would be
too small to justify economically. Additionally, it feels that
with a single tap hole furnace, the space requirements for a
curtain probably could not be met.
Oita Works-
The Oita Works, which was visited on February 18, 1976, is a
new integrated mill located on reclaimed land in a natural bay on
the southern island of Kyushu. The works was inaugurated in
June, 1971 with B.F. #1 blown-in in April, 1972. Construction
was recently completed on B.F. #2. Both B.F. t1 and t2 have
primary and secondary cast house emission control systems
originally designed with the facility (See Figures 6-5, 6-6 and
6-7 for a schematic diagram and field sketches of the Oita B.F.
#1 cast house emission control system). The emission control
system for blast furnace cast house #2 was not inspected.
The mill generally was exceptionally clean, though how much
of this was due to reduced capacity was unknown. B.F. |1 cast
house was also exceptionally clean with no debris, sand, etc.
littering the floor. In fact, the floor had recently been washed
down. Table 6-3 presents technical and statistical information
pertaining to blast furnace No. 1 and its cast house at Oita.
80
-------
Figure 6-5
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF CAST HOUSE
DUST COLLECTION AT OITA No.1 B.F.
NIPPON STEEL CORPORATION
NO.2 CAST HOUSE
MO. I CAST HOUSE
\ TO 4 AROUND TAP HOLES
5TO Q IRON TROUGH
9 TO 12 IROK^SLAQ SPOUTS
13414 SLAQ TR.OUQHS
15*16 TROUGH REPAIR SHOP
11 * IS SECONDARY DUST COLLECTOR
A PRIMARV SYSTEM BAG HOUSES SO M*/SEC EA.(l^.500CFM)
B PR.IMARY SYSTEM BAG HOUSES \O8MVSEC EA.(22^,*>OOCFM)
C SECOMDARV SYSTEM BAQ HOUSE 333 M3/SEC (7O6,OOOCPM)
-------
NIPPON STEEL
BLAST FURNACE No.1
OSTA WORKS
CAPTURE SYSTEM
TAP HOLE HOOD BENEATH
PLATFORM. DURING TAP-
PING, 400 TO SOO M3/MIN.
EXHAUST. RATE VARIES
OVER. DURATION OP CAST
COM&lNATlON
DRILL* JIB CRANE
FOR MOYiN6 COVER]
AT TAP
DOMED COVER
SEE NOTE HO. I
IRON TROUGH HOOD}--;
SLAG RUNWE.R.
SULFUR ODOR.
ALMOST CMOKIN'O
SLAG*
PIT
x&
SLAG SPOUT
HOOD
SECONDARY SYSTEM CORTAtW,
FABRIC W/AtUMlNJVlK SHEET CO/VT-
N DOWN POSITION C.UR.-
\S Ae-OUT 'SO' AE.OVE
FLOOR IN LIFT CO i'O'.,rnoN
CURTAIN IS ASOVE. CRANE.
5ECONDARV SYSTEM
DUCT IN ROOF APP^O*.
10'DIAMETER PLR.TKP HO
DAMPERED.
SEE NOTE NO.Z
IRON THOUGH APPROX.
3'WIDE X 4-'DEEP
SKIMMER
DOMED REFRACTORY
LIMED COVER'S,
FLAT STEEL REFRACTORY
LINED COVERS OVER
RUNNERS
SQUARE,FLAT, BOX TVPE HOOD OVER
SLAG RUNNER APPRO*. I0'* IS'x 3>' HI
W/APPROX.^4"DUCT COMIKJ6 OF"P
THE TOP 4 DROPPING, BENEATH
RUNNER
DUCT
W/EXPANSION
DUCTS IN
VERTICAL
1 IRON SPOUT HOOD
NOT' READILV REMOVE-
ABLE. DOSS MOT HAVE
ITS OWN JtB CR.MME.
OVERHEAD d?AN=; MUST
BE USED. VERY TrilKJ
REFRACTORY IUSIDE
HOOD 2O TO 3OMM
NOTES;
NO.\ DOMED COVER DESIGN IS CRITICAL. THE DOME MUST
BE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW FOR PROPER AMOUNT OF
AIR FLOW FOR COOLIKJ&.
CONVERSION FACTORS
CASTABLE
OVER BRICK
7.CION TROUGH
4' I
1 ft. = .305 m
1m = 25.4 mm
NO.7. APPRO*. 3>'GAP BETWEEN COVER 4 HOOD. NO ESCAP-
ING. EMISSIONS. DRAFT WAS SUFF \CIENT TO PULL
EMISSIONS FROM COVfclR TO THE HOODED SEC-
TION ACR.Ot>O THE QAP.
KJO.5
nnr?iMi I.. ( I i r. IIIM. ni.'-i
THAT THE IUOM THROU
-------
6-7
NIPPON STEEL CORPORATION - OITA WORKS
BLAST FURNACE NO. 1 ESMISSIO^ CAPTURE SYSTEM
MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS
/RAISED
*¥
V
\
-•«• — .
^
5ECOMD/\RV
L 6
^FABRIC >-DOWKi
JPOSmON
SXSTEM CURT MM
,J\B4HOIST FOR.
TROUGH COVER
J\B CRANE
HOOD $ HORIZONTAL DUCT
ROTATE AfcOUT SLIP JOINT
IN VERTICAL DUCT APPROX-
IMATELY. 10° COUNTER. CLOCK-
WISE SO HOOD \S CLEA£ OP
TROUGH
*SUPPORTIN6 STRUCTURE
HOOD OVER
DAM
IROKJ
nLU SL\P JO\NT \N DUCT
CAST HOUSE
FLOOR.
RQT/VT\MG HOOD AT
SUMMER 4 D/\M
DUCT TO
SYSTEM HEADER.S
.TUYERE PLATFORM
CON^^ERSION FACTORS
1 ft. = .305 m
1m = 25.4 mm
DUCT TO PRIMARY
SYSTEM HEADER
f
\
(0
\
fO
i
ro
*
'
' /^
H
OPEM FOR EMISSION
^, CAPTURE
^ /C^ST HOUSE FLOOR.
-^•^IRON TROUQH
t i ra *** LI L i >v «M* .^11
PROMT ELEVAT\ON OF BLAST
FURMACE TAP HOLE SHOWIMG
IRON MOTCH HOOD
83
-------
TABLE NO. 6-3
PITA WORKS - BLAST FURNACE NO. 1 AND
CAST HOUSE TECHNICAL AND STATISTICAL INFORMATION
1. BLAST FURNACE DATA
a. Furnace inner volume: 4,158 m-' (146,019 ft^),
b. Nominal furnace capacity: 10,000 MT/d (11,000 T/D^
c. Number of casts per day: 12 to 15,
d. Hearth diameter: 14 m (46 ft.).
e. Iron notch drill bit size: 40 to 50 mm (1.57 to 1.97 inches).
f. Number of iron notches: four.
g. Number of cinder notches: two.
h. Iron trough (pool) length as made up for cast: 19 m (62 ft.).
i. Iron trough (pool) width as made up for cast: 1200 mm (47.24 inches).
j. Iron trough (pool) depth as made up for cast: 1100 mm (43.31 inches),
2. BLAST FURNACES CURRENT AVERAGE OPERATING STATISTICS AND PRACTICES
a. Duration of cast: 90 to 120 minutes.
b. Oxygen not used to open tap hole.
c. Flushing is not routinely accomplished at cinder notch.
d. Normal blast pressure at beginning of cast: 3.70 Kg. per cm (52.6 psig).
e. Normal blast volume at beginning of cast: 106.67 Nm-3 per sec. (226.OOOSCFM^
f. Normal blast pressure when tap hole is stopped: 3.70 Kg. per cm^
(52.6 psig).
g. Iron trough is not normally drained after each cast.
h. Approximately 40 casts occur between iron trough draining.
3. BLAST FURNACE AVJJIAGE MATERIAL VALUES
a. Slag per ton of hot metal: 290 to 320 Kg per metric ton (580 to 640 Ibs.
per ton).
b. Coke per ton of hot metal: 395 Kg. per metric ton .(790 Ibs. per toni
c. Fuel used at tuyeres: heavy oil.
d. Coke quality, ASTM stability: DI 150/50 =82%.
e. .Amount of fuel at tuyeres: 80 Kg. per metric ton (160 Ibs. per ton^
f. Silicon content of hot metal: 0.4% .
g. Sulfur content of hot metal: 0.028%.
h. Manganese content of hot metal: 0.51%,
i. Slag basicity: CaO/Si02 = 1.24.
j. Sulfur content of slag: 1.00%.
k. Ore in metallic burden: 22.4%.
1. 3inter in metallic burden: 72.4%.
m. Scrap in metallic burden: 0.
n. Pellets in burden: 5.2%.
o. Coke is screened in the stock house.
p. Ore is not screened in the stock house ,
q. Sinter is screened in the stock house.
r. Large quantities of coke are not associated with cast
s. Hot metal temperature: 1510°C (2750°F1
4. BLAST FURNACE IRON TROUGH AND RUNNER MAINTENANCE
a. Frequency of iron runner remaking: 1 per month.
b. dumber of casts before relining runners: 100 to 120.
c. dumber of casts between major trough repairs: 50 to 60.
d. 'Number of casts between nominal trough patching: 25 to 30,
e. Material used to line trough: brick and stamp,
5. BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE PHYSICAL DATA
a. Tilting spouts are used for iron.
b. The blast furnace is common to two cast houses, one on each side of
iturnace.
c. Cast house has two cranes, one for each side of the furnace and operating
perpendicular to B.F.
d. Adjacent to the cast house are hard slag pits.
e. Hot metal bottles are beneath cast house floor.
f. Cast house floor is open.
34
-------
Discussions with Nippon Steel personnel and field
observations yielded the following salient points.
1. Oita No. 1 B.F. primary collection system maintenance:
a. First cover over iron trough at tap hole: lining
life about 10 days to 2 weeks.
b. Second cover over iron trough: lining life about 1
month.
c. Other system covers: almost permanent.
d. Bottom section of skimmer hood: about 6 months to 1
year.
e. All covers and hoods are lined with castable
refractory over refractory brick.
f. A special refractory not very high in alumina
content is used.
g. Most refractory problems are associated with
spalling.
h. Tilting spout hood had never been relined.
2. Dust collected by the cast house emission control
systems is sent to pug mills for processing followed by
sintering. There are three pug mills, one for each of
two primary system baghouses and one for the secondary
system baghouse. The plant has no precise information
on quantities of dust collected.
3. It is the opinion of the Technical Manager of Iron
Making at Oita that the following can be factors in the
amount of dust generated in the cast house:
a. Hot metal temperature
b. Top pressure
c. Length of tap hole - shorter tap holes generate
greater quantities of fugitive emissions then
longer tap holes. At Oita tap hole length is kept
over 3 meters (10 feet).
d. Mud permeability and heat resistance
e. Slag composition
85
-------
Oitafs experience is that hot metal composition does not
significantly affect dust generation.
4. Oita normally uses the ""soaking bar" technique. It is
felt that this technique helps reduce emissions since a
more controlled cast is possible. The technique
consists of inserting a steel bar partially in a newly
plugged hole for the purpose of setting the clay along
the length of the tap hole0 During tapping, the bar is
removed, then the drill increases the length of the hole
into the skull. When Oita was visited the "soaking bar"
was not being used.
5. Primary system ducts from hoods drop down and run
beneath the cast house floor„ This approach keeps the
cast house relatively free of overhead obstructions,
thus allowing a liberal use of hoods»
6. The cast house emission control system originally
installed at Oita No. 1 B«F. consisted of only four
taghouses. There was a single instance, sometime after
the furnace was blown~inff when wet tap hole clay was
used with a resulting tap hole blow-out. The blow-out
produced voluminous emissions,, much of which escaped
capture and left the cast house. Because of this
incident, the capacity of the secondary system was
increased and a fifth baghouse was added.
7. Curing the inspection visit to Oita No. 1 B.F., the
emission capture system was extremely effective with no
roticeable escaping emissions,, The primary system
captured the majority of emissions. Furnace tapping and
pouring was witnessed. Plugging was not observed.
8. Eot metal is desulfurized in torpedo cars adjacent to
the cast house using a patented Nippon process
designated as TDS (torpedo desulfuization system) .
Basically, the system consists of a rail car mounted
crevice which injects carbide into the torpedo car.
During operation, no noticeable emissions were observed.
9. Total Equipment costs (1972 prices) for No. 1 B.F.
€imission control system were as follows:
Ducts and Hoods $ 1,800,000
Bag Filters 3^600,000
I'ans & Motors •Jf7300f,000
TOTAL $ 60700^000
10. Oita No. 2 B.F. has an approximate inner volume of 5,000
M3 (176,500 ft3), with 5 tap holes and a cast house
emission control system serviced by two baghousesj. one
-------
for the primary system and one for the secondary system.
Total evacuation volume was not obtained.
Kamaishi Works-
The Kamaishi Works, which was visited on February 20, 1976,
is the oldest western style iron and steel facility in Japan, it
was first operated in 1857. This works, its site and layout are
similar to many of the older U.S. mills. The community abuts
the property line. There is little if any room for expansion or
growth, and there is a great deal of in-plant congestion. The
works is located in the Rikytsu National Park area. This fact
undoubtedly adds to the need for implementation of a sound
environmental control program.
Following World War II, B.F. t1 was completely rebuilt and
blown-in in 1948. B.F. #1 and its cast house were again
completely rebuilt in 1975 to include the installation of both
primary and secondary cast house emission control systems. The
unit was blown-in on January 8, 1976. See Figures 6-8, 6-9 5 6-10
for a schematic diagram and field sketches of the Kamaishi No. 1
B.F. cast house emission control system.
B.F. #2 was relined and retrofitted with cast house emission
controls in mid-1974. This cast house was not inspected.
Table 6-t presents technical and statistical information
pertaining to blast furnace No. 1 and its cast house at Kamaishi.
Discussions with Nippon Steel personnel and field observation
yielded the following salient points:
1. Blast furnace cast house #1 has a total primary and
secondary evacuation rate equivalent to approximately 50
air changes per hour. 50 air changes per hour is Nippon
Steel's general rule-of-thumb for evacuation to be
effective in eliminating all visible emissions during a
casting cycle.
Blast furnace cast house #2 has a total primary and
secondary evacuation rate equivalent to approximately 20
or 30 air changes per hour.
2. Primary and secondary system throttling dampers can be
controlled from either a main control room or from cast
house floor panels.
3. B.F. #1 control system employs two fans for use with the
single baghouse. One fan has a detachable coupling for
energy savings while the second fan always operates.
87
-------
Figure 6-8
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF CAST HOUSE
DUST COLLECTION ATKAMAISHI No.1 B.F.
NIPPON STEEL CORPORATION
CURTAIN
CURTAIN
TAKE-OFF
BAG* FILTER
I— (MR. FLOW CAPACITY
233 M3/SEC (<30,OOO CFM)
3$4
3
TAP HOLES
IRON TROUGHS
IRON SPOUT
SLAQ TROUGH
SLAvQ SPOUT
FE-St CHARGE
DUST DISCHARGER OF DUST
COLLECTOR
SECOMDAR.Y DUST COLLECTOR.
88
-------
Figure 6-9
NIPPON STEEL CORPORATION-KAMAISHI WORKS
BLAST FURNACE NO. 1 EMISSION CAPTURE SYSTEM
TUVER.E
PLMTORM
ELEV.
DR.ILL.4-JIB
ova OKIE POST
- WHEW OOWKJ TO
5' OF FLOOR
CONVERSION FACTORS
1 ft. = .305 m
1m =25.4 mm
89
-------
Figure 6-10
NIPPON STEEL CORPORATION-KAMAISHI WORKS
BLAST FURNACE NO. 1 EMISSION CAPTURE SYSTEM
MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS
,FCE SHELL
CAST HOUSE TUVERE
FLOOR
DUCT OPENING IS'*5
COVER WITH EXPANDED
METAL
COVER
SECTION THROUGH TROUGH COVER
BREAK FLANGES TO REMOVE
y H°OD WITH EOT CRANE
^.rV'A*N
DAMPERS
CURTAIK1
MOTE'.BOTTOM HOOD EXTEK1S1OM
GOES BELOW FLOOR TO VJiTHW
I' OF HOT METAL CAR.
HOOD OVER T1LT1K1G SPOUT
SYSTEM
TV P.
MIXER CONNECTION TO
HOT BLKST MAIN
^ C"RECTAM6ULAR DUCT l'x3V LOCATED 35'
HOT S.LAST MA\VJJFROM BUSTLE
^ PIPE'Y*.
MIXER
CONVERSION FACTORS
1 ft. = .305 m
1m = 25.4 mm
90
-------
TABLE NO. 6-4
KAMAISHI WORKS - BLAST FURNACE NO. 1 AND
CAST HOUSE TECHNICAL AND STATISTICAL INFORMATION
(1.97 inches)
1. BLAST FURNACE DATA
a. Furnace inner volume: 1,150 m3 (40,606 ft3).
b. Nominal furnace capacity: 1,500 tonnes/D (1,650 T/D)(
c. Number of casts per day: 8.
d. Hearth diameter: 8m (26 ft.\
e. Iron notch drill bit size: 50 mm for bit
42 mm for rod (1.65 inches),
f. Number of iron notches: two.
g. Number of cinder notches: one.
h. Iron trough (pool) length as made up for cast: No. 1 tap hole,
13 m (43 ft.) No. 2 tap hole, 11 m (36 ft.).
i. Iron trough (pool) width as made up for cast: Outer shell;
1,900 mm (74.80 inches) Inner width; 800 mm (31.50 inches).
j. Iron trough (pool) depth as made up for cast: 790 mm (31.10 inches)
2. BLAST FURNACE CURRENT AVERAGE OPERATING STATISTICS AND PRACTICES
a. Duration of cast: approximately 100 minutes.
b. Oxygen is occasionally used to open tap hole.
c. Flushing is not routinely accomplished at cinder notch.
d. Normal blast pressure at beginning of cast: 1.103 E + 04 Pa
(22.75 psig).
e. Normal blast volume at beginning of cast: 25 Nm per sec.
(53,000 SCFM).
f. Normal blast pressure when tap hole is stopped:
1.103 E + 04 Pa (22.75 psig).
g. Iron trough is not normally drained after each cast.
h. Iron trough is drained several times a month.
3. BLAST FURNACE AVERAGE MATERIAL VALUES
a. Slag per ton of hot metal: 340 Kg. per metric ton (680 Ibs. per ton).
b. Coke per ton of hot metal: 520 Kg. per metric ton (1040 Ibs. per ton).
c. Fuel used at tuyeres: tar or heavy oil.
d. Coke quality, ASTM stability: DI 150/50 = 82%.
e. Amount of fuel at tuyeres: 4,000 l/H/18 tuyeres.
f. Silicon content of hot metal: 1.8 to 2.2% (foundry),
g. Sulfur content of hot metal: 0.030%.
h. Manganese content of hot metal: 0.50%.
i. Slag basicity: CaO/Si02: 1.10,
j. Sulfur content of slag: 0.6%.
k. Ore in metallic burden: 20%.
1. Sinter in metallic burden: 60%^
m. Scrap in metallic burden: 0.
n. Pellets in burden: 20%.
o. Coke is screened in stock house«
p. Ore is not screened in stock house.
q. Sinter is screened in stock house.
r. Large quantities of coke are not associated with cast
s. Hot metal temperature: 1500°C (2732°F).
4. BLAST FURNACE IRON TROUGH AND RUNNER MAINTENANCE
Kamaishi No. 1 B.F. iron trough and runner maintenance had not
been assessed because furnace was recently blown-in.
5. BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE PHYSICAL DATA
a. Tilting spouts are used for iron*
b. Blast furnace serves one cast house.
•c. Cast house has three cranes that operate perpendicular to furnace.
d. Slag pots are used.
e. Hot metal bottles are beneath cast house floor.
f. Cast house floor is open,
91
-------
U. The secondary system curtain is dropped to a level about
1 1/2 meters (U 1/2 feet) above the floor during tapping
and plugging. During the visit to cast house #1 only
easting and plugging were witnessed, not tapping.
During casting, the secondary system curtain was kept
clown.
5. When B.F. 11 was rebuilt, the cast house roof had to be
raised several meters to make room for the secondary
system curtain. Also, the cast house floor and
foundations were reworked to allow for the installation
of beneath-the-floor primary system ductwork. The
rebuild was completed in 130 days. Additionally, space
limitations outside the cast house did not allow Nippon
Steel to install separate baghouses for the primary and
secondary systems. There is only one baghouse which is
used for both systems.
6. The Kamaishi cast house emission control system has four
(4) operating modes:
a. Tapping - Curtain lowered, secondary system most
effective, primary systems least effective.
io. Casting - Curtain lifted, secondary system
throttled, primary system at maximum exhaust.
c. Plugging - Same as tapping.
d. Melting only - curtain lifted, one fan disengaged
from motor, second fan throttled so that total
system may be only 30% of max. capacity.
7. According to the Deputy General Manager of Iron Making
Department, the secondary system is not as important as
the primary system. It is his estimate that 80 to 90%
of the dust is captured by the primary system.. This
must be a rough estimate since there is only one
baghouse for both the primary and secondary systems.
8. Kamaishi uses the soaking bar technique - approx. 2
meters (6.56 feet) in length.
9. The tap hole drilling angle is approx. 12°.
10. Furnace cinder notch is used only in emergencies.
11. There was no evidence of hot metal desulfurization in
the vicinity of the cast house.
12. B.F. #1 primarily produces foundry pig iron with
approximately 2% silica and approximately 3 % sulfur in
92
-------
the hot metal. Because this metal is relatively high in
silica, metal sticking to runners is common. Special
considerations such as ease of removal were necessary in
the design of B.F. #1 iron trough and runner covers and
hoods.
13. B.F. #2 produces iron primarily for the B.O.F.
14. The baghouse consists of "Teflon" woven cloth fabric,
maximum temperature 110°C. Bags are 10 meters (32.8
feet) in length and 202 mm. (8 inches) in diameter.
Air-to-cloth ratio is 1 to 1 on a meters basis, 1 meter
per minute (3.28 feet/min.). Approximate gas
temperature entering baghouse is 60°C (140°F).
Approximately 4,000 tonnes per month of dust comes from
the B.F. No. 1 baghouse and the B.F. thickeners. The
evacuation capability of the primary and secondary
systems totals 283 cubic meters per second. (600,000
CFM) .
15. B.F. #1 Cast House Emission Control System Costs:
1975 Prices
Ducts and Hoods $ 600,000
Bag Filters 1,200,000
Fans and Motors 500,000
TOTAL $2,300,000
EUROPEAN TECHNOLOGY
Selected European blast furnace operations were visited to
determine the extent of European achievement in controlling
emissions from casting hot metal. Installations visited were:
1. British Steel Corporations new Redcar installation at
Teeside, Middleborough, England, is about 93 kilometers (150
miles) north of London on the east coast of England. Included in
this visit were discussions of the British Steel's Llanwern Plant
in Wales.
2. Italsiders' Taranto Works in Southern Italy,
3. Mannesmann Aktiengesellschaft Huttenwerke at Duisburg
Huckingen, West Germany which is the steel producing site for
Mannesmann AG.
4. USINOR (Union Sederurgigue du Nord et de 1• est de la
France) at Dunkerque, France.
These sites were the only European plants found in our
literature search to either have emission controls installed or
being designed. A French plant at Solmer, Marseilles, also
93
-------
believed to have controls, was not visited due to schedule
difficulties.
The only plant with an operating emission control system was
at Taranto, Italy. This plant used a fabric filter with
polyester bags. The other plants were either new plants, not
completed, or, as in the case of Dunkerque, had no filters or gas
cleaning equipment.
British .Steel Corporation South Teeside Works, Redcar, England
Redcar #1 B.F. is under construction at a site where a new
integrated steel plant is being developed as part of a ten year,
3-billion-dollar expansion program, Redcar t1 B.F. will be
completed about 1978. The future will see a total of three new
10,000 tonnes per day blast furnaces, and three new EOF, coke
ovens, rolling mills, etc., giving the operation a 10 to 12
million annual tonne steelmaking facility. British steelmaking
has been nationalized in an effort to make it competitive with
U.S., Japan and Russia.
The plan view of the cast house of the #1 blast furnace at
Redcar i:s shown on Figure 6-11U Technical specifications for the
furnace are presented in Table 6-5. At Redcar #1, four iron
notches are provided, with removable iron troughs, each cast
house having an overhead crane serving two runners. Each hot
metal runner discharges via a tilting spout to either of two 450
tonnes hot metal mixer ladles, and each cast house is designed to
accommodate future hot metal ladles of up to 600 tonnes capacity.
One emergency slag notch is installed and slag from each cast
house discharges into twin slag pits. Provision was made for the
future installation of a slag granulating plant.
The two cast houses extend out to provide additional area to
serve for main and tilting iron runner maintenance. Each cast
house crane is designed to handle the main runner with a single
lift of approximately 85 tonnes. The system of removable runners
enables all wrecking and relining to be undertaken adjacent to,
but remote from, the main casting area^ which will reduce notch
down time.
The iron trough is designed with a slope of 1°, which permits
the retention of a deep pool of liquid iron in the area where the
flow of iron impinges on the pool, and thus provides lining
protection. Heat retention covers positioned over the trough
enable the iron to remain liquid between casts. Instead of
draining the iron pool after every castff which is common practice
in Europe, draining is undertaken after approximately 15,000
tonnes of iron are produced and subsequently at additional 5,000
tonnes intervals. Using this technique, runner lining life in
excess of 50,000 tonnes is achieved. The distance of 17 meters
-------
Figure 6-11
PLAN VIEW OF CAST HOUSE FLOOR
AT B.S.C. REDCAR AND LLANWERN BLAST FURNACES
BLAST FURNACE
IRON TROUGH
RED
BLAST FURNACE
TILTIN4 SPOUT
SLAG TROUGH
SLAG* PIT
TILTtNGi SPOUT
TROUGH
SLAG PIT
IRON TROUGH
LLANWERN^S
95
-------
EUROPEAN TECHNOLOGY
TABLE 6-5
EUROPEAN PLANT STATISTICS
Item Unit
Iron Production t/Day
Coke Rate Kg/t
Oil Rate Kg/t
Burden . %
Hearth Diameter M,
Working Volume M
No. of Cast Houses -
No. of Iron Notches -
No. of Slag Notches -
Runner Type
Pouring Spout -
Fume Control -
Taphole Diameter MM,
Blast Volume NM /M
Blast Pressure gar g
Blast Temperature C
No. of Stoves
Angle of Tap hole Degrees
Sulfur %
Silicon %3
Control Volume M /Sec.
Oxygen %
Trough Hood Repair Days
Slag
Iron Trough Length M-
Runner Volume M /Sec.*
No. Casts/Day -,
Stockhouse Vent. M /Se.c.
Ladles t..
Air Curtains " /Sec
Iron Spout i: /Sec
Slag Spout MJ/Sec.
Tap Hole Side Draft M3/Sec.
Over Trough M^/sec.
Gunners and Spouts M^/Sec.
' Red car
#1
10000
450
100
60 Sin-40P
14
3894
2
4
1
Removable
Tilting
Future
_
8700
2.5
1340
3
10
_
_
250
-
-
Pit
Italsider
Taranto
#5
8500
440
45
85 Sin-15P
14
3358
2
4
1
Removable
Tilting
Baghouse
76
5916
3.45
1514
4
12
0.24
0.60
167
3
20
Pit
Mannesmann
Huckingen
A
5000
-
-
-
10.4
-
-
-
-
Removable
Tilting
Future
—
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
278-
4
-
-
Usinor
Dunkirque
14
10000
485
120
74 Sin-16P
14.2
3765
4
2
1
Removable
Tilting
None
—
6750
2.5
1300
4
6
-
_
250
-
8
-
17
183
650
12
250
Open Pots
None
69
41
208
70
108
15
8
11
130 (Pots)
50
50
No Cleaning
-------
(56 foot) between tap hole and skimmer is sufficient, under high
blast pressure operation, to provide sufficient dwell time for
adequate separation of slag from iron.
In order to establish an improved working environment, dust
and fume extraction systems will be installed in the stock house
and cast houses. Iron and slag runners will be provided with a
system of covered hoods and a protective curtain will be
installed over each iron notch to ensure effective fume removal.
Collected fume will be removed from the air stream by filters
prior to discharge to the atmosphere.
At Redcar, discussions between B.S.C. and the local Alkali
Inspectors are still in progress to insure that the level of
noise and pollution emission conforms to standards.
The emission control system of the cast house was designed by
Nippon Steel, and modified by Davy Ashmore. A bag filter is
being considered at this time but some concern is being shown
because of the possibility of sparks reaching the bags. Davy
Ashmore has designed a spark arrestor in an attempt to eliminate
this problem. Ventilation rate for one tap hole runner system is
183 cubic meters per second (338,000 cfm). Tilting spouts will
be used with hooding. Individual point ventilation rates from
B.S.C. were not available.
The important feature of this plant design is the emphasis
placed on equipment to reduce fume emission and noise.
Taranto, Italy Italsider S.P.A.
Italsider's Taranto Works, the Southern Italy tube, plate and
sheet producer, ranks as Western Europe's largest single steel
mill. Annual capacity is 10 1/2 million tonnes. Special
government grants designed to promote industrial development in
southern Italy have provided most of the financing for the huge
mill. The Taranto Works draws fresh water from two small local
rivers and a mountain reservoir, then mixes it with desalted sea
water for use in various production units. The outflow is
treated before being returned to the Mediterranean.
There is a serious effort being made to ensure air quality.
Taranto1s newest blast furnace, B.F. f5, collects and filters
fumes from almost every conceivable source. The only visible
smoke, in or around the unit, comes from the trash discarded into
slag runners and burned during a cast.
The community of Taranto, which crowds approximately 135,000
people into it's narrow streets and alleys, wants to hold down
the possibility of future contamination of it's air and water by
insisting that the steel plant stay within present emission and
effluent limits.
97
-------
In the spring of 1976, Taranto was operating at about 80% of
its capacity. One vessel at Taranto's t1 EOF shop was idle,
reducing its number of heats per day output from a maximum of 90
to between 70 and 75. Taranto has five blast furnaces— two 10.2
meter hearth diameter furnaces, two 10.6 meter (35 feet) hearth
diameter, and one 14 meter (46 feet) hearth diameter furnace.
Number 1 blast furnace was down for relining.
Taranto's No. 5 blast furnace is the stellar attraction of
all the new facilities that came on stream in the latter stages
of the new expansion. Boasting a 14 meter (46 feet) hearth
diameter and a daily hot metal capacity of 10,000 tonnes, it
ranks as the worlds' fifth largest blast furnace. The furnace is
expected to level out at 11^,000 tonnes daily as its operators
gain experience.
Designed and built by an arm of the Felsider group with the
assistance of Nippon Steel Engineers, No. 5 has two cast houses
and four tap holes, any two of which can be used simultaneously
to achieve what amounts to continuous hot metal casting.
Charging is accomplished by conveyors from computer controlled
bins. Closed circuit television keeps tabs on the materials feed
to the furnace.
The 4 bell top is designed to operate at a maximum pressure
of 2.452 E + 05 Pa (35.5 psig). Actual operating pressure was
about 1.96 E + 05 Pa (28.4 psig).
Thirty-six tuyeres deliver hot blast from four externally
fired stoves at 1200° C (2192° F). Design limit is 117 cubic
meters per second (247,000 CFM)
The blast is enriched with oxygen at a rate of 3%. Coke
consumption is 440 to 450 kilograms per metric ton of hot metal,
and oil is injected at the tuyeres at the rate of 35 to 45
kilograms per tonne of hot metal.
The free standing, externally supported furnace also features
plate stave cooling, moveable throat armor and moveable runners.
Each tap hole casting station and slag outlet is hooded and
vented to fans which pull all the fumes through a baghouse. The
burden consists of 85% sinter and 15% pellets. No coke messes
have been experienced. The hot metal at a temperature of 1514°
centigrade (2757°F) has an analysis of .60% silicon and .024%
sulfur. Of the four tap holes. No. 1 and No. 3 are used for two
days and tinen No. 2 and No. 4 are used for the next two days.
The baghouse, which filters 167 cubic meters per second (353,000
CFM), has 1,000 bags of polyester cloth which are 300 millimeters
(11.8 inches) in diameter and 10 meters (32.8 feet) high. The
furnace casts 12 times per day into 260 tonne torpedo cars driven
with electric locomotives. There is also a desulfurization
facility a't the site.
98
-------
At the time of the visit to the cast house of No. 5 blast
furnace, the pouring spout ventilation was not operating due to a
closed valve in the duct, and heavy concentrations of emissions
were escaping around the pouring spout. The runners were hooded
completely, but some of the sections had been removed and their
use discontinued because of unacceptable maintenance created by
erosion of the upper edges of the runners by high velocity of air
through the hoods. There was some improvised corregated sheeting
at the tap hole to assist the side draft hoods. The ventilation
system in the cast house was doing a reasonably good job, except
for a malfunction when the damper closed at the iron ladle
exhaust take-off.
Huckingen, Germany
There are five blast furnaces at Mannesmann— #3, #4, #5, #6,
SA. A mock-up of "A" furnace emission control system was
available for inspection. The control system is scheduled to be
in operation in July, 1977. The "A" furnace has a 10.1 meter
hearth and produces around 5,000 metric tons per day of hot
metal. Mannesmann's engineers were very much interested in
discussing baghouses because they did not feel that they could
count on long life from cloth. They have had trouble with
baghouses in other installations and would prefer an
electrostatic precipitator.
The "A" furnace at Huckingen, Dusseldorf will have a solid
platform 3 to 3.U M. (10 to 11 feet) above the tap hole, with a
removable grating at the tap hole area. The proposed ventilation
rates in the cast house include 69 cubic meters per second
(147,000 CFM) each at the tap hole, trough and skimmer; and 28
cubic meters per second at the spout (59,000 CFM). Total
ventilation capacity will be 278 cubic meters per second (588,500
CFM) . The model displayed had side draft hoods directly at the
tap hole. A hood pivoted on a stanchion directly into the hot
metal trough area, with a side draft hood at the pouring spouts.
Curtain ventilation was not being considered. Also, runner
emissions will not be captured because they are considered
insignificant.
The No. 6 furnace produces about 2,000 tonnes per day with a
7 meter (23 feet) hearth diameter. The cast house consisted only
of a roof and was totally open at the sides; this diluted casting
fugitive emissions so thoroughly that they were hardly noticeable
from outside the cast house. However, tapping emissions were
quite noticeable.
The government has spent 70 million marks at Huckingen for
ambient pollution studies.
99
-------
The furnaces will produce about 10,000 tonnes per day with
either *3, #4, #5, or #6 down. The company produces four million
metric tons per year of steel for tubing only.
Usinor Steel, Dunkerque, France
The nteel works at Dunkerque is one of Europe's leading steel
producing centers. The eight million tonnes per year facility
has four blast furnaces, including a 14.2 meter (46.6 feet)
hearth diameter furnace capable of producing 10,000 tonnes per
day of hot metal.
Dunkerque upgrades nearly all of the million of tons of raw
materials it uses each year. To insure uniform blast furnace
charges„ ores are crushed, screened and blended before sintering
(sintering capacity is sufficient to provide 87.5% of the burden
material going into blast furnaces 1,2, and 3 and up to 74% of
the ore feed at number 4) . Coke and limestone are also screened.
The No. 4 blast furnace was blown in on May 1, 1973 and, with
it's auxiliaries, occupies 20 acres of plant property. The
furnace casts 7 to 8 times a day; has a conveyor charging system,
a coke rate of 485 kilograms per metric ton of iron (970 Ibs per
ton), a fuel injection rate of 120 kilograms per metric ton (240
Ibs. per ton) , a working volume of 3,765 cubic meters (133,000
cubic feet), and incorporates 2 cast houses. Each cast house is
vented with 250 cubic meter per second (530,000 CFM) volume.
There arc a total of 10 ventilation points with five points of 50
cubic metiers per second (106,000 CFM) in each cast house.
Breakdown of the ventilation points is as follows: from the
curtain there are two take off points of 25 cubic meters per
second eaich (53,000 CFM); from the pouring spout there are two
side draft hoods of 50 cubic meters per second (106,000 CFM) each
or 100 cvibic meters per second (212,000 CFM) total. Fume was
escaping from these hoods. At the tap hole hooding (which was
very ineffective) there were two vents at 50 cubic meters per
second (1! 06, 000 CFM) each or 100 cubic meters per second (212,000
CFM) totcil. Air curtains are vented with an additional 65 cubic
meters per second per cast house (138,000 CFM) . The furnace has
a trough 15 meters (49 feet) in length for the iron pool and a 6
degree angle tap hole. The furnace is cast from opposing tap
holes, one 41 cm. (16 inches) above the other. Both the iron and
slag are transferred to 130 tonne open ladles. Torpedo cars will
replace the open ladles in 1979. Other vital statistics are
given in Table 6-5.
The principal reason for the visit to Dunkerque was to obtain
information on a test that was carried out on the No. 2 blast
furnace using high sulfur fuel oil as opposed to low sulfur fuel
oil at the tuyeres. The usual No. 2 blast furnace operation
which utilizes 1% sulfur fuel oil, was considered as a base case
for the test period. Table 6-6 gives mean values which were
100
-------
FRENCH TECHNOLOGY
TABLE 6-6
Results of Comparative Tests on the Injection of Auxilliary
Fuel with 1% and 3.3%
Item
Coke-S
Fuel-S
Coke
Fuel
Coke & Fuel Rate
Slag-Basicity
Slag-S
Hot Metal-Si
Hot Metal-S
Hot Metal-Mn
Sulfur in Burden
Sulfur in Products
a. Slag
b. Hot Metal
c. Top Dust
d. Top Gas
e. Runner Gas
Total Sulfur
Emissions, Ave.
sulfur by
Terms
%
%
Kg/tHM
Kg/tHM
Kg/tHM
CaO/Si02
%
%
%
%
Kg/tHM
-
Kg/tHM
Kg/tHM
Kg/tHM
Kg/tHM
Kg/tHM
Kg/tHM
g/NM3
weight.
1%S
0.68
1.00
420
70
490
1.11
1.15
0.68
0.025
0.622
3.65
'
3.22
0.25
0.04
0.05
0.04
3.60
0.20
3.3%S
0.65
3.30
420
70
490
1.13
1.52
0.65
0.040
0.670
5.13
-
4.26
0.40
0.06
0.05
0.05
4.82
0.20
(from Slag)
101
-------
taken under steady state conditions. In discussions with the
engineer who conducted the testing, it appears that the errors
introduced by coke, fuel and slag flow evaluation, and by sulfur
measurements leave some doubt as to the test results.
Emissions from slag during tapping were periodically measured
at a point .5 meters (1.64 feet) above the slag runner by means
of a hood which was fitted to the runner geometry. The sampling
velocity under the hood was adjusted to correspond with that due
to free convection over the runner in order to obtain a true
estimate o:: the sulfur content of the air in the immediate
vicinity of the slag runner. It was found that sulfur
concentrations in the hood increased considerably as tapping
proceeded. The increase appeared to be associated with an
increase in the level of slag in the runner as tapping proceeded,
or, more likely, because of more efficient contact between the
slag and air in a full runner. Overall, the emissions from the
slag corresponded to a sulfur loss of 250 to 200 grams per tonne
of slag. This general level was confirmed by a comparison of
slag analysis at the tap hole and at the end of the runner.
Analysis did not sho" any increase in sulfur content in either
the top gas or runnor gas when the high sulfur fuel was injected.
Replacement of 1% with a 3.3% sulfur content in the fuel oil
lead to an increase of the hot metal sulfur content from .025% to
.040%, but higher sulfur content did not increase the emission of
sulfur compounds to the atmosphere. Systematic slag samples were
taken during casting, and variations up to .2% sulfur were
noticed in the same batch. For instance, during casting, suflur
content of the slag would vary from 1.4% at the beginning to 1.6%
at the end.
The No. 2 furnace on which the test was run has a hearth
diameter of 9.5 meters (31.2 feet) and a capacity of 1600 cubic
meters (56,500 cubic feet). Production is approximately 3,000
tonnes (3300 tons) per day of hot metal, with a coke rate of 420
kilograms per tonne of hot metal (840 Ibs. per ton). The carbon
content of the hot metal is about 4.6%.
LITERATURE SEARCH
An extensive literature search was made to uncover any
background information that might exist pertaining to the state-
of-the-art of cast house emissions control. It appears that if
any research or development work has been done on the control of
cast house emissions it has not been formally reported or
presented as a technical paper. Government computer services
referring to blast furnaces and control of pollution all centered
around top gas cleaning, but did not refer to cast house
emissions. A list of periodicals and reference books appears in
the bibliography.
102
-------
Visits were made to technical libraries including the
Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh and Lehigh University Library at
Bethlehem, Pa. These libraries contain most of the literature and
references to iron making. Most of the abstracts examined made
only vague references to pollution. Some of the foreign
suggestions were inappropriate, such as the Russian proposal to
wash down the roof of the cast house to recover the effluents.
Based on the results of the literature search, it appears
that this is the first indepth study that has been published on
cast house emission control. Studies generally were not
continued to a quantitative or conclusive phase and thus are not
recorded.
103
-------
SECTION 7
CONCEPT DESIGNS FOR EMISSION CONTROL
ON EXISTING BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSES
The following conceptual designs (or combination of designs)
are types of emission control systems which could be applied to
existing blast furnace cast houses0 These designs include a
method to satisfy conditions up to 100% emission collection
(which would be a system of total evacuation of the cast house).
The air volumes range from 94 mVseco f200^000 CFM) to 472
m3/sec. (1,000,000 CFM).
In most cases, concepts advanced have not been proven through
demonstration activities but are set forth as ideas or suggested
methods to follow. Building evacuation is in routine use at
DOFASCO whdle partial control of tap hole and trough area
emissions is routinely employed in Japan. Tests by Bethlehem
Steel Corp. on retrofitting partial control techniques, while
promising, indicate a need for a further development effort.
NO POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM INSTALLATION BUT THE APPLICATION OF
PROCESS REVISIONS AND PROCESS CONTROL MODIFICATIONS TO PRESENT
PRACTICES
Based upon B.E.E. observations of basic iron casting at 16
blast furnaces in this country it can be stated that the fume
quantities; generated at the iron trough and runners can vary
substantic.lly between cast houses. The tap hole, trough and
runner lining materials as well as hot metal chemistry and degree
of hot metal cooling are the reasons for the observed variations
in fume generation. Discussions with A.P. Green and North
American Refractories has substantiated our suspicion that the
lining materials used do have an effect on the quantities of fume
generated within the cast house. Quantitative data however, is
not known to exist. AISI believes that even if all emissions
from tap hole materials and trough and runner lining materials
could be eliminated by substituting different materials, a
substantial fraction of the present casting emissions will still
occur, namely those evolving from the molten iron and slag.
High-purity, tap hole ramming castables with a high alumina
content are suspected of producing less emissions than low
alumina materials. Additionally, the tap hole refractory should
be capable* of resisting carbon monoxide disintegration as
encountered in a reducing atmospheres Temperature resistance to
1900°C (3152 °F) and an ability to withstand the severe thermal
shock of being heated and cooled rapidly must be considered. The
dimensioned stability of the tap hole is very important to
104
-------
limiting emissions. A poor material will abrade due to the
passage of slag and other abrasive elements, causing enlargement
of the tap hole and, consequently, the ejection of particulate
matter. The ramming characteristics of the refractory are also
important to the forming of a strong, uniform plug. Internal
moisture should be easily removed, and an impervious barrier to
gases must be formed at set-up. Manufacturers are researching
materials in an attempt to develop resistant castables which can
decrease the emissions caused by this source.
Trough and runner lining materials vary from plant to plant
and a difference in fume emissions from this source is apparent.
A normal bottom lining of 830 T Nalram, UQ% alumina and 19%
graphite with a side lining of 67% silica, 7% alumina, 15% carbon
produced very little fume during casting at one site. However,
there are many other variables in the hot metal chemistry and
operating procedures so that a clear conclusion cannot be made
without further study.
It appears that if the runners are dry and the silica sand
has been applied properly, the emissions from the runner sides
are minimal. The use of coke breeze increases the emissions. If
the runners are short to reduce metal cooling, and the make-up
materials are applied properly, a decided reduction of fumes can
be achieved.
The emissions from the hot metal in the trough and runners
during cast are greatly increased when the hot metal temperature
decreases from a normal temperature of 145U°C to 1399°C (2650°F
to 2550°F). This decrease in hot metal temperature is a result
of a decrease in hearth temperature. The hearth temperature is a
function of the flame temperature maintained at the tuyeres,
which is usually about 195U°C (3550°F). The flame temperature is
controlled by the hot blast temperature, fuel injection rate,
moisture injection rate, and oxygen injection rate. A change in
the flame temperature at the tuyeres is influenced by a variance
in the ratio of carbon to iron-bearing materials. A deviation in
the chemistry of the burden materials and/or a scab build-up on
the furnace walls peeling off and dropping into the hearth will
cause a decreased hearth temperature, with a resultant decreased
hot metal temperature.
Improvements in burden sizing, quality and control could
reduce the casting emissions. Coke stability and the use of
suitable pellets are major factors to be considered as well as
the pre-reduction process which has considerable merit.
Use of the "soaking bar" technique applied in some Japanese
blast furnace operations has some merit in reducing tapping
emissions; to what extent, however, is not known. The principle
of this practice is to set the tap hole clay with heat, which
gives the tap hole added erosion and thermal resistance. A steel
105
-------
bar or rod is set in the tap hole at the time of plugging. It is
then removed at the time of casting by a special reversing action
of the drill, followed by tap hole drilling into the skull.
Hearth pressure, wind volumes and temperature of the hot
blast must be considered as important control factors in reducing
pollution.,
Supplementary fuel types, quantities and usage should be
considered along with geometric studies of iron trough
configuration, and the length and shape of both slag and hot
metal runners.
All of the above factors cannot be properly analyzed in this
study. An additional research program will be necessary to
properly evaluate the potential and feasibility of controlling
these factors to limit emissions.
Torpedo ladles, or hot metal bottles, are sometimes brought
into the cast house from outside areas where they have cooled and
picked up moisture. When the hot metal from the pouring spout
contacts the moisture, a violent reaction occurs, sending large
plumes of fume laden steam into the atmosphere. This condition
can be avoided by preheating the cars. An enclosure could be
provided, and a blast furnace gas lance could be used to
condition the ladles before filling.
These modifications to materials and operating procedures
would provide some cast house emission control with little or no
increase in energy consumption, and, therefore, would not
increase jjollution from energy producing sources. The economics
have not teen reported in this study because of the lack of
specific knowledge of furnace operating technique modifications
that would affect emissions.
PARTIAL CONTROL OF CAST HOUSE EMISSIONS WITH NO CHANGES IN
PROCESS
Particil control could be obtained by capturing that portion
of fume that escapes from the tap hole and iron trough area in an
overhead,, curtain-type, retractable enclosure. The concentration
of participate matter emanating from this zone is estimated to
vary from 50% to 80% of the total emissions from casting. Some
concept designs which could be considered for the application of
a partial enclosure to capture the fumes generated in the area of
the tap hole and iron trough are shown on Figures Nos. 7-1 thru
7-12. These designs have not been demonstrated as being feasible
on single tap hole furnaces
Figure's 7-1, 7-2 and 7-3 are three sketched views of a hood
concept utilizing telescoping metal plates as shown on
106
-------
figure 7-1. These are loose fitting sections of reinforced
plates, raised and lowered on three sides to form a hood or
enclosure. It should be possible to design this type of
arrangement for effective operation. Negative factors are
weight, leakage, and malfunctions due to buildup of dirt. A
compressed air header with properly positioned vents could direct
the fume away from the space between the bustle pipe and furnace.
Figure 7-5 depicts the roll-up curtain with the mandrel
located in the trusses. The curtain would be fabricated from a
high temperature 1093°C (2000°F) textile material strengthened by
inconel wire. A guy wire fixes the rear edge, and the forward
edges are interlocked at the bottom. The curtain would drop to a
selected height above the mud gun and drill to allow for free
operation at the tap hole. Negative factors are mostly ones of
safety, such as worker reluctance to work in the area near the
curtains in case of malfunction or failure of material.
Figure 7-6 illustrates the method Carborundum recommends be
used with its "fiberfrax" material. Roll-up would be achieved by
cables around the bottom pipe. This would minimize the safety
problems because the curtain material would not be subject to the
total weight of the assembly.
Figure 7-7 is a scheme that would draw the flexible curtain
up between the crane and trusses and eliminate roll-up problems.
Negative factors are similar to those discussed for Figure 7-5.
Figure 7-8 shows a method utilizing metal slats which are
drawn up similar to Venetian blinds. This method could be
rendered ineffective by a build-up of dust that could cause
difficulty in raising the curtain, and also considerable leakage
would occur around the slats.
Figure 7-9 is an arrangement of metal plates, connected by
loose hinges, which are folded under the trusses by cables and
winches. This method, while secure, would leak considerably
because of the spaces between the plates.
Figure 7-10 is similar to Figure 7-9 except larger plates are
used if the space between the crane and truss is adequate. The
negative factors are the same as those for Figure 7-9; buckling
would have to be eliminated by reinforcement, which would
increase the weight considerably.
Figure 7-11 is a plan similar to Figure 7-1 except that the
partial hood would be used for multiple tap hole furnaces. Since
only one tap hole would be casting at a given time, the volume of
vented air could remain the same as a single tap hole furnace if
dampers are used to control the flow. The idle curtain could be
drawn up into the truss area.
107
-------
Figure 7=1
PLAN VIEW SINGLE TAP HOLE FURNACE PARTIAL EMISSION CONTROL CONCEPT
o
oo
TRACTABLE
R TAP 'HOLE,
TRpUGH 4SKIMME
BLAST
FURNACE
-------
Figure 7-2
FRONT ELEVATION SINGLE TAP HOLE FURNACE
PARTIAL EMISSION CONTROL CONCEPT
RETRACTABLE
FUME COLLECTING
ENCLOSURE
BLAST
FURMACE
TAKE-OFF DUCT
TO COUTROL DEVICE
HOT METAL
LADLE
HOT
.METAL.
CARS
SLAG CAR
V
109
-------
Figure 7-3
SIDE ELEVATION VIEW SINGLE TAP HOLE FURNACE
PARTIAL EMISSION CONTROL CONCEPT
-I
BLAST
FURNACE.
PUME COLLECTING EWCLOSURE
RETRACTED ABOVE CRA.ME
RML DUR.\VAG PERIODS WWEN
FURVJACE IS NOT CASTING
TA.P HOLE'
-------
Figure 7-4
TELESCOPING METAL PLATES
TOP PLATE HINGED
111
-------
Figure 7-5
ROLL-UP CURTAIN LOCK-BOTTOM
WITH GUY WIRE AT REAR
ill!
112
-------
Figure 7-6
ROLL-UP CURTAIN FROM BOTTOM
113
-------
Figure 7-7
ROLL-UP INTO AREA BETWEEN
CRANE AND TRUSSES
114
-------
Figure 7-8
VENETIAN BLIND TYPE METAL SLATS
115
-------
Figure 7-9
FOLD-UP METAL PLATES
116
-------
Figure 7-10
FOLD-UP METAL PLATES
117
-------
Figure 7-11
PLAN VIEW MULTIP! F TAP urn F
00
_
I KOL CONCEPT
II
OAMPEREO
DUCTS TO
RETRACfTABLE ENCLOSURES
OX/ER TJ\P HOLE , IROM TROUGH
AV4D SHIMMER
FURNACE
SLAG RUMMER
RUKJKlERx
-------
Figure 7-12
RETRACTABLE HOOD FOR PARTIAL CONTROL
HOOD
r
SWIVEU JOINT
RETRACTABLE DUCT
EXHAUST
DUCT
119
-------
Figure 7-12 is a sketch of a swinging metal hood concept that
is pivoted from a stanchion located out of the crane runway area.
The hood swings and telescopes when not in use. The hood also
telescopes in vertical travel to clear the mud gun and drill.
Cables from winches located in the trusses would raise and lower
the hood and swing it away when not in use.
Calculations were made to estimate temperatures and volumes
of off-gases from a curtain enclosure of selected size. (See
Appendix B pages B-2 through B-6). These calculations indicate
that a volume of exhaust air of 90.8 mVsec (192,000 ACFM) with
fume will exit the enclosure at a temperature of 79°C (174°F).
This volume is based on a face velocity of 1.27 meters per second
(250 FPM) through the open areas between the enclosure and the
cast house floor (See page B-6 of Appendix B). An in-draft or
face velocity of 1.27 meters per second should be sufficient to
prevent fume which is generated in the tap hole and trough zone
from escaping the enclosure if there are minimal cross-drafts
within the cast house. If necessary, the face velocity can be
increased by either altering the design or configuration to
reduce the open are's of the enclosure while maintaining the
exhaust volume or by increasing the exhaust volume. Control of
emissions at the tap hole and iron trough should capture a high
percentage of the cast house emissions and is a potential
solution to the cast house air pollution problem. This approach
would augment the process revision alternative discussed in the
first alternative and which is the logical first step for
consideration. The curtain enclosure would exhaust to a baghouse
(See Figure 7-13) .
Figure 7-14 illustrates the flow of emissions from a typical
blast furnace employing partial control by the curtain system,
and Table 7-1 tabulates 1976 order-of-magnitude (>^30%) costs.
Because the Japanese have used retractable curtains as part
of cast house ventilation design, the possibility exists that a
practical design for a partial control hood can be developed.
This could only be verified from actual installations or
selective demonstration systems.
This type of installation may satisfy most regulations for
process weight emissions. However, it is doubtful if any control
system other than total control would meet a requirement for no-
visible emissions.
Any additional equipment or trough systems applied to the
cast house would of necessity increase the number of maintenance
personnel and the overall operating problem. Areas within the
cast house would have to be reserved to work on the equipment
involved, and cranes and moving equipment would be needed to
install and move hooding. Normal maintenance of the control
device would have to be provided, such as replacement of fabric
120
-------
Figure 7-13
COLLECTING SYSTEM fOR PARTIAL EVACUATION 94.4 M3/Sec.
T
U.I M
, \.1 TO I INTERMITTENT
POSITIVE PRESSURE
BAGHOUSE
4645 M7 CLOTH
,BY- PASS STACK
7.I3M.OIA.
5OOHP MOTOR
MATERIAL, HANDLING FAW
Q
CAST HOUSE
-------
PARTIAL CONTROL VALUES
(1)
(1) CAPTURE OP 70% OP CASTING
EMISSIONS THROUGH USE OF
A REMOVABLE HOOD TYPE
ENCLOSURE AT THE TAP HOLE
AND IRON TROUGH ZONE
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
SO EMISSIONS
NO EMISSIONS
4172 KWH/DAY
1.9 KG/DAY
22.5 KG/DAY
13.3 KG/DAY
NJ
N)
49 TO 147 KG/DAY /&=-:
94.4 M3/SEC. (200,000 CFM)
FOR 7 HRS./DAY
114 to-
343 KG/DAY
BY-PASS
STACK
0 KG/DAY
BLAST FURNACE
& CAST HOUSE
1634 M.T./DAY HOT METAL
CASTING EMISSION FACTOR:
0.1 to_0.3 KG/METRIC TON
7"CASTS/DAY
46 MIN/CAST
POWER GENERATING
STATION
100% COAL. EMISSIONS COMPLYING
WITH NEW SOURCE STANDARDS
1 to 3 KG/DAY
\x\x\
BLOWER
& MOTOR
BAGHOUSE (99% EFF.)
113 TO 340 KG/DAY
TO BURDEN
WWWW
SINTER MACHINE
-------
TABLE NO. 7-1
COST BREAKDOWN PER ANNUM OF 94.4 M3/3EC. (200,000 CFM) PARTIAL CONTROL CURTAIN SYSTEM
BASED ON 18 YEAR LIFE
YEAR
1
2
3
4
5
6
il
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
LABOR ELECTRIC MAINTENANCE BAGS
(1,3) (3,2) (4,2) (5,2)
10,600. 85,203.
11,236. 90,315.
11,910. 95,734.
12,625. 101,478.
13,382. 107,567.
14,185. 114,021.
15,036. 120,862.
15,938. 128,113.
16,895. 135,800.
17,908. 143,908.
18,983. 153,585.
20,122. 161,740.
21,329. 171,445.
22,609. 181,731.
23,966. 192,635.
25,4')3. 200,193.
26,928. 216,445.
28,543. 229,432.
1. CURRENT LABOR -
2. INFLATION - b.OX
3. S.030/KHH
4. 5. OX OF CAPITAL
5. BAG COSTS -
6. 4. OX OF CAPITAL
7. 8. OX
8. AT 8. OX
CAPITAL COSTS s
AMOUNT FINANCED
121,900.
129,214.
136,967.
145,185.
153,896.
163,130.
172,917.
183,292.
194,290.
205,947. 42,
218,304.
231,402.
245,267.
260, 004.
275,604.
292, 140.
309,669.
328,249.
310,000.
124,000.
12,300,000.
a 32,070,000
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
980.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
•
PROPERTY
TAX
INSURANCE
(6,2)
97,520.
103,371.
109,573.
116,148.
123,117.
130,504.
136,334.
146,634.
155,432.
164,758.
170,643.
185,122.
196,229.
208,003.
220,483.
233,712.
247,735.
262,599.
DEBT
INTEREST
(7)
165,599.
161,178.
156,402.
151,245.
145,674.
139,659.
133,162.
126,144.
118,567.
110,381.
101,542.
91,995.
81,686.
70,550.
58,525.
45,536.
31,511.
16,360.
SERVICE
PRINCIPAL
55,274.
59,695.
64,471.
69,628.
75,199.
81,214.
87,712.
94,730.
102,307.
110,492.
119,331.
128,878.
139,167.
150,323.
162,348.
175,337.
189,362.
204,513.
3S2Z:Sw~«£S
92,070,000.
PRESENT PRESENT WORTH
TOTAL WORTH TOTAL
ANNUAL MULTIPLIER ANNUAL
COSTS (8) COST
536,096.
555,009.
575,057.
596,309.
618,835.
642,712.
668,023.
694,852.
723,290.
796,416.
785,389.
819,260.
855,163.
893,220.
933,561.
976,322.
1,021,649.
1,069,696.
.9259
.8573
.7938
.7350
.6806
.6302
.5835
.5403
.5002
.4632
.4289
.3971
.3677
.3405
.3152
.2919
.2703
.2502
496,385.
475,831.
456,499.
438,305.
421 , 169.
405,018.
389,785.
375,407.
361,825.
368,895.
336,840.
325, 3«0.
314,442.
304,107.
294,298.
284,980.
276,121.
267,691.
$6,592,930.
S230 , 000.
56, 622 , 930 .
-------
and removal of upper dust, in a baghouse. Maintenance factors are
known to b€> high on fabric filters and special personnel must be
trained to handle the problems involved. If air moving
equipment, for example, should be taken off stream for
maintenance on a totally-evacuated, closed cast house, a back-up
ventilation system would be required to maintain an acceptable
working environment, with this condition, natural ventilation
could be achieved by opening roof monitors and additional side
wall air inlets. There is a relationship between maintenance and
productivity; and the additional equipment which would be
required to effect a pollution control solution would add to the
maintenance required to ensure high productivity. Many problems
which are now encountered in casting hot metal such as trough
explosions and wild casts must be considered in the design of any
system to ninimize system damage and added clean-up efforts.
PARTIAL CONTROL OF CAST HOUSE EMISSIONS INCLUDING PROCESS CHANGES
The partial control system in this alternative is the same as
the one in the previous alternative. A substantial quantity of
fumes from the runners may be decreased by modifying physical
dimensions and by using alternative materials in the linings.
The emissions from the hot metal are largely a function of
temperature and surface area. Both of these variables could be
studied to achieve diminished emissions. By moving the spouts
closer to the dam a reduction in the length of the runners will
be achieved reducing hot metal exposure and cooling and thus
reducing eriissions. However, to do so would entail extensive
remodelling of the cast house as well as relocating the hot metal
railroad tracks. The practicality of such alterations is
suspected to be very limited.
Production and maintenance procedures to minimize problems
can only be established through tests at an actual operating
installation.
Based upon the first year total annual cost for a partial
control system, as presented in Table 7-1, and a blast furnace
that produces approximately 1500 tonnes per day (536,000 tonnes
per year)„ the iron pool partial control installation would add
approximately $1.00 per tonne to the cost of the production of
hot metal. The AISI ad hoc committee estimates that the 1976
cost of production of hot metal is $120 per tonne.
TOTAL EMISSION CONTROL BY CAST HOUSE EVACUATION WITHOUT
CONSIDERING PROCESS CHANGES
Total evacuation of the cast house could be achieved
satisfactorily with a ventilation rate of 60 or more air changes
per hour. This could require air volumes up to 28,300 cubic
-------
meters per minute (1,000,000 CFM) depending upon cast house
volume. If the cast house volume exceeds 28,300 cubic meters
(1,000,000 cubic feet), properly designed and installed baffles
could segment the cast house volume and, by suitable programming
of ventilation, permit essentially total evacuation with 28,300
cubic meters per minute (1,000,000 CFM). The cast house would be
sufficiently closed to maintain an inlet velocity which would
prevent upsets by cross-drafts. The ventilation rate could be
cut back as much as 50% after casting is completed and the tap
hole is closed. Evacuation rates vs. inlet velocities through
open side areas of the cast house are shown on Figure 7-15.
Power house emissions based on evacuation rates are shown on
Figures 7-16 and 7-17 and 7-18.
Cast houses could be designed with adjustable louvers in the
side sheets or side partitions which could be opened and closed
between casts. Ventilation control could be synchronized with
the opening and closing of side sheets, greatly reducing the
amount of air necessary to ventilate the cast house between casts
and during other non-operating phases. The primary advantage of
total evacuation is that there are no structures or equipment in
close proximity to the iron making operation. It does require
closing cast house wall, floor and roof openings in order to
control air flow, which could possibly cause atmospheric problems
in the cast house.
The total evacuation principle of pollution control would
have the least effect on productivity of the blast furnace. In
the case of individual or localized hooding, problems could arise
which would curtail productivity to some extent. For example,
maintenance ,scheduled or otherwise, on a hooded runner or a
breakdown in the operation of a retractable enclosure or curtain-
type hood could delay casting operations and reduce production.
It is the opinion of some blast furnace operators that no
maintenance work could be conducted on a producing furnace. The
unions and operating personnel could require a shutdown in order
to perform maintenance functions on a hood or cover on a single
tap hole furnace. Therefore, there is the possibility that
anything other than total control of fumes from the cast house
through the use of total evacuation could create a decrease in
production.
The 1976 order-of-magnitude (>+30%) cost to install a total
evacuation system, including baghouse, fan, and ductwork with
dampers, is shown in Figures 7-19 and 7-20. For example, at a
rate of 330m3/sec. (700,000 CFM) the system would cost about
$5.00 per tonne of hot metal. Total costs for systems from 94
m3/sec. (200,000 CFM) to U72 m3/sec. (1,000,000 CFM) are
tabulated on Tables 7-2 thru 7-10. Site specific costs could
result in significant deviations from the approximations. The
capital costs presented in these figures and tables are
approximately 25% less than the costs presented in the Arthur D.
125
-------
UJ
cc
LU
Q.
o 3
Q <
LU
LU
Q
CO
UJ
CO
o
O
I
Figure 7-15
CAST HOUSE SIDE WALL INLET VELOCITIES DUE TO
TOTAL EVACUATION VENTILATION RATES
MPS
FPM
236.0
|500|
283.2
|600|
330.4 377.6
|700| [800|
CAST HOUSE EVACUATION RATE
Cubic Meters / Second
[ Cubic Feet / Minute x 103 !
-------
Figure 7-16
HORSEPOWER REQUIREMENTS FOR CAST HOUSE
TOTAL EVACUATION
2 °
o i
r-
2 T~
O CC
3 2
V) &
o
Z
<
DC
OC CC
LU O
s "•
O uj
u.
CO
-
-
DC
<
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
[o]
47.2
[100]
97.4
200)
141.6
300
188.8
|400|
236.0
[500]
283.2
[600|
330.4
I 700)
377.6
[800
424.8 472.0
[900[ [1,000]
CAST HOUSE EVACUATION AIR VOLUMES
Cubic Meters / Second
[Cubic Feet/Minute x103]
-------
Figure 7-17
POWER PLANT EMISSIONS RESULTING
FROM CAST HOUSE EVACUATION
en x
58
< m
Sis
O
£H
£0:
55 &•
w •
s-
00
Q. H
272.2
(600)
226.8
(500)
181.4
(400)
136.0
(300)
90.7
1200)
15.4
(100)
POWER HOUSE PARAMETERS
100 % COAL
EMISSIONS COMPLY
WITH NEW SOURCE
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
!
f
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
POWER REQUIREMENTS HORSEPOWER - HOURS / DAY
-------
Figure 7-18 /Hs
TOTAL EVACUATION VALUES(1)
'CAPTURE OF 100% OF CASTING
EMISSIONS BY 60 TOTAL CAST
HOUSE VOLUME AIR CHANGES
PER HOUR.
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
SO EMISSIONS
NOX EMISSIONS
18,980 KWH/DAY
8.5 KG/DAY
102.5 KG/DAY
60.7 KG/DAY
NJ
0 KG/DAY
94.4 M3/SEC.
189 MVSEC. (400,000 CFM)
?OR 7 HRS./DAY
(200,000 CFM)
FOR 17 HRS./DAY
163 TO
490 KG/DAY
POWER GENERATING
STATION
100% COAL. EMISSIONS COMPLYING
i WITH NEW SOURCE STANDARDS
STACK 2 TO 5 KG/DAY
0 KG/DAY
\7\7
BLAST FURNACE
& CAST HOUSE
1634 M.T./DAY HOT METAL
11340 CU.M. CAST HOUSE VOLUME
CASTING EMISSION FACTOR: 0.1 to 0.3 KG/METRIC TON
7 CASTS/DAY
46 MIN./CAST
BLOWER
& MOTOR
BAGHOUSE (99% EFF.)
161 TO 485 KG/DAY
TO BURDEN
WWWw
SINTER MACHINE
-------
Figure 7-19
GAS FLOW RATE
vs.
INSTALLED COST OF CLOTH COLLECTOR
SYSTEM FOR TOTAL CONTROL OR COMPLETE EVACUATION
C/)
0 47.2 97.4 141.6 188.8
[0] [100] [200] [300] [400|
236.0 283.2 330.4 377.6
[500] [600] [700] [800]
424.8 472.0
[900] [1,000]
VENTILATION FLOW RATE
Cubic Meters / Second
[CUBIC FEET/MINUTE x 103
-------
Figure 7-20
INSTALLED UNIT COST FOR CLOTH COLLECTOR SYSTEM
FOR TOTAL CONTROL OR COMPLETE EVACUATION
10.5
0 47.2 97.4 141.6 188.8
[0] [100] [200] [300] [400[
236.0 283.2 330.4 3/7.6
[500] [600] [700] [800]
424.8 472.0
[900] [1,000]
VENTILATION FLOW RATE
Cubic Meters / Second
[Cubic Feet/Minute x 1O3
-------
TABLE NO. 7-2
COST BREAKDOWN PER ANNUM OF 94.4 M3/SEC. (200,000 CFM) TOTAL EVACUATION SYSTEM
BASED ON 18 YEAR LIFE
KJ
YEAR
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
16
15
16
17
15
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
6.
LABOR
(1,2)
10,600.
11,236.
11,910.
12,625.
13,382.
10,185.
15,036.
15,938.
16,895.
17,908.
18,983.
20, 122.
21,329.
22,609.
23,966.
25,403.
26,928.
28,543.
ELECTRIC
(3,2)
110,151.
116,760.
123,766.
131,192.
139,063.
147,007.
156,251.
165,626.
175,560.
166,098.
197,263.
209,099.
221,605.
230,940.
209,001.
263,983.
279,822.
296,611.
MAINTENANCE
(4,2)
109,710.
116,293.
123,270.
130,666.
138,506.
106,817.
155,626.
160,963.
170,861 .
185,353.
196,070.
208,262.
220,758.
230,003.
208,040.
262,926.
278,702.
295,020.
CURRENT LABOR • $10,000.
INFLATION - 6.OX
S.030/KWH
5.OX OF CAPITAL
BAG COSTS • 124,000.
4.OX OF CAPITAL
6.0X
AT 8.0X
BAGS
(5,2)
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o. •
42,960.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
PROPERTY
TAX
INSURANCE
(6,2)
87,76*.
93,030.
98,616.
100,533.
110,805.
117,453.
120,501.
131,971.
139,889.
148,282.
157,179.
166,610.
176,606.
187,203.
198,035.
210,301.
222,961.
236,339.
DEBT
INTEREST
(7)
149,040.
145,060.
100,762.
136,120.
131,107.
125,693.
119,805.
113,529.
106,710.
99,303.
91,3S8.
82,796.
73,518.
63,095.
5?, 673.
00,983.
28,360.
10,724.
SERVICE
PRINCIPAL
49,746.
53,726.
58,024.
62,666.
67,679.
73,093.
78,901.
85,257.
92,076.
99,003.
107,398.
115,990.
125,268.
135,291.
106,113.
157,803.
170,026.
184,062.'
SI, 663, 000.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COSTS
517,015.
536,109.
556,308.
577, B02.
600,503.
620,648.
650,200.
677,280.
705,990.
779,007.
768,685.
802,879.
839,125.
877,505.
918,270.
961,039.
1,007,199.
1,055,703.
PRESENT
WORTH
MULTIPLIER
C8)
.9259
.8573
.7938
.7350
.6806
.6302
.5835
.5003
.5002
.0632
.<»289
.3971
.3677
.3005
.3152
.2919
.2703
.2502
5 «•
PRESENT NORTH
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COST
478,717.
459,627.
001,607.
420,702.
008, 719.
393,630.
379, 386.
365,916.
353,173.
361 ,017.
329,676.
318,835.
308,505.
298,770.
289,078.
280,635.
272,215.
260, 189.
56,028,875.
$207, 000.
56,635,875.
CAPITAL COSTS *
AMOUNT FINANCED =
•2,070,000.
SI,863,000,
-------
TABLE NO. 7-3
COST BREAKDOWN PER ANNUM OF 141.6 M3/3EC (300,000 CFM) TOTAL EVACUATION SYSTEM
BASED ON 16 YEAR LIFE
u>
U)
YEAR
1
a
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
6.
LABOR
(1,2)
10,600.
11,236.
11,910.
12,625.
13,382.
14,185.
15,036.
15,938.
16,895.
17,908.
18,983.
20,122.
21,329.
22,609.
23,966.
25,403.
26,928.
28,543.
ELECTRIC
(3,2)
165,226.
175,140.
185,648.
196,787.
208,595.
221,110.
234,377.
248,439.
263,346.
279,146.
295,895.
313,649.
332,468.
352,416.
373,561.
395,974.
419,733.
444,917.
MAINTENANCE
(4,2)
151,560.
160,675.
170,315.
180,534.
191,366.
202,848.
215,019.
227,920.
241,595.
256,091.
271,457.
287,744.
305,009.
323,309.
342,708.
363,270.
385,066.
408, 170.
$10,000,
CURRENT LABOR -
INFLATION • 6.OX
$.030/KMH
5.OX OF CAPITAL
BAG COSTS - $36,000.
4.OX OF CAPITAL
6.OX
AT 8.OX
BAGS
(5,2)
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
64,470.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
PROPERTY
TAX
INSURANCE
(6,2)
121,864.
120,540.
136,252.
144,427..
153,093.
162,279.
172,015.
162,336.
193,276.
204,873.
217,165.
230,195.
244,007.
258,647.
274,166.
290,616.
308,053.
326,536.
DEBT
INTEREST
(7)
205,920.
200,422.
194,483.
188,070.
181,143.
173,663.
165,584.
156,857.
147,435.
137,257.
126,266.
114,394.
101,575.
.87,727.
72,775.
56,623.
39,183.
20,344.
SERVICE
PRINCIPAL
68,732.
74,230.
80, 168.
66,582.
93,508.
100,989.
109,068.
117,794.
127,216.
137,394.
148,385.
160,257.
173,076.
186,924.
201,876.
218,028.
235,468.
254,307.
$2,574,000.
PRESENT PRESENT NORTH
TOTAL WORTH TOTAL
ANNUAL MULTIPLIER ANNUAL
COSTS (8) COST
723,321.
750,242.
778,777.
809,025.
841,087.
675,073.
911,098.
949,285.
989,763.
1,097,140.
1,078,151.
1,126,361.
1,177,464.
1,231,632.
1,289,051.
1,349,915.
1,414,431.
1,482,817.
.9259
.6573
.7938
.7350
.6806
.6302
.5835
.5403
.5002
.0632
.4289
.3971
.3677
.3405
.3152
.2919
.2703
.2502
669,742.
643,211.
618,219.
594,658.
572,430.
551,445.
531,618.
512,870.
495,128.
508, 189.
462,401.
447, 294.
432,951.
419,323.
406,363.
394,028.
382,277.
371,074.
£9,013,214.
$286,000.
ss===z=======z
$9,299,214.
CAPITAL COSTS «
AMOUNT FINANCED
$2,660,000.
$2,574,000,
-------
TABLE NO. 7-4
COST BREAKDOWN PER ANNUM OF 168.8 M3/3EC. (400*000 CFM) TOTLA EVACUATION SYSTEM
BASED ON 18 YEAR LIFE
YEAR
1
2
3
4
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1.
2.
3.
4,
5,
6.
7,
8.
LABOR
(1,2)
10,600.
11,236.
11,910.
12,625.
13,382.
14,1A5.
15,036.
15,9380
16,895.
17,908,
18,983e
20,122.
21,329.
22,609.
23,966.
25,403.
26,928.
28,543.
ELECTRIC
(3,2)
220,302.
233,520.
247,531.
262,383.
278,126.
294,814.
312,502.
331,252.
351,128.
372,195.
394,527.
418, 199.
443,290.
469,888.
498,081.
527,966.
559,644.
593,222.
MAINTENANCE
(4,2)
190,800.
202,248.
214,383.
227,246.
240,881 .
255,333.
270,653.
286,893.
304,106.
322,352.
341 ,694.
362,195.
383,927.
406,962.
431,380.
457,263.
484,699.
513,781.
CURRENT LABOR -
INFLATION • 6.OX
S.030/KMH
5.OX OF CAPITAL
BAG COSTS • S48,000.
4.OX OF CAPITAL
8. OX
AT 8.OX
910,000.
BAGS
(5,2)
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
8S, 961.
o.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
PROPERTY
TAX
INSURANCE
(6,2)
152,640,
161,798.
171,506.
181,797.
193,704.
204,267.
216,523.
229,514.
243,285.
257,882.
273,355.
289,756.
307,141.
325,570.
345,104.
365,810.
387,759.
411,024.
DEBT
INTEREST
(7)
259,200e
252,279.
244,804.
236,731.
228,012.
218,597.
208,427.
197,443.
185,583.
172,771.
158,936.
143,993.
127,857.
110,426.
91,605.
71,274.
49,321.
25,608.
SERVICE PRESENT PRESENT WORTH
TOTAL WORTH TOTAL
PRINCIPAL ANNUAL MULTIPLIER ANNUAL
COSTS (8) COST
86,515. 920,057.
93,436. 954,517.
100,911. 991,045.
108,984.
117,703.
127,118.
137,288.
148,272.
160,132.
172,944.
186,779.
201,722.
217,858.
235,289.
254,110.
274,441.
296,393.
,029,765.
,070,808.
,114,313.
,160,429,
,209,312.
,261,128.
,402,013.
,374,273.
,435,986.
,501,403.
,570,744,
,644,245.
,722,157.
,804,744.
320,107. ,892,285.
93,240,000.
.9259
.8573
.7938
.7350
.6806
.6302
.5835
.5403
.5002
.4632
.4289
.3971
.3677
.3405
.3152
.2919
.2703
.2502
851,904.
818,345.
786,724.
756,908.
728,774.
702,207.
677,100.
653,354.
630,878.
649,404.
589,403.
570,251,
552,063.
534,778.
518,336.
502,682.
487,767.
473,543.
511,484,410.
9360,000.
Sll ,844,410.
CAPITAL COSTS s
AMOUNT FINANCED s
93.600*000.
93,240,000.
-------
TABLE NO. 7-5
COST BREAKDOWN PER ANNUM OF 336 M3/SEC. (SOO.OOO CFM) TOTAL EVACUATION SYSTEM
BASED ON 18 YEAR LIFE
u>
Ul
YEAR
1
Z
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
LABOR
(1,2)
10,600.
11,236.
11,910.
12,625.
13,382.
14,185.
15,036.
15,938.
16,895.
17,908.
18,983.
20,122.
21,329.
22,609.
23,966.
25,403.
26,928.
28,543.
ELECTRIC
(3,2)
275,376.
291,899.
309,413.
327,978.
347,656.
368,516.
390,626.
414,064.
438,908.
465,242.
493,157.
522,746.
554,111.
587,358.
622,599.
659,955.
699,552.
741,525.
MAINTENANCE
(4,2)
227,900.
241,574.
256,068.
271,432.
287,718.
304,982.
323,280.
342,677.
363,238.
385,032.
408, 134.
432,622.
458,579.
486,094.
515,260.
546,175.
578,946.
613,682.
BAGS
(5,2)
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
107,451.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
PROPERTY
TAX
INSURANCE
(6,2)
182,320.
193,259.
204,855.
217,146.
230,175.
243,985.
258,624.
274,142.
290,590.
308,026.
326,507.
346,098.
366,863.
388,875.
412,208.
436,940.
463,156.
490,946.
DEBT
INTEREST
(7)
309,599.
301,333.
292,404.
282,762.
272,347.
261,101.
248,954.
235,834.
221,668.
206,365.
189,840.
171,991.
152,718.
131,898.
109,417.
85,133.
58,911.
30,587.
SERVICE PRESENT PRESENT WORTH
TOTAL WORTH TOTAL
PRINCIPAL ANNUAL MULTIPLIER ANNUAL
COSTS (8) COST
103,338.
111,604.
120,533.
130,175.
140,590.
151,836.
163,983.
177,103.
191,269.
206,572.
223,097.
240,946.
260,219.
281,039.
303,520.
,109,133.
,150,905.
,195,183.
,212,118.
,291,868.
,344,604.
,400,504.
,459,758.
,522,568.
,696,596.
,659,718.
,734,525.
,813,820.
,897,873.
,986,969.
327,804. 2,081,410.
354,025. 2,181,519.
382,350. 2,287,634.
$3,869,998.
.9259
.8573
.7938
.7350
.6806
.6302
.5835
.5403
.5002
.4632
.4289
.3971
.3677
.3405
.3152
.2919
.2703
.2502
1,026,975.
986,716.
948,775.
912,994.
879,224.
847,329.
817,181.
788,663.
761,663.
785,853.
711,825.
668,804.
666,938.
646,153.
626,376.
607,545.
589,598.
572,479.
$13,865,082.
$430,000.
1. CURRENT LABOR -
2. INFLATION - 6.OS
3. S.030/KWH
4. S.Ot OF CAPITAL
5. BAG COSTS - $60,000.
6. «.OX OF CAPITAL
7. 8.OX
8. AT 8.OX
$10,000.
$14,295,082.
CAPITAL COSTS * .
AMOUNT FINANCED *
14,300,000.
$3,870,000,
-------
TABLE NO. 7-6
COST BREAKDOWN PER ANNUM OF 383.3 M3/3EC. (600,000 CFM) TOTAL EVACUATION SYSTEM
BASED ON 18 YEAR LIFE
u>
CTi
YEAR
1
a
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I*
16
17
IB
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
6.
LABOR
(1,2)
10,600.
11,236.
11,910.
12,625.
13,382.
14,185.
15,036.
15,938.
16,895.
17,908.
18,963.
20,122.
21,329.
22,609.
23,966.
25,403.
26,928.
28,543.
ELECTRIC
(3,2)
330,453.
350,280.
371,297.
393,575.
417,189.
442,220.
468, 754.
496,879.
526,691.
558,293.
591,790.
627,298.
664,936.
704,832.
747, 122.
791,949.
839, 466.
889,834.
MAINTENANCE
(4,2)
264,470.
280,338.
297,158.
314,988.
333,867.
353,920.
375,156.
397,665.
421,525.
446,616.
473,625.
502,043.
532,165.
560,095.
597,941.
633,817.
671,846.
712,157.
CURRENT LABOR -
INFLATION • 6.OX
S.030/KWH
5.OX OF CAPITAL
BAG COSTS - 172,000.
a.OX OF CAPITAL
8.OX
AT 8.OX
$10,000.
BAGS
(5,2)
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
128,941.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
PROPERTY
TAX
INSURANCE
(6,2)
211,576.
224,271.
237,727.
251,990.
267,110.
283,136.
300, 124.
318,132.
337,220.
357,453.
378,900.
401,634.
425,732.
451,276.
478,353.
507 ,054.
537,477.
569, 726.
DEBT
INTEREST
(7)
359,279.
349,687.
339,325.
328,136.
316,049.
302,999.
288,903.
273,677.
257,238.
239,480.
220,302.
199,590.
177,223.
153,063.
126,974.
98,794.
68,365.
35,495.
SERVICE
PRINCIPAL
119,920.
129,512.
139,874.
151,063.
163,150.
176,200.
190,296.
205,522.
221,961.
239,719.
25R,897.
279,609.
301,976.
326, 136.
352,225.
380,405.
410,834.
443,704.
$4,490,999.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COSTS
1,296,298.
1,345,324.
1,397,291.
1,452,377.
1,510,767.
1,572,661.
1,638,269.
1,707,813.
1,781,530.
1,988,610.
1,942,498.
2,030,295.
2,123,361.
2,222,011.
2,326,579.
2,437,422.
2,554,915.
2,679,458.
PRESENT
WORTH
MULTIPLIER
(8)
.9259
.8573
.7938
.7350
.6806
.6302
.5835
.5403
.5002
.4632
.4289
.3971
.3677
.3405
.3152
.2919
.2703
.2502
2:
PRESENT NORTH
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COST
1,200,276.
1,153,398.
1,109,215.
1,067,541.
1,028,203.
991 ,044.
955,915.
922,679.
891,209.
921,112.
833,105.
806,259.
780,756.
756,509.
733,436.
711,461.
690,515.
670,533.
916,223,154.
$499,000.
CAPITAL COSTS «
AMOUNT FINANCED »
$4,990,000
-------
TABLE NO. 7-7
C03T BREAKDOWN PER ANNUM OF 330.4 H3/SEC. (700.000 CFM) TOTAL EVACUATION SYSTEM
BASED ON 18 YEAR LIFE
YEAR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
LABOR
(1,2)
10,600.
11,236.
11,910.
12,625.
13,382.
14,185.
15,036.
15,938.
16,895.
17,908.
18,983.
20,122.
21,329.
22,609.
23,966.
25,403.
26,928.
28,543.
ELECTRIC
(3,2)
385,528.
408,660.
433,180.
459,170.
486,721.
515,924.
546,879.
579,692.
614,473.
651,342.
690,422.
731,847.
775,758.
822,304.
871,642.
923,940.
979,377.
1,038,139.
MAINTENANCE
(4,2)
298,390.
316,293.
335,271.
355,387.
376,710.
399,313.
423,272.
448,668.
475,588.
504,123.
534,371.
566,433.
600,419.
636,444.
674,631 .
715,108.
758,015.
803,496.
BAGS
(5,2)
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
150,431.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
PROPERTY
TAX
INSURANCE
(6,2)
238,712.
253,035.
268,217.
284,310.
301,368.
319,450.
338,617.
358,934.
380,470.
403,299.
427,497.
453,146.
480,335.
509,155.
539,704.
572,087.
606,412.
642,797.
DEBT
INTEREST
(7)
405,359.
394,536.
382,845.
370,222.
356,584.
341,861.
325,957.
308,778.
290,230.
270,194.
248,558.
225,189.
199,953.
172,694.
143,259.
111,465.
77,133.
40,048.
SERVICE
PRINCIPAL
135,300.
146,123.
157,814.
170,437.
184,075.
198,799.
214,703.
231,881.
250,429.
270,465.
292,101.
315,471.
340,706.
367,965.
397,400.
429,195.
463,526.
500,612.
££S£s33SZS
35,066,999.
PRESENT PRESENT WORTH
TOTAL WORTH TOTAL
ANNUAL MULTIPLIER ANNUAL
COSTS (8) COST
,473,890.
,529,883.
,589,237.
,652,151.
,718,841.
,789,532.
1,864,464.
1,943,892.
2,028,086.
2,267,763.
2,211,932.
2,312,208.
2,418,501.
2,531,171.
2,650,602.
2,777,198.
2,911,390.
3,053,634.
.9259
.8573
.7938
.7350
.6806
.6302
.5835
.5403
.5002
.4632
.4289
.3971
.3677
.3405
.3152
.2919
.2703
.2502
1,364,713.
,311,629.
,261,588.
,214,381.
,169,815.
,127,709.
,087,898.
,050,225.
,014,549.
,050,414.
948,661 .
918,211.
889,279.
861,766.
835,582.
810,639.
786,860.
764, 170.
818,468,068.
5563,000.
310,000.
CURRENT LABOR -
INFLATION - 6.OX
S.030/KWH
5.OX OF CAPITAL
BAG COSTS - 384,000.
4.OX OF CAPITAL
8.OX
AT 8.OX
$19,031,068.
CAPITAL COSTS *
AMOUNT FINANCED a
35,630,000.
S3,
-------
TABLE NO. 7-8
COST BREAKDOWN PER ANNUM OF 377 B6 MJfStC. (800,000 CrM) TOTAL EVACUATION
BASED ON IB YEAR LIFE
oo
YEAR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
li
12
13
14
15
If-
17
18
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
LABOR
(1,2)
10,600.
11,236.
11,910.
12,625.
13,382.
14,185.
15,0360
15,9380
16,895.
17,9080
18,983.
20,122.
21,329.
22,609.
23,966.
25,403.
26,926.
2«,543.
ELECTRIC
(3,2)
440,604.
467,040.
495,062.
524,766.
556,252.
589,627.
625,005.
662,505.
702,255.
744,391.
789,054.
636, 397,,
886,561.
939,776.
996,162.
1,055,932.
1,119,288.
1,186,445.
MAINTENANCE
(4,2)
332,310.
352,249.
373,3830
395,786.
419,530.
444,706.
471,388.
499,671.
539,651.
5bl ,430.
595, life.
630,823.
668,673,
706,793.
751,320.
796,400.
8Q4, 183.
694,834.
CURRENT LABOR •
INFLATION - 6. OX
S.030/KWH
5. OX OF CAPITAL
BAG COSTS - $96,000.
4. OX OF CAPITAL
8. OX
AT 8. OX
»10,000.
BAGS
(5,2)
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
171,931.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
PROPERTY
TAX
INSURANCE
(6,2)
265,818.
281,799.
298,707.
316,629.
335,627.
355,764.
377,110.
399,737.
423,721.
449, 144,
476,093.
504,659.
534,938.
567,034.
601,056.
637,120.
675,347.
715,868.
DEBT
INTEREST
(?)
451,439.
439,387.
426,366.
412,308.
397,120.
380,723.
363,011.
343,879.
323,223.
300,909.
276,813.
250,788.
222,684.
192,325.
159,545.
124,136.
8S, 901.
44,600.
SERVICE
PRINCIPAL
150,681.
162,733.
175,754.
189,812.
205,000.
221,397.
239,109.
258,2«10
278,897.
301,211.
325,307.
351,332.
379,436.
409,795.
442,575.
477,984.
516,218.
557,520.
$5,642,999.
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COSTS
1,651,481.
1,714,443.
1,781,182,
1,651,926.
1,926,914.
2,006,402.
2,090,659.
2,179,971.
2,274,642.
2,546,915.
2,481,366,
2,59
-------
TABLE NO. 7-9
COST BREAKDOWN PER ANNUM OF 424.8 M3/SEC. (900,000 CFM) TOTAL EVACUATION SYSTEM
BASED ON 18 YEAR LIFE
YEAR
I
2
3
4
5
b
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Id
3.
4.
5,
b.
7,
a.
LABOR
(1,2)
10,600.
11,236.
11,910.
12,625.
13,382.
14,185.
15,036.
15,938.
16,895.
17,908.
18,983.
20,122.
21,329.
22,609.
23,966.
25,U03.
26,928.
28,543.
ELECTRIC
(3,2)
495,680.
525,421.
556,946.
590,363.
625,785.
663,332.
703,132.
745,320.
790,039.
837,441.
687,688.
940,949.
997,406.
1,057,250.
1,120,685.
1,187,926.
1,259,201.
1,334,753.
MAINTENANCE
(4,2)
365,170.
387,080.
410,305.
434,923.
461,019.
488,680.
518,000.
549,080.
582,025.
616,9*17.
653,963.
693,201.
734,793.
778,881.
825,614.
875,150.
927,659.
983,319.
CURRENT LABOR -
INFLATION - 6.OX
J.030/KWH
5.OX OF CAPITAL
BAG COSTS - 5108,000.
4.OX OF CAPITAL
a.ox
AT 8.OX
•10,000.
BAGS
(5,2)
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
193,411.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
PROPERTY
TAX
INSURANCE
(6,2)
292,136.
309,664.
328,244.
347,939.
368,815.
390,944.
414,400.
439,264.
465,620.
493,557.
523,171.
554,561.
587,835.
623,105.
660,491.
700,120.
742,127.
786,655.
DEBT
INTEREST
(7)
496,078.
482,834.
468,527.
453,077.
436,388.
418,369.
398,906.
377,883.
355,184.
330,664.
304,185.
275,586.
244,703.
211,343.
175,321.
136,411.
94,395.
49,010.
SERVICE
PRINCIPAL
165,581.
178,825.
193,132.
208,582.
225,271.
243,290.
262,753.
283,776.
306,476.
330,995.
357,474.
386,073.
416,956.
450,316.
486,339.
525,249.
567,264.
612,649.
Sb, 200, 999.
PRESENT PRESENT WORTH
TOTAL WORTH TOTAL
ANNUAL MULTIPLIER ANNUAL
COSTS (8) COST
1,825,246.
1,895,061.
1,969,065.
2,047,509.
2, 130,660.
2,218,800.
2,312,228.
2,411,262.
2,516,236.
2,820,924.
2,745,464.
2,870,492.
3,003,022.
3,143,504.
3,292,414.
3,450,259.
3,617,575.
3,794,930.
.9259 1,690,042,
.8573 ,624,710.
.7938 ,563,108.
.7350
.6806
.6302
.5835
.5403
.5002
.4632
.4289
.3971
.3677
.3405
.3152
.2919
,504,981.
,450,092.
,398,221.
,349,164.
,302,731.
,258,747.
,306,635.
,177,484.
,139,913.
,104,206.
,070,242.
,037,906.
,007,099.
.2703 977,720.
.2502 949,679.
S22,912,660.
$689,000.
$23,601,660.
CAPITAL COSTS »
AMOUNT FINANCED
Sb,890,000.
§6,201,000,
-------
TABLE NO. T-10
COST BREAKDOWN PER ANNUM OF 472 M3/SEC. (1,000.000 CFM) TOTAL EVACUATION SYSTEM
BASED ON 16 YEAR LIFE
YEAR
1
2
3
4
5
9
10
11
12
13
1«
i i
16
17
ia
i.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
LABOR
(1,2)
10,600.
11,236.
11,910.
12,625.
13,332.
1«,185.
15,036.
15,938.
16,895.
17,908.
18, 983.
20,122.
21,329.
22,609.
23,966.
25,403.
26,928.
28,5«3o
ELECTRIC
(3,2)
550,756.
583,801.
618,829,
655,959.
695,316.
737,035.
781,257.
828,133.
877,821.
930, a90.
986,319.
l,OU5,a98.
1,108,228.
1,174,722.
1,245,205.
1,319,917.
1,399,112.
1,483,059.
RENT LABON • »ltf»
LATION - 6. OX
MAINTENANCE
(4,2)
397,
421,
446,
473,
501,
531,
563,
597,
633,
671,
711,
754,
799,
647,
898,
«»52,
1,009,
1,070,
000.
500.
350.
63U
429.
8340
944.
861.
693.
554 8
568.
862.
573.
848.
838.
709.
631 .
7«<».
376.
BAGS
(5,2)
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
0.
0.
214,902.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
PROPERTY
TAX
INSURANCE
(6,2)
318,000.
337,080.
357,305.
378,743.
401,46ft.
425,556.
451,089.
478,154.
506,843.
537,254.
569,489.
603,659.
639,878.
678,271.
718,967.
762,105.
807,831.
856,301.
DEBT
INTEREST
(7)
539,998.
525,582.
510,008.
493,190.
475,025.
455,409.
434,223.
411,339.
386,631.
359,939.
331,116.
299,985.
266,368.
230,054.
190,843.
148,488.
102,753.
53,349.
SERVICE
PRINCIPAL
180,241.
194,657.
210,231.
227,049.
245,214.
264,6300
286,016B
308,900.
333,608.
360,300.
389,123.
420,254.
453,871.
490,185.
529,396.
571,751.
617,486.
666,890.
J6, 749, 99ft.
PRESENT PRESENT WORTH
TOTAL WORTH TOTAL
ANNUAL MULTIPLIER ANNUAL
COSTS (8) COST
1,997,095.
2,073,706.
2,154,914.
2,240,994.
2,332,239.
2,428,959.
2,531,483.
2,640,157.
2,755,352.
3,092,360.
3,006,892.
3, 144,091 .
3,289,522.
3,443,679.
3,607,085.
3,780,295.
3,963,899.
4,158,51B.
.9259
.8573
.7938
.7350
.6806
.6302
.5835
.5403
.5002
.4632
.4269
.3971
.3677
.3405
.3152
.2919
.2703
.2502
1,849
1,777
1,710
1,647
1,587
1,530
1,477
1,4«><>
1,37ft
1,433
1,289
1,248
1,809
1,172
1,137
1, 103
1,071
1,040
325,089
$750
525,839
,162.
,869.
,641.
,198.
,284,
,657.
.097.
,396.
,363.
,363,
,606.
,563.
,552.
,440.
,105.
,434.
,321.
,667.
,688.
,000.
, 688.
S.030/KMH
5.OX OF CAPITAL
BAG COSTS - $120,000.
4.OX OF CAPITAL
8.OX
AT 8.OX
CAPITAL COSTS =
AMOUNT FINANCED
17,500,000.
16,750,000,
-------
Little report to AISI entitled "Steel and the Environment, A Cost
Impact Analysis", dated May 1975 (page B-17, Fabric Filter
System, High Complexity) inflated to 1976 costs using the
Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index.
Figure 7-21 charts coal consumption to provide electrical power
required by a total cast house evacuation control system.
PARTIAL CONTROL VS. TOTAL CONTROL
As the values presented on Figures 7-14 and 7-18 indicate,
capture of 100% of the fugitive emissions generated during
casting will require better than 450% of the energy necessary to
capture 70% of the generated emissions by partial control. If it
is determined that 50% capture is achievable with the partial
control concept, then increasing emission capture to 100% will
require increasing energy consumption by better than 4 1/2 times.
In addition to energy consumption, total control or 100% capture
will increase power house emissions (particulate matter, SOx and
NOx) also by 450% when compared to power house emissions created
by partial control assuming no improvement in power house
emission control.
As evidenced here, the incremental increase in fugitive
emission capture efficiency to 100% becomes increasingly more
costly in energy consumed as well as power house emission
standpoints.
SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS
Safety in the cast house is accentuated through continuing
educational programs. Meetings are held regularly, and strict
rules are enforced to ensure that safety programs are followed.
There is a rigid procedure to follow on all production operations
and any equipment which may be installed would add to the danger
involved in pursuing normal functions and would be considered a
hazard. Hoods which are in the line of vision or which provide
an obstacle in the working zone would be considered a negative
safety factor. Any type of obstruction must be kept at a clear
height above the working area and must not interfere with crane
operations. Hoods which swing away, or which must be activated
in any way, create an additional occupational problem which adds
to the normal sequence of operations. To create a permissible
environment for labor, the cast house must either remain open for
fresh air intake, or the evacuation must be complete enough to
create an equal volume of inspired air. Otherwise, working
conditions may not be acceptable and OSHA problems could be
created.
If localized ventilation methods (close fitting hoods and
covers) are considered as a means to lower ventilation volumes
141
-------
Figure 7-21
FUEL CONSUMPTION FOR TOTAL
EVACUATION OF CAST HOUSE
BASED ON 100% VOLUME DURING CASTING AND 50% BETWEEN CASTS
M3/ (jn COAL USAGE BASED ON .544 Kg/Kw 11.2 Ibs./Kw)
SEC. thosands]
377.6 800
330.4 700
LU
i§
O
I
283.2 600
0} 236.0
<
O
500
188.8 400
LU
2
_i
O
cc
300
97.4 200
47.2 100
TONS/YEAR 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
tonnes/YEAR 0 907 1814 2721 3629 4536 5443 6350 7257
COAL USED AT POWER HOUSE
142
-------
and thus energy requirements, the safety factor must be regarded
as a major consideration. If a partial-control, flexible curtain
type of enclosure is installed, reinforcement or additional
precautions must be taken to ensure worker safety. For example,
a precaution might be to prohibit working beneath the curtain
during casting, but enforcement could be difficult.
113
-------
SECTION 8
CLASSIFICATIONS OF EXISTING UNITED STATES
BLAST FURNACES
United States blast furnaces may be categorized into groups
related to fume control while casting. Grouping considers
potential fume emissions from production of hot metal, the
physical characteristics of the cast houses, and the casting
operations.
Class one - All cast houses with single tap hole furnaces.
This group of blast furnaces totals 140 (93% of the 151 blast
furnace operations recorded in Table A-5). The geometry of the
cast houses in this group varies widely (the physical
configurations of these cast houses have been presented in
Section 4 of this report.) Because these are all single tap hole
furnaces, there would probably be insufficient time between casts
to maintain close fitting tap hole, trough and runner hooding.
If it is subseguently determined that a level of control greater
than that which is possible with process changes is desired,
these furnaces could be candidates for additional control using
the partial control method of overhead hooding of the tap hole
and iron trough areas. The angle of the tap hole may preclude
any close: fitting hoods at the iron trough because the trajectory
of the hot metal would cause impingement of molten iron on the
refractory lining of the hoods. Most of the cast houses would not
have available space to store spare parts and maintain runner
hooding.
Additionally, the ductwork of the close fitting covers and
hoods which is required to convey the captured emissions to an
exterior control device must run beneath the cast house floor in
order not. to interfere with normal iron making activities,
including crane movement. Because most of the cast houses in
this group have backfilled cast house floors, the routing of
extensive lengths of large diameter ductwork underground is not
technically feasible from access and maintenance standpoints.
Total cast house evacuation which is thought to reguire 60 or
more cast house volume air changes per hour is a technically
feasible method of controlling cast house fumes, but because of
the enormous volumes of air that would have to be handled, it
becomes very energy intensive. This approach would reguire
closing most of the existing open areas in the sides of the cast
house structure in order to produce a controlled in-draft
condition, which could cause labor difficulties and necessitate
additional increases in the evacuation rate to meet OSHA
requirements.
-------
Class two - cast houses with blast furnaces having multiple
tap holes.
A total of 11 of the blast furnace operations recorded in
Table A-5 fall into this grouping.
A detailed study of specific cast houses in both class one
and class two would disclose to what extent process changes could
reduce emissions. Because this group of blast furnace cast
houses tends to have (but not in all cases)less congested
interiors and open areas underneath the floor (not backfilled) ,
they appear to lend themselves to the use of close fitting hoods
and covers over the runners and pouring spouts. However, the tap
holes have been designed with elevated angles and could create a
serious problem for close fitting hoods and covers at the iron
trough. This type of hooding was applied at Gary No. 13 blast
furnace for the purpose of controlling hot metal splashing and
was found to be impractical due to frequent upsets which included
coke messes. However, a partial control system employing the
retractable enclosure concept could be applied to multiple tap
hdle furnaces as discussed for single tap hole furnaces.
Total evacuation while technically feasible, may not be
practical for the same reason as stated in class 1.
Class three - new furnace cast houses not yet in the
engineering stage. The engineering of these furnaces could be
undertaken with total control in mind. If the Japanese concept
can be successfully applied to domestic operations, then good
fume control would be guaranteed. These furnaces would probably
be in the over 5,000 tonnes per day capacity range. The control
concept for these furnaces is discussed in Section 9. It must be
pointed out, however, that the direct application of the existing
foreign technology to United States operations has not yet been
successfully demonstrated. There are iron making operational
differences between United States and Japanese Steel producers,
and to what extent these differences may preclude successful
application of this Japanese control technology, can only be
assessed after operations at Sparrows Point, Md. and East
Chicago, Ind. have been initiated and evaluated.
1U5
-------
SECTION 9
CONCEPT DESIGNS FOR EMISSION CONTROL ON NEW BLAST
FURNACE CAST HOUSES
This study defines new blast furnace cast houses as those on
which engineering work has not yet started and which are designed
as completely new furnaces rather than rebuilt versions or
modifications of an existing furnace.
All new furnaces could be designed wj.th facilities which .
could possibly achieve the no-visibility emission,level of ;
compliance. Essentially, the design would use the total.control
concept: close fitting hoods at the tap holef, irpn £r6ugh,sand
skimmer, and the-runners and ^spouts as used, at -'the Japanese
plants. This system could be used in- con junction, with a .large ]
moveable hood in the tap hole and iron trough zone,., ,
Japanese collection facilities consist of,either.vertical or
horizontal hoods at the tap hole, close fitting dome covers and
hoods over the iiron trough, slag, hot metal runners,Tand_pouring
spouts. There must be an open area beneath ihevcast house floor
to accept the transfer ducts that would run to the control
device. The most suitable control device would be a pp.sitiye
baghouse with;intermittent cleaning fea.tur.es.v,,T,tie application of
other control: devices, such as yet scrubipers^and mechanical, ;. ,
collectors, is^possible if collection efficiencies are 1 .,',!..",'
satisfactory. "(Depending upon specific features '®f_ the blast .
furnace and cast house, the primary system, or. hopded runners,
would be controlled by an order -of -magni tude~ ytjmtilatiop rate, of
about 166 to 200: cubic, meters per second (35Q.*OOp. ^o,,,425,ObO CFM)
per tap hole operation; .i.e., if it is-;pofs^.ble,;tof cast from two.
tap holes simultaneously, then the ventilation rate would double.
Approxinate allocation of the ventilation air wouJLd be 33 cubic
meters per second (70,000 CFM) at the iron.notch, 33 cu.bic, meters
per second (70*000 CFM) over the trpugh,a;2^;:C\^ic meters per' *',
second (53,000. CFM) oyer the skimmer,-,and 10-6/ cubip !^meters per /
second (212,000 CFM) over all spouts. . Pick-up! ducts .from'the ,
pouring spouts could possibly be designed as either top or side
draft hoods. The secondary system, which would probably be
required for no-visible emissions, could have an order-of-
magnitude ventilating capability of 125 cubic meters per second
(265,000 CFM) per simultaneous tap hole operation.
Refractory lined covers over the trough and runners must be
designed to be removeable by overhead crane for maintenance.
Like the Japanese systems, most of the dust would be collected by
the primary or hooded system. Operations at the tap hole would,
of course, be carried out with the trough cover removed; and
during this time the secondary or zoned capt'ire system over the
146
-------
tap hole and trough would be activated to pick up all the fumes
until the trough cover collection system is activated.
Assumptions could be made that all new furnaces would be
designed with a tap hole angle which would reduce the possibility
of hot metal coming in contact with hoods and covers during
casting and would have improved operating conditions to minimize
upset conditions such as coke messes and wild casts. B.E.E. does
not know at this time if this design is feasible. Consequently,
the feasibility of close fitting hoods and covers in the tap hole
and iron trough areas must be demonstrated further. In order to
keep maintenance of hoods and covers over iron and slag runners
(that part of the hot metal conveying system downstream of the
skimmer) to a minimum, the cast house should be designed to keep
these runners as short as possible.
Secondary or moveable hoods or hood enclosures would drop
down or be swung into position to a sufficient height above the
cast house floor to allow movement of the drill and mud gun
underneath. Hoods would be constructed of suitable materials to
keep maintenance and safety hazards to a minimum. Assuming that
a primary system of close fitting hoods and covers could be
applied in the tap hole and iron trough zone, the retractable
overhead hood or enclosure would only be moved into position and
activated when the tap hole is drilled or closed. If it is not
possible to use close fitting hoods and covers in this zone, then
the secondary system or retractable overhead enclosure would be
used during the complete casting cycle.
In some European cast houses the runner hoods had a large
cross sectional area which lowered the velocity of the hot gases
drawn into the ventilation ducts. This was done to reduce wear
and erosion at the top corners of the runners caused by gas
velocities in the hoods and covers.
New cast houses would have to provide maintenance space and
storage for replacement hoods. Consideration should be given to
ramp access to the cast house and the use of mobile cranes rather
than the overhead types now in use. If this mobile crane would
be technically feasible, it's use could provide greater
flexibility of hood arrangements.
Because it is expected that most new furnaces will be larger,
the platform or grating at the bustle pipe area could be high
enough to permit handling of tap hole hoods beneath. On the
larger furnaces, mobile cranes could operate from the platform.
Large furnaces now under construction by Bethlehem Steel at
Sparrows Point, Maryland and by Inland Steel in Indiana, will
demonstrate the applicability and feasibility of the close
fitting cover and hood technology that is presently used by the
Japanese. After these furnaces have been operated long enough to
-------
determine the extent of maintenance and production problems and
to engineer modifications to improve the system, it can then be
determined whether these systems can be made adaptable to the
United States methods of operation.
An orcier-of-magnitude (>+30%) cost of equipment and
installation for a control system of 708 cubic meters per second
(1,500,000 CFM) and based on 1972 Japanese costs for equipment at
Oita, would be approximately $11,300,000 in inflated 1976
dollars. This figure is based on ventilation rates required if
two tap holes are cast simultaneously, as is the case with
certain Jcipanese blast furnaces. This estimated cost could vary
significantly depending on local conditions.
148
-------
SECTION 10
ADDITIONAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
FOR THE CONTROL OF CAST HOUSE EMISSIONS
The following additional studies are deemed necessary by
B.E.E. to pursue the concepts advanced in Section 7. These
studies were not possible under the scope of this contract, due
to limitations of time and monies. In order to provide needed
reliable data to establish viable strategies for the control of
cast house emission, these further efforts should be undertaken.
An approximate time schedule for the performance of these studies
appears on the following page as Figure No. 10-1.
1. Particulate and Gaseous sampling
The concentration of particulates has not been satisfactorily
established due to wide variations at different sites and by
different measurement methods. The emission factors noted in
this report have not been established as reliable due to limited
data collection. Emissions from cast houses should be quantified
and classifed to the extent that the statistical results will
furnish data which could not readily be disputed.
To achieve a data base applicable to all basic iron furnaces,
selection cf proper sources should be a primary consideration in
order to ensure overall coverage.
Testing results should include particulate size and
composition data, gaseous quantification as well as
qualification, and particulate matter concentrations. Testing
would be performed using EPA methods or approved modifications.
The sampling should be accomplished in repeated tasks along
with other phases of an extended study. Each task would require
about 3 months to complete and would consume about 30 man weeks
of effort. Tasks would be performed at sites employing emission
capture systems as they come on line and would provide a more
reliable base for design engineering than is now available. It
is estimated that at least two of these tasks would be required
at a cost of $35,000 each or $70,000.
2. Process Modifications to Reduce Emissions
This study should be a two-phase effort; the first phase to
be a paper study to determine the potential for emission
reduction as well as the need and degree of effort to be extended
in phase two for process modifications including materials,
practices and procedures. The second phase would be a detailed
study of the areas prescribed by phase one.
149
-------
Figure 10-1
APPROXIMATE TIME SCHEDULE
ADDITIONAL R & D EFFORTS
CONTROL OR CAST HOUSE EMISSION
Ln
o
PARTICULATE AND
GASEOUS SAMPLING
PROCESS MODIFICATIONS
TO REDUCE EMISSIONS
A. Phase One
B. Phase Two
TAP HOLE AND TROUGH
EVACUATED MOVE ABLE
ENCLOSURE
CONTROL SYSTEMS
FOR NEW FURNACES
30
man wks.
CONJIWJWG
REPETITI
EFFO
I/E TA$
IN
6789
MONTHS
10 11 12 13
(1) Phase cannot be initiated until normal operations are attained at new facilities
employing close fitting hoods and covers.
-------
a. Phase One
This paper study should be a search and rating, in decreasing
order of potential, of modifications to effect emission reduction
at the source. Additionally, this phase should assess the extent
to which modifications should be pursued in Phase Two. Extensive
contacts would be made with material suppliers, operating
personnel and engineers. A literature search should be included
to gather all existing data. This study would require about 4
months at a cost of about $25,000.
Some of the items evaluated in this study could be:
1. Materials
a. Tap Hole Clays
b. Trough and Runner Lining
c. Burden Materials
2. Operating Practices
a. Furnace Charging Techniques
b. Soaking Bar
c. Preheated Ladles
d. Wind Volumes, Pressure and Temperature
3. Cast House Characteristics
a. Tap Hole Size
b. Trough Dimensions
c. Runner Dimensions
d. Pouring Spout Type
b. Phase Two
This effort could start at the time phase one has been
sufficiently researched to provide a base for further work. This
study would be a demonstration effort to quantitatively assess
performance of pre-selected process modifications and materials
in reducing generated emissions. This phase should be conducted
by steel company engineers or their designates.
151
-------
A manpower effort of approximately 1 man year would be
required and could be started during the phase one study. The
estimated cost would be approximately $75,000 plus materials.
3. Tap Hole and Trough Evacuated Moveable Enclosure
The partial control method of a retractable curtain or hood
at the iron trough should be investigated by selecting a suitable
preliminary design and demonstrating its effectiveness by testing
an installation at a selected site,, This effort should be
conducted by a steel firm and should require about 70 man weeks
over a 6-month period at a cost of about $100,000 plus materials.
For economic reasons, this project should be a continuance of the
effort which has been initiated by Bethlehem Steel Corporation of
Bethlehem, Pa. The benefits of this activity are that it would
culminate in a determination of the total feasibility of this
concept including capture performance, operational consideration
as well as engineering details,
H. Control Systems for New Furnaces
This study would be an operating and performance evaluation
of the new United States installations, employing the close
fitting hood and cover emission control concept. This effort
would require access to data from domestic steel firms as they
accumulate operating information from their producing furnaces.
The cost of this program would be about $30,000 and should not be
initiated until after the systems are operational for sufficient
time to attain normal conditions. The benefits of this program
would be an accurate assessment of technology as applied to
United States practices with recommendations for revisions to
tailor the concepts to domestic practices for future
applications.
Sampling of these installations could be conducted as a task
under R&D effort No. 1 "Particulate and Gaseous Sampling".
152
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Watkins Encyclopedia of the Steel Industry - 1969 -
Steel Publications.
2. The Making, Shaping and Treating of Steel - 1964 -
United States Steel Corporation.
3. Environmental Steel - Pollution in the Iron and Steel
Industry, James Cannon - The Council on Economic Priorities.
4. Blast Furnace Technology, Julian Szekely - 1972 - Marcek
Dekker, Incorporated, New York.
5. Blast Furnace Technology - Science and Practics - 1972.
6. The Reduction of Iron Ores - 1971.
7. The Physical Chemistry of Iron and Steel Making - R. G.
Ward - 1962.
8. The Iron Blast Furnace - T.L. Joseph, U.S. Bureau of
Mines Information Circular 6779, May 1934.
9. Small Size Coke and Its Effects on Blast Furnace
Operation, T.K. Wrenn - Blast Furnace and Steel Plant, June 1962.
10. The Effect of Coke Sizing on Blast Furnace Operation -
R.H. White, Blast Furnace and Steel Plant, March 1966.
11. Quality Considerations for Future Blast Furnace Coke -
M.C. Chang - AIME Iron Making Proceedings 1963.
12. Program - Controlled Reduction Tests for Blast Furnace
Burden - R. Linder, J. Iron and Steel Institute, 1958.
13. Pre-reduced Iron Ore Pellets - State of the Art - N.B.
Melcher - Minnesota Section AIME, January 1966.
14. Effect of Various Factors in the Ore on Blast Furnace
Operation - J.H. Strassburger - 1955.
15. Modern Blast Furnace Technology and Raw Materials - J.H.
Strassburger - AIME Chicago, 1960.
16. The Mineralology of Blast Furnace Cinder - H. Kraner -
Transactions AIME, 1953.
153
-------
17. The Making of Self Fluxing Cinder in the Blast Furnace
Practice with its 100% Cinder Burden - Y. Doi - Blast Furnace
Coke Oven and Raw Material Proceedings AIME 1959.
18. Recent Advances in Iron Production Techniques Fairless
works. United States Steel Corporation - R.H. White - 1962.
19. Blast Furnace Performance Using Iron Ore Pellets, T.F.
Olt - J. Iron Steel Institute, London 1961.
20. Advances in Blast Furnace Practice at Stelco - J.L.
Stewart - Canadian Mining and Metal Bulletin, June 1966.
21. Recent Developments in Making Coke for Blast Furnace,
T.G. Callcott - Gain Mining Mettalurgical Bulletin, 1963.
22. Effect of Burden Materials and Practices on Blast
Furnace Coke Rate, R.V. Flint, American Iron and Steel Institute,
Chicago, 1961.
23. Blast Furnaco Practice with Very Low Slag Volume, J.C.
McKay, J. of Metals, April 1963.
24. Development of Fuel Injection in Blast Furnaces, J.
Winsor - J. Institute Fuel, 1965.
25. Recent Developments in Blast Furnace Fuel Injection,
R.L. Stevenson, Blast Furnace and Steel Plant, 1965.
26. Blast Furnace Construction in America, J.E. Johnson,
Jr., McGravr Hill Book Company, Inc. 1970.
27. Efficiency of the Blast Furnace Process, J.B. Austin -
American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers -1938.
28. Operation of the Iron Blast Furnace at High Pressure,
J.H. Slater, American Iron and Steel Institute Yearbook, 1947.
29. Effect of Sized Ore on Blast Furnace Operation, S.P.
Kinney, U.S. Bureau of Mines.
30. Iron Blast Furnace, T.L. Joseph 1934.
Literature Search Sources of Information
1. Canadian Metallurgical Quarterly.
2. Journal of Metals.
3. Metals and Materials.
154
-------
4. Blast Furnace and Steel Plant.
5. Transactions of the Iron and Steel Institute of Japan.
6. Steel in the U.S.S.R.
7. Steel Times
8. Iron Making and Steel Making
9. Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute
10. Iron and Steel International
11. Iron Age
12. Iron and Steel Engineers
13. Journal of Environmental Engineering Division American
Society of Civil Engineers JAPCA
14. U.S. EPA APTIC Literature Search, 316 documents.
155
-------
GLOSSARY
basicity: ratio of percent of CaO to percent of SiO^ in slag (a
dimensionless number)
bosh: the inverted conical section between the top of the hearth
and the shell of the furnace itself. This section is
normally three to four meters high.
burden: the materials which are charged into the top of the
furnace. Materials are ores, sinter, ore pellets and slag,
scrap, coke, and limestone.
bustle pipe: a plenum which receives the hot blast from the
stove and distributes it to the tuyeres. The bustle pipe
completely encircles the furnace and accepts hot air and
temperatures as high as 1093°C (2,000°F).
cast house: is the structure which is built around the furnace
and houses all the operations which occur during casting.
coke breeze: coke fines
coke mess: a condition occurring at the iron trough when large
quantities of coke breeze are ejected from the tap hole.
cold blast: the air which is introduced beneath the burners in
the stove.
dam: an obstruction placed in the iron trough at the point where
the hot metal is separated from the slag. One design of this
function is called the baker dam.
direct reduction: a process to produce steel directly from iron
ore or to make a product equivalent to blast furnace pig iron
for use in present steel making processes. This process
could be considered an alternate to the blast furnace.
ferromanganese: a material made in blast furnaces from manganese
ore or mixtures of manganese ore and iron ore. This material
has a considerably lower percentage of iron than the pig iron
normally produced in a blast furnace.
flux: material such as limestone which is introduced into the
furnace; to assist in the separation of slag from the molten
iron. This material will vary depending upon the amounts and
types of impurities that are to be removed.
fuel injection: secondary fuel which is injected at the tuyeres
to add energy and to help control the temperature of the
156
-------
hearth. These fuels could be tar, fuel oil, gas or coke
breeze.
hearth: the section below the bosh which holds the molten metal
which is separated from the slag. The fuel which is injected
at the tuyeres is injected into this area and the outlet or
tap hole is drilled into this area.
hot blast: heated air from the stoves which is introduced
through the tuyeres to ignite and burn the coke.
iron ladles: torpedo shaped cars with an opening at the top
which are used to convey the hot metal from the blast furnace
area to the steel making area. These cars are emptied by
rotating about the axis, and pouring into the steel making
equipment.
iron trough: the area directly outside the tap hole which holds
the hot metal and separates the slag from the iron. The iron
trough or pool has a dam built into one end with a skimmer to
prevent the slag from entering the hot metal runners.
kish: carbon or graphite material that forms a portion of the
air pollution when it is released from the hot metal upon
cooling.
mud gun: the device which plugs the tap hole by ramming
specially prepared refractory materials into the opening at
the end of the cast when the iron level in the hearth becomes
low.
pellets: a form of ore in which the iron particles have been
agglomerated and mixed with a fuel and binder to form a
larger size material for the burden.
pig iron: a term applied to the iron which is cast from blast
furnaces and used in the manufacture of steel or castings.
pouring spouts: These are outlet pieces at the end of the
runners which direct the molten slag or iron into the ladle
cars.
pre-reduced burden: step in the iron making process preceding
the blast furnace in which the ore is reduced thus abetting
the blast furnace reduction process.
runners: ditches formed in the cast house floor made from a
combination of materials built up in layers to convey hot
metal and slag to the pouring spouts.
157
-------
sinter: material formed by agglomerating fine ores and other
materials on a moving heated belt. Sintered material may be
a combination of fluxes, cokef and iron.
skimmer: a spade type appliance located above the dam which
prevents the slag from following the path of the iron
runners.
slag: material formed by the fluxes, such as limestone and
consisting of undesireable. materials in the burden.
slag ladles: open type ladles which convey the slag to a
disposal area.
slag notch;: an opening in the hearth above the hot metal tap
hole which could be used to flush the slag from the top of
the molten bath. The slag notch is normally called a monkey
and it is closed by a metal plug.
stoves: brick lined heat regenerators which produce the hot
blast used to ignite and burn the coke in the blast furnace.
There are usually three to four stoves attached to each blast
furnace to insure a constant supply of hot blast to the
bustle pipe.
tap hole: the opening in the hearth which is used to withdraw
the hot metal and slag from the furnace during casting.
tap hole drill: a hydraulic drill, which, when swung into
position in front of the tap hole, is used to drill through
the clay into the hearth to release the hot metal into the
pool. A tap hole drill is usually about forty to sixty
millimeters in diameter.
top gas: the combustible CO rich gas which is withdrawn from the
top of the furnace and is used to heat the air in the stoves.
tuyeres: nozzle-type, high velocity openings which provide the
inlets for the hot blast to the hearth area. Tuyeres receive
the hoi: gas from the bustle pipe and inject it into the
hearth.
tilting spout: a form of pouring spout in which the spout itself
could be used to direct the flow from the runners to one or
two different locations by tilting in the direction of pour.
working volumes the inside volumetric content of the furnace
from the center line of the tuyeres to the stock line at the
top of the furnace. This could be considered as the cubicle
content of the burden in the furnace.
158
-------
APPENDICES
-------
A. PRODUCTION DATA FROM BLAST FURNACES
-------
>
I
MINIMUM
WORKING
VOLUME
(CU FT)
MAXIMUM
WORKING
VOLUME
(CO FT)
AVG
WORKING
VOLUME
(CO FT)
MINIMUM
RECORD
DAILY PROD
HOT METAL
(SHORT TONS)
MAXIMUM
RECORD
DAILY PROD
HOT METAL
(SHORT TOSS)
AVG
RECORD
DAILY PROD
HOT METAL
(SHORT TONS)
MINIMUM
CURRENT
DAILY PROD
HOT METAL
(SHORT TONS)
MAXIMUM
CURRENT
DAILY PROD
HOT METAL
(SHORT TONS)
AVG
CURRENT
DAILY PROD
HOT METAL
(SHORT TONS)
MINIMUM
NO. OF
CASTS
PER DAY
MAXIMUM
NO. 9F
CASTS
PER DAY
16,339 59,035 40,578
1,057 4,294 2,436
MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVG
3,250
i.eei
MINIMUM
AVG
NO. OF
CASTS
PER DAY
MINIMUM
HEARTlI
DIAMETER
(FEET)
MAXIMUM
HEARTH
DIAMETER
(FEET)
AVG
HEARTH
DIAMETER
(PEST)
IRON
NOTCH
BIT SZ.
(IN)
IRON
NOTCH
BIT SZ.
(IN)
IRON
NOTCH
BIT SZ.
(IN)
MINIMUM
NO. O?
IRON
NOTCHES
MAXIMUM
NO. OF
IRON
NOTCHES
AVG
NO. OF
IRON
NOTCHES
MINIMUM
NO. OF
CINDER
NOTCHES
MAXIKUM
NO . O?
CINDER
NOTCHES
AVG
NO. OP
CINDER
NGTCH£S
IRON
TROUGH
I.ENGTU
(FEET)
15.12
3i.ee
25.31
2.25
3.22
MAXIMUM AVG
NINIKJH MAXIMUM
AVG
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
AVG
MINIMUM
IRON
TF.OUGH
LENGTH
(FEET)
IRON
TROUGH
LENGTH
(FEET)
IRON
TROUGH
WIDTH
(IN.)
IRON
TROUGH
WIDTH
(IN.)
IRON
TROUGH
WIDTH
(IN.)
IRON
TROUGH
DEPTH
(IN.)
IRON
TROUGH
DEPTH
(IN.)
IROiJ
TROUGH
DEPTH
(IN.)
MINIMUM
OUR OF
CAST
(KIN)
MAXIMUM
DUR OF
CAST
(MIN)
AVG
DUR OF
CAST
(MIN)
MINIMUM
DUR OF
FLUSH
(MIN)
MAXIMUM
DUR OF
FLUSH
(X.IH)
AVG
DUR OF
FLUSH
(MIS)
BEGIM.
BLAST
PP.CSS
(PSIG)
32 22 6 72 42
MAXIMUM AVG MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVG
69 26
MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVG
25
90
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
4b
AVG
12
MINIMUM
180
15
KAXIKU.1
AYS
BEGIN.
BLAST
PRESS
(PSIG)
BEGIN.
BLAST
PRESS
(PSIG)
BEGIN.
BLAST
VOLUME
(SCFM)
BEGIN.
BLAST
VOLUME
(SCFM)
BEGIN.
BLAST
VOLUME
(SCFM)
STOPPED
BLAST
PRESS
(PSIG)
STOPPED
BLAST
PRESS
(PSIG)
STOPPED
BLAST
PRESS
(PSIG)
NO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN
DRAINS
NO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN
DRAINS
NO. OP
CASTS
BETWEEN
DRAINS
SLAG
P2P. TON
HOT METAL
(LBS)
SLAG
PSK TON
HOT METAL
(LBS)
SL'.G
PER TON
HOT HETAt,
(LBS)
35
24
33,E00 135,029 83,591
30
12
400
1,163
663
O
G !>
M <
en M
O O
2 M
Z en
WHO
2 pd l"3d
O M (-3
O tr1 < >
Ir1 M w >• w
G f tr1
pa G M
< M
G M en >
> en
en a
en
M 3
O
O W
I
MINIMUM
COKE
PER TON
HOT KETAL
-------
MINIMUM
WORKING
VOLUME
(CU FT)
MAXIMUM
WORKING
VOLUME
(CU FT)
AVG
WORKING
VOLUME
(CU FT)
MINIMUM
RECORD
DAILY PROD .
HOT METAL
(SHORT TONS)
MAXIMUM
RECORD
DAILY PROD
HOT METAL
(SHORT TONS)
AVG
RECORD
DAILY PROD
HOT METAL
(SBORT TOSS)
MINIMUM
CURRENT
DAILY PROD
HOT METAL
(SHORT TONS)
MAXIMUM
CURRENT
DAILY PROD
HOT HETAL
(SHORT TONS)
AVG
CURRENT
DAILY PROD
HOT HETAL
(SHORT TOSS)
MINIMUM
NO. OP
CASTS
PER DAY
MAXIMUM
NO. OP
CASTS
PER DAY
54.839 99,999 79,959
3,766 7,614 4.981
MINIMUN MAXIMUN AVG
2.7S2
6.200
4,034
12
MINIMUM
AVG
NO. OF
CASTS
PER DAY
MINIMUM
HEARTH
DIAMETER
(FEET)
MAXIMUM
HEARTH
DIAMETER
(FEET)
AVG
HEARTH
DIAMETER
(FEET)
IRON
NOTCH
BIT SZ.
(IN)
IRON
NOTCH
BIT SZ.
(IN)
IRON
NOTCH
BIT SZ.
(IN)
MINIMUM
NO. OF
IRON
NOTCHES
MAXIMUM
NO. OF
IRON
NOTCHES
AVG
NO. OF
IRON
NOTCHES
MINIMUM
NO. OF
CINDER
NOTCHES
MAXIMUM
NO. OF
CINDER
NOTCHES
AVG
NO. OF
CINDER
NOTCHES
IRO:J
TROUGS
LENGTH
(FEET)
O
G
M
CO
25.56
40.00
32.50
1.83
4.89
2.94
18
MAXIMUM
IRON
TROUGH
LENGTH
(FEET)
AVG
IRON
TROUGH
LENGTH
(FEET)
MINIMUM
IRON
TROUGH
WIDTH
(IN.)
MAXIMUM
IRON
TROUGH
h'lDTH
(IN.)
AVG
IRON
TROUGH
WIDTH
(IN.)
MINIMUM
IRON
TROUGH
DEPTH
(IN.)
MAXIMUM
IRON
TROUGH
DEPTH
(IN.)
AVG
IRON
TROUGH
DEPTH
(IN.)
MINIMUM
DUR OF
CAST
(MIN)
MAXIMUM
DUR OF
CAST
(KIN)
AVG
DUR OF
CAST
(MIN)
MINIMUM
DUR OF
FLUSH
(MIN)
MAXIMUM
DUR OF
FLUSH
(MIN)
AVG
DUR OF
FLUSH
(MIN)
MINIMUM
BEGIN.
BLAST
PRESS
(PSIG)
47
30
24
72
MAXIMUM AVG
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
38
AVG
12
36
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
24
AVG
45
110
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
72
AVG
27
BEGIN.
BEGIN. BEGIN.
BEGIN.
BEGIN. STOPPED STOPPED STOPPED NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF
MINIMUM
SLAG
MAXIMUM
SLAG
AVG
SLAG
BLAST
PRESS
(PSIG)
BLAST
PRESS
(PSIG)
BLAST
VOLUME
(SCFM)
BLAST
VOLUME
(SCFM!
BLAST
VOLUME
(SCFM)
BLAST
PRESS
(PSIG)
BLAST
PRESS
(PSIG)
BLAST
PRESS
(PSIG)
CASTS
BETWEEN
DRAINS
CASTS
BETWEEN
DRAINS
CASTS
BETWEEN
DRAINS
PER TON
HOT METAL
(LBS)
PER TON-
HOT METAL
(LBS)
PER TON
HOT KETAL
(LBS)
49
MINIMUM
COKE
PER TON
HOT METAL
(LBS)
33 120,030 245,009 161,672
MAXIMUM
COKE
PER TON
HOT METAL
(LBS)
AVG
COKE
PER TON
HOT METAL
(LBS)
MINIMUM
SILICON
CONTENT
HOT HETAL
(«)
13
MAXIMUM
SILICON
CONTENT
HOT METAL
(%)
49
AVG
SILICON
CONTENT
HOT METAL
(*)
"26
MINIMUM
SULFUR
CONTENT
HOT METAL
(%)
2 30
MAXIMUM
SULFUR
CONTENT
HOT HETAL
(%)
11
AVG
SULFUR
CONTENT
HOT METAL
(%)
423
MINIMUM
MANGA.'J.
CONTENT
HOT METAL
(%)
709
MAXIMUM
MAN'GAN.
CONTENT
HOT METAL
<%)
591
AVG
MANGAS.
CONTEST
HOT KETAL
<*)
942
1,384
1,116
9.70
1.40
1.06
0.030
0.036
9.031
0.42
1.32
6.73
MINIMUM
SLAG
BASICITY
(B/A)
MAXIMUM
SLAG
BASICITY
(B/A)
AVG
SLAG
'BASICITY
(B/A)
MINIMUM
SULFUR
CONSENT
OP SLAG
(»)
MAXIMUM
SULFUR
CONTENT
OF SLAG
(%)
AVG
SULFUR
CONTENT
OF SLAG
(%)
MINIMUM
ORE IN
METAL
BURDEN
(4)
MAXIMUM
ORE IN
METAL
BURDEN
(%)
AVG
ORE IN
METAL
BURDEN
CO
MINIMUM
SINTER IN
METAL
BURDEN
(4)
MAXIMUM
SINTER IN
METAL
BURDEN
(»)
AVG
SINTER IN
METAL
BURDEN
(%)
MINIMUM
SCRAP IN
KSTAL
BURDEN
!%)
w
H W
O I>
a M
>< CO
M
M Jd O
"Z tt *}
O F co < >
f M G > m
;> co ja Ir1 f
co 33 < G M
co td td
G H< CO !>
K> 2; I
M O O NJ
i~3 *^d td
co 1-3
co >
H3 H
td 2
td W
tr1 O
3> ^
H »
tr1 O
CO
0.98
1.29
1.11
l.J
1.830
1.486
2.0
74.0
20. B
6.3
50.0
27.9
2.9
MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVG
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
MAXIMUM
SCRAP IN
HETAL
BURDEN
(»)
AVG
SCRAP IN
METAL
BURDEN
(»)
MINIMUM
PELLETS IN
METAL
BURDEN
(%)
MAXIMUM
PELLETS IN
METAL
BURDEN
(»)
AVG
PELLETS IN
METAL
BURDEN
<»)
MINIMUM
HOT
METAL
TEMP
(DEC P)
MAXIMUM
HOT
METAL
TSMP
(DBG F)
AVG
HOT
METAL
TEMP
(DEC F)
FREQ
IRON
RUNNER
BEMAKE
(DAYS)
FREQ
IRON
RUNNER
REMAKE
(DAYS)
FREQ
IRON
RUNNER
REMAKE
(DAYS)
NO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN
RUNNER
RELINE
NO. OP
CASTS
BETWEEN
RUSNER
RELINE
7.0
3.7
50.0
183.0
72.3
2650
2318
2735
1.000
5.000
2.182
AVG
NO. OP
CASTS
BETWEEN
RUttSER
RELINE
MINIMUM
NO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN
MAJOR
TROUGH
REPAIR
MAXIMUM
NO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN
MAJOR
TROUGH
R2PAIR
AVG
NO. OF
CASTS
SSTWSEtl
MAJOR
THOUGH
REPAIR
MINIMUM
NO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN
NOMINAL
TROUGH
REPAIR
MAXIMUM
NO. Of
CASTS
BETWEEN
NOMINAL
TROUGH
REPAIR
AVG
NO. OP
CASTS
BETWEEN
NOMINAL
TROUGH
REPAIR
MINIMUM
CAST
HOUSE
VOL1JMC
(CU FT)
MAXIMUM
CAST
HOUSE
VOLUME
(CO FT)
AVG
CAST
HOUSE
VOLUME
(CU FT)
MEDIAN
CAST
HOUSE
VOLUME
(CU FT)
12
90
23
30
9 268,008 1,491,259 795,038 790,000
-------
MINIMUM
WORKING
VOLUME
(CU MOT
MAXIMUM
WORKING
VOLUME
(CXI MET)
AVG
WORKING
VOLUME
(CU MET)
MINIMUM
RECORD
DAILY PROD
HOT METAL
(KG)
MAXIMUM
RECORD
DAILY PROD
HOT METAL
(KG)
AVG
RECORD
DAILY PROD
HOT METAL
(KG)
MINIMUM
CURRENT
DAILY PROD
HOT METAL
(KG)
MAXIMUM
CURRENT
DAILY PROD
HOT METAL
(KG)
AVG
CURRENT
DAILY PPOD
HOT METAL
(KG)
MINIMUM
NO. OF
CASTS
PER DAY
MAXIMUM
NO. OF
CASTS
PEP. DAY
462
1,671
1,148 .958395E-K16 .389545E+07 .221010E+07 .000000E+31 .294835E+07 .163454E+07
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
AVG
AVG MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVG IRON IRON IRON
NO. OF HEARTH HEARTH HEARTH NOTCH NOTCH NOTCH
CASTS DIAKtTEK DIAMtrER DIAMiTltW BIT SZ. BIT SZ. DIT SZ.
PER DAY (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (MM) (KM) (MM)
MINIMUM
MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVG MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVG IRON
NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF TfOUGH
IRON IKON IRON CINDER CINDER CINDER LENGTH
NOTCHES NOTCHES NOTCHES NOTCHES NOTCHES NOTCHES (METERS)
4.6t;9
9.449
7.71J
57.15 li)1.60 81.86
1
1
2.44
AVG
MAXIMUM
IRON
TMUGH TFOUGH
LENGTH LENGTH
(KETEKS)
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
ISC*.'
IFDN
AVG
IRON
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
IWJN
IRON
AVG
IRON MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVG
TROUGH
WIUTH
(MM)
TROUGH
KIOTH
(MM)
TfOUGH
WIDTH
(MM)
TROUGH
DEPTH
(MM)
TFOUGH
DEPTH
(MM)
THOUGH
DEPTH
(iVM)
DUB OF
CAST
(HIM)
DUR OF
CAST
(MIN)
DUR OF
CAST
(MIN)
DUR OF
FLUSH
(MIN)
MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVG
DUR OF
FLUSH
(MIS)
9.75
6.82 152 40 1828.80 1870.69
50.80 1524.00 678.20
25
9D
46
12
180
40
MINIMUM
BEGINNING
BLAST
PRESSURE
(PASCALS)
MAXIMUM
BEGINNING
BLAST
PRESSURE
(PASCALS)
AVG
BEGINNING
BLAST
PRESSURE
(PASCALS)
MINIMUM
BEGINNING
BLAST
VOLUME
(CU MET/SEC)
MAXIMUM
BEGINNING
BLAST
VOLUME
(CU MET/SEC)
AVG
BEGINNING
BLAST
VOLUME
(CU MET/SEC)
MINIMUM
STOPPED
BLAST
PRESSURE
(PASCALS)
MAXIMUM
STOPPED
BLAST
PRESSURE
(PASCALS)
AVG
STOPPED
BLAST
PRESSURE
(PASCALS)
.103421E+C6 .241316!>J6 ,166SSlE-t06 .179346E+B2 .63712QE+02 .3945(15E*32 .2C6343E+05 .206843E+06 .8339C9E+-05
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
NO. OF
CAST'S
BETnLEN
DRAINS
NO. OF
CASTS
DET.-.EEN
DRAINS
AVG
NO. CF
CASTS
BSTnEEN
DRAINS
MINIMUM
SLAG
PER TON
HOT METAL
(KGS)
181
MAXIMUM
SLAG
PER TON
HOT METAL
(KGS)
AVG
SLAG
PER TON
HOT METAL
(KGS)
MINIMUM
COKE
PER TON
HOT METAL
(KGS)
MAXIMUM
COKE
PER TO!-:
HOT HETAL
(KGS)
AVG
COKE
PER TON
HOT METAL
(KGS)
MINIMUM
SILICON
CONTENT
HOT METAL
(11
MAXIMUM
AVG
SILICON SILICON
COMTEMT CONTENT
HOT METAL HOT METAL
("*) (%)
529
332
425
796
568
0.90
3.50
1.27
Q
a
w >
en <
i-3 W
M 5d
O ;>
2 O
2 W
> cn
n cn cn < >
f H G > to
> JO tr1 tr1
cn G < G M
C/i 2 M M
H K cn >
I-1 1-3 i
cn O O u>
^ to
cn >
1-3 H
M 2
M M
IT" O
MINIMUM
SULFUR
CONTENT
HOT METAL
(%)
MAXIMUM
SULFUH
COWrcKT
HOT XETAL
(%)
AVG
SULFUR
CONTENT
HOT NETAL
(%)
MINIMUM
KAiJCAN.
CONi'ENT
HOT1 METAL
(%)
MAXIMUM
MANGAN.
CONTENT
HOT METAL
(*)
AVG
MANGAN.
CONTENT
HOT METAL
(%)
MINIMUM
SLAG
BASICITY
(B/A)
MAXIMUM
SLAG
BASICITY
(3/A)
AVG
SLAG
BASICITY
(3/A)
MINIMUM
SULFUR
CONTENT
OF SLAG
(»,)
MAXIMUM
SULFUR
CONTENT
OF SLAG
(»,)
AVG MINIMUM
SULFUR ORE IN
COGENT METAL
OF SLAG BURDEN
('.) tt)
8.C17
1.750
O.C44
0.14
1.69
3.72
0.88
2.00
1.11
8.085
2.45B
1.687
tr1
cn
MAXIMUM AVG
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
AVG
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
AVG
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
AVG
MlillMUM MAXIMUM
ORE IS ORE IS SINTER IN SINTER IN SINTER IN SCRAP IN SCRAP IN SCRAP IN PELLETS IN PELLETS IN PELLETS IN
>.ETAL VETAL METAL
BURDEN BURDEN EUKCEN
93.8
24.5
0.0
METAL
BURDEN
80.0
METAL
BURDEN
36.7
METAL
BURDEN
0.0
METAL
BURDEN
17.0
METAL
BUhDEN
4.9
METAL
BURDEN
8.0
METAL
BURDEN
100.0
MtrfAL
55.5
HOT
i:OT
METAL METAL
TET'.P TEMP
(DEG C) (DLG C)
1,343
1,565
MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVG
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
AVG
MINIMUM t-'AXIMUM
AVG KINIXUM MAXIMW;
AVG
NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF KO. OF SO. OF
AVG
HOT
METAL
TEKP
(DEG C)
FKEQ
ISDN
RU»;.ER
RE^•.•^KE
(DAYS)
FKEO
ISOS
RUNNER
KI?1AXE
(CAVS)
FREQ
IFON
RUI.-NER
RE.-'-AKE
(DAYS)
NO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN
RUNNER
RELINE
NO. OF
CASTS
EETKEEN
RUNl.'ER
RELINE
NO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN
KUSNER
RELINE
CASTS
BETWEEN
J'lAJOR
THOUGH
REPAIR
CAS'lS
BETWE!^
MVIOR
THOUGH
PEPAIS
CASTS
BETWEEN
M\JOR
T;OUGM
REPAIR
CASTS
BETWEEN
NCMI'VAL
T1OUCH
REPAIR
1,479 I.BOB 10.CD3 2.119
60
11
5150
39
CASTS
CASTS
BKT/.EFN
NOMIiiAL
REPAIR
43
T.oim
REPAIR
3,727
MAXIMUM
CAST
H'JUSE
VOUJJ'iE
(CU I-^T)
34,756
AVG
CAST
HOUSE
(CU MET)
11,393
11,042
-------
I
.£>.
MINIMUM
WORKING
(CU f'£T)
1,552
MAXIMUM
FORKING
(OJ ViET)
2,831
AVG
WORKING
(CU V.ET)
2, CCS
MINIMUM
RECORD
DAILY PROD
(KG)
.341646E+07
MAXIMUM
RECORD
DAILY PROD
(KG)
.690731E+07
AVG
RECORD
DAILY PROD
(KG)
.451943E+07
MINIMUM
CUPPENT
DAILY PROD
(KG)
.249657E+37
MAXIMUM
CURRENT
DAILY PROD
(KG)
.562455E+37
AVG
CURRENT
DAILY PROD
(KG)
. 370527E+B7
MINIMUM
NO. OF
PER DAY
8
MAXI«UK
KC. OF
PER DAY
12
MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVG
MINIMUM
AVG
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
AVG
IRON
IKON
IRON
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
AVG
MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVG
NO. OF
CASTS
PER DAY
HEAKTH
DLVU-'TiK
(METERS)
HEARTH
DIATJITER
(METERS)
HEARTH
DIAMKTEK
(>iETERS)
NOTCH
BIT SZ.
(MM)
NOTCH
DIT SZ.
(MK)
NOTCH
BIT SZ.
(MM)
NO. OF
I HOW
NOTCHES
NO. OF
I SON
NOTCHES
NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF
IRON CINUEH CINDER
NCTCHK3 KCUCHES NOTCIHS
NO. OF
CINDER
NOTCH 1-3
TPOUrM
LESiO'l'H
(MLTEl'S)
7.772
AVG
IkGN
12.192
9.907
47.75 101.60 74.77
5.49
MIMI.XUM MAXIMUM
IKCN
IRON
AVG
IRON
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
IRON'
LENGTH
(KEIEKS)
14.33
(.".ETESS)
TSC'JGH
KlrJTH
O'-V)
TROUGH
WIDTH
(MM)
TROUGH
WIOTH
(MM)
TROUGH
DEPTH
(MM)
TROUGH
DEPTH
(MM)
THOUGH
DEPTH
(MM)
DUR OF
CAST
(MIN)
DUR OF
CAST
(MIN)
DUR OF
CAST
(MIN)
DUR OF
FLUSH
(MIN)
AVG
IRON MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVG MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVG
DUR OF DUR OF
FLUSH FLUSH
(MIN) (MIN)
MI VIM?'.
EEJINNIXG
BLAST
PHLSS^HE
(FAfCALS)
9.37 509.60 1823.8C 969.82 3^4.80 914.40 630.38
>AXI.-8JM
BEGINNING
BLAST
PFESSl'KE
(PASCALS)
110
72
AVG
BEGINNING
BLAST
PKE.SSUKE
(PASCALS)
MINI.VUM
BEGINNING
BLAST
VOLU>'£
(CU MET/St£)
MAXIMUM
BEGIMNING
BLAST
VOUj"ffi
(CU MET/SEC)
AVG
BEGI.WING
BLAST
VOLUME
(CU MEV/SEC)
MINIMUM
STOPPED
BLAST
PRESSURE
(PASCALS)
MAXIMUM
STOPPED
BLAST
PRESSURE
(PASCALS)
AVG
STOPPED
BLAST
PRESSURE
(PASCALS)
.1361S:;s>06 .337813E+C-G .232541E+06 .56633CIC*-i)2 .115627E-f03 .7C3UO-JL+02 .89G318E+35 .337843E<-85 .1S2397E+36
MINI MIT.
NO. CF
CADI'S
BETnEEN
CHAINS
MAXIMUM
NO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN
CKAINS
AVG
NO. OF
CASTS
BEI'.CLN
CHAINS
MINIMUM
SLAG
PER ION
HOT METAL
(KGS)
MAXIMUM
SLAG
PER TON
HOT METAL
(KGS)
AVG
SLAG
PER ION
HOT KETAL
(KGS)
MINIMUM
COKE
PER TON
HOT "ETAL
(KGS)
MAXIMUM
COKE
PER TON
HOT METAL
(XCS)
AVG
COKE
PER TON
HOT METAL
(KGS)
MINIMUM
SILICON
CONTENT
HOT METAL
C.)
"lAXI.MJM
SILICON
CONTENT
HOT METAL
W
AVG
SILICON
CCIT1ENT
HOT METAL
™_
30
11
191
317
267
427
591
505
0.70
1.40
1.06
Ml M MUM
SULFl'R
CCNIEi."'
HOT ,'i'lAL
(%)
MAXIMUM
SULFUR
CON'i'EI.T
HOT ^TAL
(%)
AVG
SULFUR
CONTENT
HOT tvJ^TAL
w
MINIMUM
KANGAN.
CONTENT
HOT t ,TAL
(?)
MAXIMUM
MANGAN.
CONTENT
HOT METAL
W
AVG
MANGAN.
CONTENT
HOT METAL
<%)
MINIMUM
SLAG
BASICITY
(B/A)
MAXIMUM
SLAG
BASICITY
(B/A)
AVG
SLAG
BASICITY
(3/A)
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
SULFUR SULFUR
CONTENT CONTENT
OF SLAG OF SLAG
(%) (%)
AVG
SULFUR
CONTENT
OF SLAG
(%)
MINIMUM
ORE IN
KETRL
BURSES
(»)
0.036
0.031
0.42
1.32
0.78
B.98
1.20
1.11
1.100
1.830
1.486
2.D
o
G
M >
cn <
i-3 M
I—I ^0
O t>
2 O
2 M
> cn
M *^d
o cn co <
f H G >
cn G < G
cn 2 M M
M H< cn
W
H
M
cn
O O
"^d 03
cn >
>-3 M
M 2
M M
tr1 O
t-» o
t-1 g
cn
KAXI.'Il'X
ORE IN
KE-IAL
BUKCEM
m
AVG
ORE IN
MLTAL
BURDEN
(%)
MINI.VCM
SIOTER IN
METAL
BURCE-'J
(t)
MAXIMUM
SINTER IN
METAL
BURDEN
(*)
AVG
SINTER IN
METAL
BURDEN
(%)
MINI.VUM
SCRAP IN
METAL
BURDEN
w
MAXIMUM
SCRAP IN-
METAL
B-JRDEH
(%)
ATC
SCRAP IN
KETAL
BURDEN
(%)
MINIMUM
PELLETS IN
KETAL
BURDEN
(*)
MAXIMUM
PELLETS I!!
METAL
BURDEN
<».)
AVG
PELLETS IN
METAL
BUKDEN
(%)
MINIMUM MAXIJXH
HOT HOT
METAL J-ETAL
TfJ'.P TEMP
(DEC C) (DEC C)
74.C
20.0
5.6
5C.0
27.9
2.C
7.0
3.7
50.0
100.0
72.3 1,454
1,543
AVG
HOT
METAL
TLMP
(DbG C)
MIMMW
FR£0
IRON
RU.vi;LR
RE.VJ\KE
(CAYS)
MAXIXUM
FREQ
IRON
RUSXR
BEKAXE
(CAYS)
AVG
FKF.Q
I SON
RU;.?;ER
R£>'AKE
(DAYS)
MINIMUM
HO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN
Fu;:;i;R
KELINE
MAXIMUM
NO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN
RUNKER
RE LINE
AVG
NO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN
RUNNER
RELINE
MINIMUM
NO. Or
CASTS
BI-TAEEN
MAJOR
TROUGH
REPAIR
MAXIMUM
KO. OF
CASTS
BElVxCEN
MAJOR
TROUGH
REPAI X
AVG MINIMUM MAXIMUM
NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF
CASTS CASTS CASTS
BETWEEN BET*EhN BETAKEN
I1AJOR NCMXAL NailNAL
TKOUGH TROUGH . TROUGH
REPAIR REPAIR REPAIR
AVG
KO. OF
CASTS
CETA'EEN
KOMI HAL
TKXX5H
REPAIR
Mir:i:uM
C/GT
HO'JEE
VOLUME
(CU .VET)
S.U'JO 2.182
12
23
30
A'/G
CAST
HOUSE
VGLCVJE
(CU :-'£T)
MEDIA::
CAST
HOUSE
VOLUXE
7,588
42,227 22,512 22,368
-------
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE INVENTORY
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21,1977
ENGLISH-UNITS
I
Ul
BLAST
FURNACE
CODE
C998
0999
13J1
1C02
1883
lie:
113:
12P1
13i31
1302
1393
1384
1401
1432
1483
1404
1405
1406
14C7
1403
1409
1410
1503
1534
1505
1506
1507
1602
1633
1604
1701
1702
1304
1805
1806
18C7
2032
2181
2102
2103
2201
2232
2203
2204
2235
2235
WORKING
VOLUME
(CU FT) i
22,750
22,750
55,324
23,636
30,526
72,eoe
52.533
50,3-:0
54,431
49,748
54,d34
39,739
38,395
38.S37
42,245
42.853
24,392
24,993
47,167
54,-jlS
54.H30
54.799
51.044
39.477
39,993
50,885
55,112
33,327
47,578
48,563
89,204
36. 646
32,100
33,583
24,656
31,310
54,423
23,053
27,509
54,937
30,928
25,6d9
31,946
23,573
46,323
47,142
RECORD
DAILY PROD
HOT METAL
[SHORT TONS)
4,016
1,628
1,798
4,436
3,652
3,093
3,864
3,359
3.803
2,667
2,156
2,201
2,760
2,525
1,395
1,373
2,493
3,514
4,772
3,802
3.42J
2.666
2,666
3,022
3,726
1,718
2,800
2,727
5,819
5,739
1,210
1,057
1,101
1,324
2,550
2,082
2,164
3,821
2,146
2.105
2,327
2,369
3,273
3,239
CURRENT
DAILY PROD
HOT METAL
(SHORT TONS)
1,000
1,000
3,734
1.241
3,540
2,047
2,835
2,062
2,643
1,767
1,650
1,650
2,382
2,112
900
900
2,674
3,001
2,800
2,215
1,656
2,003
2,269
3,592
1,615
2,457
2,503
5,115
5.739
300
800
800
800
1,457
1,710
1,760
3.110
1.660
1,744
1.830
1,749
2,549
2,240
NO. OF
CASTS
PER DAY
6
6
10
7
10
7
6
8
8
8
8
7
7
8
7
5
5
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
10
6
6
6
6
5
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
HEARTH
DIAMETER
(FEET)
18.00
19.50
25.50
18.50
19.50
33.50
23.75
27.25
30.00
28.00
30.00
24.00
25.50
25.50
23.00
28.00
19.75
19.75
28.00
30.00
33.30
30.03
29.53
26.00
27.03
29. OJ
30. 0a
25.00
26.03
23.00
33.25
35.30
22.75
21.00
21.30
21.75
29.25
20. CO
20. OH
29. (10
20.80
23.00
22.00
21.03
27.03
26.50
IRON
NOTCH
BIT
SIZE
(IN)
4.00
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.53
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.53
3.50
3.53
3.50
3.50
3.53
3.50
3.50
3.53
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.25
2.25
3.03
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.r,0
3.00
NO. OF
IROK
NOTCHES
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NO. OP
CINDER
NOTCHES
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
IRON
TROUGH
LENGTH
(FEET)
28
22
21
31
24
32
19
19
19
19
30
24
30
24
20
20
22
23
30
30
25
29
23
25
25
17
25
25
27
27
29
29
29
22
21
26
26
25
21
21
21
16
21
21
IRON
TROUGH
WIDTH
(IN.)
36
48
48
36
35
39
48
43
43
4d
36
36
36
36
36
36
35
36
36
36
60
63
24
63
63
30
30
30
24
24
34
34
34
27
66
23
23
30
45
42
43
63
52
52
IRON
TROUGH
DEPTH
(IN.)
30
25
25
24
17
33
24
24
24
24
2B
23
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
23
48
43
43
43
48
24
20
22
24
24
21
21
21
17
24
15
15
15
22
27
23
27
26
26
CO H
3 co
H
i-3 O
i^ W
u >
H
H a 1-3
o w >
o w
en f
i-3 ^ M
W JO
M O >
t^ 3 I
en
SO
H G
f M
f CO
cn i-3
H
03 O
H^ 2J
2
co
-------
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE INVENTORY
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21,1977
ENGLISH-UNITS
I
cn
BLAST
FURNACE
CODE
2207
2228
2331
2302
2303
2334
2521
2532
2503
2504
2535
2506
2512
2514
2631
2632
2633
2634
27i)l
2iJl
2332
2981
2932
2937
29D3
2 91.' 9
2910
2911
2912
2913
3C21
330:
3333
333d
323}
3J1J
3311
3314
331S
3316
3317
3318
3201
3381
3302
3322
WORKING
VOLUME
(CU FT)
46,954
46,595
41,448
27.B27
25.534
28,204
54,403
43,892
54 ,030
34 ,101)
54 ,433
31,533
47,188
57.376
39,734
39 ,734
39 .734
51,212
52,810
57,238
57,233
50,652
50,490
56,197
4 5 , -J 6 0
46,685
46,673
16,339
16,311
29.243
53,163
42.733
46,530
44,870
43,271
56,143
56. 143
27,751
35,213
54,400
19,713
45,606
31,61)2
58,537
59,035
59.335
RECORD
DAILY PROD
HOT METAL
(SHORT TOSS)
3,43d
3,488
2,469
1,622
1,538
2,304
2,306
4,025
2,181
3,069
2,030
3,050
3,891
2,218
2,372
2,132
2,983
2,648
3,449
3,561
2,419
2,453
2,779
2,789
2,777
2,893
3,023
2,213
2,175
2,331
2.083
2,709
2,756
1,553
1,995
2,776
1,057
2,303
1,6C9
4,294
3,771
4,157
CURRENT
DAILY PROD
HOT METAL
(SHORT TONS)
2,560
2,558
1,925
1,050
950
2,291
0
3,250
1,600
0
1,500
2,310
2,752
1,843
1.B57
1,825
2,304
1,800
2,703
2,650
2,306
2,500
2,200
2,103
2,100
2, 1C0
700
775
1,003
2,690
2,048
2,033
2,090
1,833
1,751
2,115
1,743
2,603
850
1,812
1,200
2.850
. 2,853
2,850
NO. OF
CASTS
PER DAY
B
8
8
8
3
3
8
3
B
a
3
8
9
6
6
6
6
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
a
B
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
6
6
9
9
9
HEARTH
DIAMETER
(FEET)
26.50
26.50
25.25
19.66
19.00
21.00
29.00
28.50
29.00
28.50
29.00
27.30
27.50
30.50
27.00
27.00
27.03
29.50
27.30
23.50
28.50
27.30
27.30
27.03
27.33
26.25
26.25
16.25
15.12
23.03
23.03
26.25
26.25
27.03
27.03
2S.50
29.50
21.50
22.75
28.00
17.00
26.03
22.00
29.50
31.00
31. 0B
IRON
NOTCH
BIT
SI2E
(IN)
3.00
3.0B
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.20
3.53
3.30
3.50
3.50
3.00
3.00
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.30
3.50
4.00
4.03
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.5»
3.53
2.75
2.75
2.75
3.25
2.50
2.50
2.75
3.30
2.75
2.75
2.53
2.50
3.00
3.03
3.00
3.50
3.25
3.25
3.25
NO. OF
IRON
NOTCHES
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NO. OF
CINDER
NOTCHES
2
2
0
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
IRON
TROUGH
LENGTH
(FEET)
29
29
23
24
23
25
30
23
31
22
26
24
13
24
24
24
32
24
13
25
25
19
21
18
25
19
13
12
10
8
24
16
20
22
22
25
25
24
25
24
19
21
20
30
30
30
IRON
TROUGH
WIDTH
(IN.)
53
53
48
39
26
40
72
48
72
48
6
48
50
43
30
30
48
30
48
48
48
43
48
24
24
24
24
45
36
54
20
60
60
38
40
57
56
26
46
63
52
58
36
36
36
36
IRON
TROUGH
DEPTH
(IlJ.)
26
26
19
19
18
15
48
24
24
18
2
18
19
12
26
26
26
26
14
30
33
36
30
30
30
30
30
13
18
18
32
63
63
22
23
22
23
18
22
30
24
24
30
33
33
30
-------
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE INVENTORY
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21,1977
ENGLISH-UNITS
BLAST
FURNACE
CODE
3304
3305
3306
33J3
3309
3310
3311
3312
3313
3315
3316
3317
3318
332C
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3323
3329
3333
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
3333
3344
3345
3345
3347
3343
3349
3350
3351
3352
3356
3357
3353
3359
3363
WORKING
VOLUME
(CU FT) 1
48,98"6
48,986
33,837
31,->aa
32,510
51,281
51,281
31,558
31,558
25,621
32,541
35,215
53,045
37,724
34,724
33,710
37,356
24,929
47,563
27,326
47,550
42.1J6
41,817
28,627
42,630
39,256
39,256
93,999
31,237
5«,538
35,232
51,004
43,666
43,666
43,665
31,164
33,235
31,865
40,829
40,995
52,070
42,140
28,635
28,930
48,488
48,914
RECORD
DAILY PROD
HOT METAL
[SHORT TONS)
3,030
3,240
2,321
1,776
1,545
2,999
2,814
1,982
1,560
1,611
1,992
2,547
3,953
2,087
2,107
1,832
1,922
3,151
3,066
7,614
1,596
3,766
1,672
2,573
2,259
2,224
2,242
1,256
1,300
1,154
1,570
1,710
2,407
1.654
1,784
1,816
3,521
3,179
CURRENT
DAILY PROD
HOT METAL
(SHORT TONS)
1,400
2,400
1,937
1.400
1,100
2,350
2,250
910
1,037
1,200
1,600
2,800
1,707
.. 1,749
1,143
1,000
2,620
1,900
1,350
1,990
1,080
2,160
1,250
1,400
6,200
1,100
3,286
1,665
2,409
1,874
2,076
850
900
925
1,300
1,400
1,900
1,100
1,500
2,800
2,300
NO. OF
CASTS
PER DAY
8
9
8
8
8
7
7
6
6
6
8
9
11
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
6
8
7
7
12
7
10
7
7
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
6
9
9
9
9
HEARTH
DIAMETER
(FEET)
29.00
29.00
26.00
25.00
23.50
29.50
29.50
23.50
23.50
20.00
23.00
24.50
23.00
25.00
23.50
23.00
25.00
20.50
28 .25
20.50
26.00
28.00
26.50
23.00
27. C0
25. OB
25.00
40. 00
24 .BO
32.00
25.30
29.00
26.50
26.50
26.50
22.00
22.50
21.50
25.00
25.00
28.70
26.00
23.00
23.25
23.50
29.03
IRON
NOTCH
BIT
SIZE
(IN) 1
3.00
2.50
2.50
3.00
3.03
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.03
3.00
3.03
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.25
3.25
3.25
3.25
3.25
3.25
3.25
3.25
3.25
3.25
1.83
2.25
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.25
3.25
3.25
3.25
3.25
NO. OF
IRON
NOTCHES
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
A
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NO. OF
CINDER
NOTCHES
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
a
i
i
i
i
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
IRON
TROUGH
LENGTH
(FEET)
16
16
16
16
13
23
17
19
24
12
12
12
18
18
17
17
17
22
23
19
29
31
23
22
22
22
22
47
19
41
30
31
21
21
26
26
23
25
25
26
24
18
23
23
17
IRON
TROUGH
WIDTH
(IK.)
36
36
48
36
36
66
4d
45
50
36
36
35
43
43
43
33
48
33
42
33
42
42
42
33
42
33
33
24
54
42
33
40
27
27
36
36
36
48
48
72
43
60
63
62
60
IRON
TROUGH
DEPTH
(IN.)
32
32
32
32
32
33
36
25
34
18
18
18
24
30
33
30
33
21
23
21
21
23
27
21
26
21
21
16
43
31
25
23
32
32
36
35
35
43
48
63
21
27
29
33
24
-------
I
CO
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE INVENTORY
8ETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21,1977
ENGLISH-UNITS
BLAST
FURNACE
CODE
3361
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
35i)l
3582
35C3
35C4
WORKING
VOLUME
CURRENT
DAILV PROD
HOT METAL
(SHORT TONS)
1.308
1.782
2,518
4,116
1,377
2,392
2,966
4,645
NO. OF
CASTS
PER DAY
9
6
6
6
3
7
7
6
9
8
8
8
10
HEARTH
DIAMETER
(FEET)
23.53
22.50
22.00
24 .53
23. B0
27.50
22.80
29 .50
32.80
19.03
25.00
29.00
32.00
IRON
NOTCH
BIT
SIZE
(IN)
3.25
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.0k)
3.00
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.B0
NO. OF
IRON
NOTCHES
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
NO. OF
CINDER
NOTCHES
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
IRON
TROUGH
LENGTH
(FEET)
16
13
18
20
23
23
27
23
35
16
18
22
30
IRON
TROUGH
WIDTH
(IN.)
63
26
26
26
23
3D
24
32
30
33
63
72
72
IRON
TROUGH
DEPTH
(IN.)
27
18
18
23
28
24
24
30
36
15
22
32
32
-------
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE INVENTOR
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21,1977
ENGLISH-UNITS
BLAST
FURNACE
CODE
0998
B999
1001
1022
1033
11B1
1182
1281
1301
1382
1383
1304
1431
1402
1403
1434
1485
1406
1487
1408
1409
1410
1533
15C4
1505
1506
1507
1602
1603
1634
1701
1702
1834
1805
1806
1807
2C32
2131
21P2
2103
2201
2202
2283
2204
2235
2236
OUR OF
CAST
(MIN)
30
38
45
25
50
45
55
45
45
45
45
45
45
52
40
30
38
45
55
68
53
45
35
35
45
45
45
45
45
103
93
40
40
48
40
45
25
25
40
45
45
45
45
65
65
02 USED
TO OPEN
TAP?
YES
YES
YES
OCCAS.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
so
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
FLUSH
AT CINDER
NOTCH?
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
DUR OF
FLUSH
(MIN)
12
20
25
25
30
38
30
30
30
30
30
30
45
45
BEGIN.
BLAST
PRESS
(PSIG)
18
18
30
22
28
21
26
27
27
27
27
20
28
22
18
16
16
18
24
27
25
25
22
22
2?
30
20
22
24
32
38
23
23
23
23
20
30
30
30
28
28
29
29
30
28
BEGIN.
BLAST
VOLUME
(SCFM)
50,008
50 ,008
140,000
49,030
146,002
108,030
95,003
120,000
110,000
128,033
100,030
75,030
75,000
100,000
98,000
55,000
55,003
85,000
109,000
130,000
110,002
112,000
105,000
ICS.Bi) 3
110,000
123,033
68,900
109,803
104,203
185,503
190,900
45.003
45,900
42,000
42,000
59,000
70,080
70,003
120,033
63,030
60,003
70,030
70,000
105,030
85.00i)
STOPPED
BLAST
PRESS
(PSIG)
10
10
20
14
22
15
24
8
8
8
8
10
10
10
10
4
4
10
10
27
10
25
22
22
25
30
5
5
5
32
38
6
6
6
6
19
12
12
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
TROUGH
NORMALLY
DRAI.-IE3
AFTER
CAST?
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO. OP SLAG
CASTS PER TON
BETWEEN HOT METAL
DRAINS (LBS)
500
533
603
692
3 661
715
602
590
580
573
615
755
780
600
600
740
743
750
562
540
715
933
938
933
900
933
584
574
578
2 543
2 572
1,030
1,033
i,0ea
1,030
573
45B
425
476
593
643
511
631
536
606
COKE
PER TON
HOT METAL
(LBS)
1,303
1,300
1,150
1,248
1,074
1,177
1,148
1,140
1,193
1,179
1,193
1,603
1,580
1,120
1,140
1 ,670
1,533
1,603
1,160
1,268
1,276
1,121
1,553
1,197
1.326
1,315
1,248
1.110
1,153
951
942
1,343
1,343
1,340
1,340
1,248
1,151
1,144
1,377
1,148
1,122
1,031
1,101
997
946
-------
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE INVENTORY
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21,1977
ENGLISH-UNITS
>
I
BLAST
FURNACE
CODE
2207
22fla
2381
2302
2303
2304
2sai
2502
2583
2534
2505
2536
2512
2514
2631
2632
26VJ3
2604
2701
2801
2832
2931
2932
2907
290d
2939
2910
2911
2912
2913
3001
3232
3333
3833
3009
3310
3011
3014
3315
3016
3017
3318
3201
3331
3302
3303
OUR OF
CAST
(MIN)
55
45
33
30
30
45
60
45
43
68
45
45
45
55
55
55
65
45
50
50
45
45
45
45
45
45
25
25
25
60
50
50
51
6 a
68
63
60
63
63
55
93
3D
40
40
40
O2 USED
TO OPEN
TAP?
NO
NO
YES
YES
OCCAS.
YES
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
YES
YES
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS .
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
NO
NO
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
OCCAS.
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
FLUSH
AT CINDER
NOTCH?
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
DUR OF
FLUSH
(MIN)
45
45
40
40
43
45
15
15
15
75
23
23
75
75
75
75
28
BEGIN.
BLAST
PRESS
(PSIG)
30
30
27
25
22
25
18
35
18
25
17
27
28
25
25
25
30
25
23
23
28
33
25
25
25
25
16
18
22
30
24
24
30
24
30
27
18
25
33
23
33
19
27
27
27
BEGIN.
BLAST
VOLUME
(SCFtl)
100,003
100,000
85,003
55,003
56,003
105,030
93,003
135,003
85,303
105,003
75,3BB
95,003
120,003
75,003
75,033
75,003
90,033
80,033
110,603
110,333
95,000
100,003
96,303
85,003
85,000
85,003
39,303
33,003
53,033
124,033
95,033
93,033
115,003
95,B3B
115.030
115,003
55, BUB
£ i.BBB
120,033
60 ,033
103,033
58,033
105,033
135,330
105.020
STOPPED
BLAST
PRESS
(PSIG)
15
15
12
12
15
12
10
19
6
10
10
22
22
13
13
10
10
16
23
23
10
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
10
5
5
5
5
7
7
12
5
5
6
27
27
27
TROUGH
NORMALLY
DRAINED
AFTER
CAST?
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO. OF SLAG
CASTS PER TON
BETWEEN HOT HSTAL
DRAINS (LBS)
564
535
550
525
400
782
687
2 575
790
630
723
623
600
625
625
625
625
983
3 690
3 70S
61)3
600
600
630
690
608
820
840
925
756
803
664
305
753
808
837
570
630
916
792
633
550
550
550
COKE
PER TON
HOT METAL
(LBS)
937
9-)9
1,120
1,170
1,200
1,350
1,225
1,120
1,440
1,265
1,350
1,050
1,200
1,075
1.C75
1,075
1 ,C75
1,238
1,225
1,225
1,150
1,150
1,130
1,150
1,100
1,025
1,550
1,600
1,553
1,322
1,353
1,525
1,487
1,328
1,335
1,463
1,181
1,138
1,503
1,483
l,i
-------
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE INVENTORY
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL TNGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21,1977
ENGLISH-UNITS
>
I
BLAST
FURNACE
CODE
3304
3305
3306
3308
3309
3310
3311
3312
3313
3315
3316
3317
3313
3320
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3328
3329
3330
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
3338
3344
3345
3346
3347
3343
3349
3350
3351
3352
3356
3357
3353
3359
3360
DUR OF
CAST
(MIN)
40
30
40
40
40
45
45
40
40
45
45
45
45
50
50
50
50
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
43
40
40
110
35
93
60
75
45
45
60
60
60
75
75
93
60
55
55
70
70
O2 USED
TO OPEN
TAP?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
OCCAS.
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
OCCAS.
YES
YES
NO
YES
FLUSH DUR OF
AT CINDER FLUSH
NOTCH? (MIN)
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
60
60
60
60
60
30
30
35
35
35
35
20
120
180
20
20
20
25
25
35
45
BEGIN.
BLAST
PRESS
(PSIG)
30
34
29
20
18
30
33
24
26
16
20
25
2d
27
27
26
28
16
26
15
22
21
22
15
21
16
17
49
18
37
21
26
26
26
.
20
20
30
25
25
30
24
20
IB
25
24
BEGIN.
BLAST
VOLUME
(SCFH)
100,000
108,000
100 ,000
80,000
70,000
115,000
103,000
64.030
61,000
55,000
75,000
90,030
130,000
85,000
85,000
72,030
72.000
57,000
105.000
55.000
8d.OOO
77,003
87,000
65,030
87,000
83,000
77,000
245.000
60,030
170,000
81,000
102,000
45,000
45,000
45,000
64,000
64,000
94,000
65,303
65,030
65,000
115,000
105,030
STOPPED
BLAST
PRESS
(PSIG)
10
10
10
10
9
24
25
22
23
15
15
20
15
18
18
12
18
14
24
14
20
19
20
14
19
14
15
49
7
15
10
15
5
5
6
6
6
12
12
15
22
10
10
15
15
TROUGH
NORMALLY NO. OF
DRAINED CASTS
AFTER BETWEEN
CAST? DRAINS
YES
NO 3
NO 3
YES
YES
YES
.YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO 11
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO 30
YES
NO 20
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
SLAG
PER TON
HOT METAL
(LBS)
682
662
661
664
732
650
630
670
775
703
700
703
700
670
734
693
563
458
783
552
528
780
563
600
628
525
1,163
653
765
755
720
715
565
565
565
515
515
495
753
632
745
6E17
635
COKE
PER TON
HOT METAL
(LBS)
1,250
1,230
1,182
1,195
1,363
1,315
1,243
1,320
1,185
1,503
1,333
1,420
1, 192
1,153
1,233
1,410
1,263
1,065
1,177
1,420
1,154
1,333
1.J82
1,272
1,260
1,190
1,757
1,304
1,253
1,434
1,103
1,150
1,400
1,5S3
1,353
1,253
1,103
1.2K3
1,620
1,341
1,427
1,233
1,233
-------
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE INVENTORY
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21,1977
ENGLISH-UNITS
BLAST
FURNACE
CODE
3361
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
3501
3592
3503
3504
DUR OF
CAST
(MIS')
55
40
40
48
40
45
40
50
60
30
40
60
103
O2 USED
TO OPEN
TAP?
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
PLUSH
AT CINDER
NOTCH?
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
DUR OF
FLUSH
(HIN)
20
20
20
BEGIN.
BLAST
PRESS
(PSIG)
18
20
23
25
23
28
24
30
38
20
25
25
36
BEGIN.
BLAST
VOLUME
(SCFH)
65.000
65,003
65,000
75,000
80,000
110,01)3
65,003
lie, 000
160,033
56,030
82,003
112,000
161.003
STOPPED
BLAST
PRESS
(PSIG)
10
5
5
5
5
12
4
18
38
3
3
7
13
TROUGH
NORMALLY
DRAINED
AFTER
CAST.'
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO. OF SLAG
CASTS PER TON
BETWEEN HOT METAL
DRAINS (LBS)
727
723
678
622
601
736
725
669
690
415
423
437
423
COKE
PER TON
HOT METAL
(LBS)
1,345
1,369
I,4d3
l,27a
1.142
1,318
l.lUb
1,072
1,071
1,391
1.025
1.032
945
-------
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE INVENTORY
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21,1977
ENGLISH-UNITS
I
M
U)
BLAST FUEL
FURNACE USED AT
CODE TUYERES
0933
0999
1831
1002
1033
1101
1102
1201
1301
1302
1303
1304
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1-SC6
1407
1433
1409
1410
15,53
1504
1505
1536
1507
1632
1603
1604
1731
1732
1304
1805
1436
1807
2032
2101
2102
2133
2201
2232
2233
2284
2235
2206
OIL
OIL
TAR
NATURAL GAS
TAR
TAR
TAR OR OIL
TAR OR OIL
TAR
TAR
TAR
TAR
TAR
TAR
OIL
TAR
TAR
TAR
TAR
NATURAL GAS
NATURAL GAS
NATURAL GAS
OIL
OIL
OIL
OIL
OIL
OIL
AMT OF
FUEL AT
TUYERES
6
6
9
158.854
6
17
25
25
17
17
17
17
17
45
54
5
5
5
5
132.104
119,167
156,583
33
30
30
23
48
43
UNITS
GPM
GPM
GPM
CFH
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPU
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPrt
GPH
GPM
GPM
CFH
CFH
CFH
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
COKE
QUALITY
ASTM
STABIL.
51
53
50
50
48
56
55
56
55
45
46
58
57
46
48
46
58
58
46
57
57
57
57
57
60
60
60
60
60
44
44
44
44
50
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
SILICON
CONTENT
HOT METAL
(%)
0.70
1.05
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.04
1.28
1.35
1.63
1.50
1.47
1.10
1.20
1.50
1.36
1.40
1.05
1.10
1.33
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.15
1.22
1.16
1.01
0.97
1.42
1.40
1.42
1.40
1.60
1.09
1.01
1.08
1.40
1.24
1.19
1.12
1.15
1.69
SULFUR
CONTENT
HOT METAL
(*)
0.030
0.028
0.030
0.030
0.025
0.E31
0.031
3.029
0.033
0.028
0.038
0.030
0.030
0.027
0.U34
0.032
0.03C
0.030
0.027
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.021
0.027
0.027
0.B31
0.031
0.053
0.053
0.053
0.053
0.020
•0.026
0.023
0.326
0.017
0.026
0.026
0.034
0.020
6.025
MANGAN.
CONTENT
HOT METAL
(%)
0.70
0.75
0.65
0.65
0.47
0.74
0.76
0.82
0.75
0.39
0.33
0.54
0.50
0.41
0.39
0.60
0.45
0.47
0.86
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.93
1.20
0.68
0.60
0.82
0.80
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.40
0.75
0.78
0.74
0.79
0.72
0.91
0.78
0.74
0.63
SLAG
BASICITY
(B/A)
1.18
1.03
1.07
1.07
0.95
0.96
0.97
1.01
0.92
0.98
3.97
0.97
0.95
0.96
1.00
0.99
0.97
0.98
0.96
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.11
1.12
1.11
1.17
1.20
0.83
0.88
0.88
2.88
1.03
1.05
1.06
1.06
1.23
1.23
1.26
1.25
1.23
1.24
SULFUR
CONTENT
OF SLAG
(%)
1.200
1.670
1.103
1.130
1.620
1.603
1.703
1.700
1.680
1.330
1.320
0.930
1.500
1.320
1.220
1.240
1.033
1.100
1.040
1.500
1.503
1.500
1.533
1.530
1.550
1.560
1.5B3
1.710
1.650
1.150
1.150
1.150
1.150
1.5B3
1.160
1.250
1.070
1.940
1.840
1.963
1.960
2.003
2.130
ORE IN SINTER IN
METAL METAL
BURDEN BURDEN
(%) (%)
60.0
60.0
74.0
7.0
5.0
3.0
15. B
10.0
20.0
9.0
15.0
72.0
62.0
20.0
20.3
62.0
62.0
40.0
15.0
14.0
30 .0
5.0
10.3
10.0
5.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
12.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
46.0
31.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
16.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.0
35.0
26.0
14.3
17.0
28.0
32.0
44.0
39 .0
39.0
25.0
35.0
37.0
37.0
35.3
35.3
43.0
36.3
33.0
40.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25. B
33.0
31. B
34 .0
33.0
33.3
50.3
50.0
51.0
43. 0
4.0
23.0
23.0
19.0
13.0
19.0
19.0
-------
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE INVENTORY
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21,1977
ENGLISH-UNITS
BLAST FUEL
FURNACE USED AT
CODE TUYERES
2207
2238
2331
2302
2303
2334
2531
2532
2583
2534
2535
2585
2512
2514
2631
2602
2633
2604
2731
2331
2832
2931
2932
2937
29 D 3
2939
2913
2911
2912
2913
3331
3332
3333
333d
3339
3813
3311
3014
3315
3016
3317
3C18
3231
3331
3332
3333
TAR
OIL
COKE OVEN GAS
OIL
TAR
NATURAL GAS
OIL
OIL
OIL
OIL
OIL
OIL
NATURAL GAS OR
NATURAL GAS
NATURAL GAS OR
NATURAL GAS OR
NATURAL GAS
NATURAL GAS
NATURAL GAS
OIL
OIL
OIL
OIL
OIL
TAR
TAR
TAR
OIL
OIL
TAR OR OIL
TAR OR OIL
OIL
TAR OR OIL
NATURAL GAS
NATURAL GAS
OIL
OIL
OIL
AMT OF
FUEL AT
TUYERES
35
44
90
15
15
105,000
32
30
22
18
26
26
OIL 110,000
110,000
OIL 110.000
OIL 125,003
180.000
180,000
35
35
30
33
50
60
28
25
36
75
92
5
91
25
47,958
45,625
40
40
40
COKE
QUALITY
ASTM
UNITS STABIL.
GPM
GPM
CFH
GPM
GPM
CFH
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPH
GPM
CFri
CFH
CFH
CFH
CFH
CFH
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
CFH
CFH
GPM
GPM
GPM
51
51
49
49
45
49
48
48
48
48
48
50
50
36
36
36
48
57
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
51
51
51
45
50
52
42
42
45
45
51
44
54
54
52
47
47
47
SILICON
CONTENT
HOT METAL
0.91
0.92
1.03
1.75
3.50
1.28
1.38
1.37
1.32
1.32
1.48
1.28
1.23
1.20
1.23
1.28
1.20
0.92
0.90
1.00
1.03
1.00
1.03
1.00
1.03
1.03
2.25
2.25
2.25
1.19
1.42
1.45
1.17
1.23
1.33
1.24
1.28
1.14
1.10
1.31
1.60
0.90
0.90
0.90
SULFUR
CONTENT
HOT METAL
m
1.
0.
0.
B.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0 .
0.
0.
0.
0.
3.
0.
0.
9.
9.
9.
0.
0.
9.
a.
8.
3.
a.
a.
8.
8.
753
034
830
830
027
035
026
031
829
032
029
041
036
030
030
030
035
032
019
017
050
050
025
625
025
025
825
025
025
042
037
634
035
040
024
023
839
834
351
046
02tt
C38
030
033
MANGAN .
CONTENT
HOT METAL
8
0
0
0
e
8
8
8
0
0
0
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
t
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
.78
.78
.90
.90
.85
.66
.73
.72
.68
.76
.68
.70
.73
.27
.25
.25
.25
.36
.18
.10
.90
.90
.75
.75
.75
.75
.00
.80
.08
.57
.8d
.89
.27
.28
.40
.33
. 53
.88
. 48
. 47
. 00
. 60
.60
.60
SLAG
BASICITY
(B/A)
1.19
1.21
1.15
1.13
0.91
i.ua
1.08
1.03
1.05
1.03
1.04
1.10
1.09
1.12
1.12
1.12
1.12
0.88
1.10
1.10
1.00
1.00
1.28
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.07
1.02
1.08
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.07
1.19
1.62
0.90
0.95
1.05
1.00
1.00
-1.03
SULFUR
CONTENT
OF SLAG
1.570
1.758
1.788
1.803
1.958
1.948
1.953
2.058
1.833
1.910
1.960
1.693
1.830
1.353
1.308
1.350
1.350
1.103
1.103
1.103
1.750
1.750
2.250
2.250
2.253
2.250
1.8B0
1.750
1.753
1.493
1.578
1.803
1.510
1.580
1.590
1.530
1.520
1.363
1.708
1.980
2.088
1.880
1.800
1.81)2
ORE IN SINTER IN
METAL METAL
BURDEN BURDEN
0.0
0.0
1.0
33.0
8.3
0.0
12.0
11.0
10.0
1.0
5.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
83.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
80.0
88.0
89.3
15.8
33.0
46.0
12.0
12.6
11.0
11.0
15.0
37.0
32.0
40.0
19.0
19.0
19.3
3.0
0.0
45.0
30.3
0.0
62.8
50.0
50.3
49.3
48.0
32.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
26.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
2.0
1.0
24.0
22.0
58.0
58.0
53.0
-------
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE INVENTORY
8ETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21,1977
ENGLISH-UNITS
I
M
Cn
BLAST FUEL
FURNACE USED AT
CODE TUYERES
3304
3305
3306
3303
3309
3310
3311
3312
3313
3315
3316
3317
3318
3320
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3323
3329
3330
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
3333
3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3350
3351
3352
3355
3357
3353
3359
3360
TAR
TAR
TAR
TAR
TAR
OIL
OIL
OIL
OIL
OIL
OIL
OIL
TAR OR OIL
TAR OR OIL
TAR OR OIL
TAR OR OIL
OIL
OIL
OIL
TAR
TAR
TAR OR OIL
TAR OR OIL
TAR
TAR
AMT OF
FUEL AT
TUYERES
10
10
10
10
18
16
16
10
7
15
50
10
30
14
24
30
32
12
10
15
15
10
10
UNITS
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPrt
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
COKE
QUALITY
ASTM
STABIL.
50
50
58
50
50
52
52
52
52
50
50
50
58
46
46
46
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
53
53
53
53
50
58
42
42
42
50
50
50
45
53
50
50
58
SILICON
CONTENT
HOT METAL
1.20
1.10
1.50
1.20
1.20
1.00
1.05
1.20
1.30
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.08
0.93
1.22
1.22
1.61
1.32
1.19
1.58
1.40
1.34
1.58
1.40
1.21
1.40
1.08
1.20
1.39
1.31
1.00
1.80
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
2.00
1.26
1.29
1.24
1.16
SULFUR
CONTENT
HOT METAL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
.025
.028
.040
.025
.033
.033
.035
.030
.030
.030
.030
.030
.k)30
.033
.036
.023
.031
.830
.825
.826
.027
.063
.032
.830
.024
.031
.027
.033
.834
.859
.028
.032
.025
.025
.025
.025
.025
.025
.018
.026
.029
.030
.029
MANGAN.
CONTENT
HOT METAL
0.70
0.80
0.70
0.85
0.80
0.90
0.90
0.70
0.50
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.86
0.99
1.36
0.58
0.40
0.96
0.53
0.37
0.83
0.33
0.43
0.72
0.42
0.65
0.69
0.89
3.81
8.14
0.16
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.37
0.37
0.40
1.03
0.89
1.03
0.77
0.82
SLAG
BASICITY
(B/A)
1.10
1.10
1.00
1.10
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.00
1.85
1.08
1.08
1.03
1.18
1.15
1.15
1.12
1.76
1.71
1.42
2.00
1.23
1.14
1.30
1.43
1.43
1.06
1.14
1.14
1.13
1.13
1.14
1.11
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.15
1.04
1.06
1.06
1.06
SULFUR
CONTENT
OF SLAG
1.750
1.750
1.303
1.700
1.750
1.800
1.800
1.953
1.903
1.450
1.750
1.750
1.720
1.840
1.978
1.590
2.100
2.130
1.253
2.450
1.620
1.560
1.720
1.890
1.B90
1.650
1.800
1.730
1.650
1.690
0.0H5
0.860
1.700
1.700
1.700
1.400
1.400
1.500
1.983
1.250
1.320
1.160
1.170
ORE IN SINTER IN
METAL METAL
BURDEN BURDEN
10.0
19.0
19.0
40.0
10.0
10.0
57.8
24.0
40.0
18.8
10.0
17.0
7.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
44.0
38.0
39.0
19.0
5.0
44.0
44.0
44.0
20.0
20.0
30.0
93.0
52.0
52.0
29.0
29.0
60.8
47.0
47.0
47.3
68.8
48.8
53.3
33.3
47.3
48.0
68.0
6C.0
53.8
6S.B
65.3
88.8
43.0
47.3
52.0
49.0
43.0
46.3
53.0
30.8
63.8
22.3
27.3
29.8
11.0
23.0
54.0
54.3
54 . e
88.0
8C.8
40.0
-------
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE INVENTORY
8ETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21,1977
ENGLISH-UNITS
BLAST
FURSACf
CODE
3361
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
35J1
3502
35J3
3504
FUEL
; USED AT
•TUXERES
TAR OR OIL
TAR
TAR
OIL
OIL
OIL
NATURAL GAS
GAS OR TAR
NATURAL GAS
AMT OP
FUEL AT
TUYERES
9
12
23
21
34
23
90,854
23
17
366,917
UNITS
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPM
GPH
CFH
GPM
GPM
Cfl!
COKE
QUALITY
ASTM
STABIL.
50
53
48
49
49
41
44
46
46
53
53
53
54
SILICON
CC.ITENT
HOT METAL
(%)
1.22
0.93
1.27
1.43
1.35
1.22
1.06
1.10
0.97
1.17
1.15
1.24
1.09
SULFUR
CONTENT
HOT METAL
(»)
0.027
0.028
0.041
0.049
0.034
0.033
0.029
0.329
8.331
0.032
0.032
0.035
0.031
MANGAN.
CONTENT
HOT METAL
<*>
0.90
1.02
0.85
e.us
0.60
1.03
1.69
1.26
1.22
1.52
1.56
1.43
1.32
SLAG
BASICITY
(B/A)
i.ee
1.21
1.21
l.U
1.14
1.19
1.15
1.23
1.11
1.05
1.07
1.07
1.06
SULFUR
CONTENT
OF SLAG
(%)
1.233
2.059
2.173
2.128
2.099
1.413
1.170
1.553
1.3S3
1.3S8
1.443
1.428
1.328
ORE IN £
METAL
BURDEN
(%!
52.0
15.0
1.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
SINTER IN
METAL
BURDEN
(».)
22.0
30.0
22.0
3.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
I
M
CTi
-------
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE INVENTOR*
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21,1977
ENGLISH-UNITS
>
I
BLAST
FURNACE
CODE
3993
2999
1031
1332
1033
1131
1102
1201
1301
1302
1303
13iM
1401
1402
1433
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1533
1504
1535
1506
1537
1602
1603
1604
1701
1702
1804
1805
1836
1807
2D32
2101
2102
2103
2201
2232
2203
2204
2205
2225
SCRAP IN
METAL
BURDEN
(%)
5.0
5.0
7.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
7. a
8.0
2.0
2.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
6.0
4.0
8.0
PELLETS IN
METAL
BURDEN
<%)
100.0
87. B
81.0
80.0
55.0
58.0
36.0
52.0
46.0
40.0
40 .0
15.0
45.0
50.0
27.0
65.0
60.0
60.0
65.0
65.0
49.0
47.0
46.0
65.0
65.0
61.0
95.0
9E.0
88.0
54.0
75.0
72.0
76.0
79. B
77.0
COXE
SCREENED
AT STOCK
HOUSE?
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
ORE
SCREENED
AT STOCK
HOUSE?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
SINTER
SCREENED
AT STOCK
HOUSE?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YfiS
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
LARGE
QUAN OF
COKE
ASSOC
rf/ CAST?
NO
NO
NO
HO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
HO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO '
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
HOT
METAL
TEMP
(DEC F)
2650
2740
2740
2780
2760
2725
2723
2720
2750
2750
2353
2850
2310
2dl0
2dS0
2810
2810
2d20
2700
2700
2703
2700
2700
2300
2800
2300
2789
2788
2575
2575
2575
2575
2650
2700
2780
2703
2700
2703
2703
2700
2700
2830
FREQ
IRON
RUNNER
REMAKE
(DAYS)
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
7.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.3
3.3
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.3
3.3
U.0
8.3
8.3
8.0
3.3
NO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN
RUNNER
RSLINE
14
1
1
3
6
8
8
8
8
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
16
16
16
16
16
24
8
3
10
13
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
35
35
35
35
35
35
NO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN
MAJOR
TROUGH
REPAIR
20
35
3
16
16
16
16
15
15
23
20
10
10
23
20
30
23
56
56
56
56
56
24
24
24
15
15
30
33
30
33
35
23
23
23
43
43
43
43
43
40
NO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN
NOMINAL
TROUGH
REPAIR
4
7
3
2
6
16
16
16
16
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
3
8
a
3
8
8
7
7
15
15
15
15
5
e
3
0
40
40
40
40
IS
40
TILTING
SPOUTS
USED?
NO
NO
YfiS
NO
NO
SO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
!JO
SO
«O
NO
NO
SO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
SO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
no
MO
NO
NO
:;o
NO
NO
SO
NO
NO
SO
SO
NO
SO
NO
CAST
HOUSE
VOLUME
(CU FT)
181,763
131,763
342,533
455,740
312,117
611,330
3B5,333
533,533
769,336
546, 6S9
632,714
463,463
5Z6.235
461 .427
455,373
454 ,012
423 ,199
423,199
477 ,7<3l
596,667
1,038 ,118
753,417
373,253
233,132
426,524
379,585
4tf5,362
311 ,B33
672,255
665.574
635.433
699,536
174 ,630
181,074
183,738
177,313
433,111
410,033
410.033
719,333
163,030
145, C23
220,333
323 ,333
403,333
443 ,0i!3
-------
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE INVENTORY
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21,1977
ENGLISH-UNITS
I
H
00.
BLAST
FURNACE
CODE
2207
2208
2301
2302
2303
23C4
2531
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2512
2514
2681
2602
2603
2604
2701
2301
28,12
29D1
2982
2907
2908
2989
2918
2911
2912
2913
3D31
3082
3003
3083
3009
3010
3011
3814
3315
3316
3017
3018
3221
3381
3302
3333
SCRAt IN
METAL
BURDEN
(%)
a.o
0.0
1.0
a. a
5.0
5.0
e.a
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
17.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
7.6
7.0
7.0
7.0
12.8
12.0
11.0
3.0
4.D
11.0
10.0
8.0
7.0
5.0
3.0
11.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
PELLETS IN
METAL
BURDEN
(%)
100.0
100.0
55.8
70.0
99.8
70.0
30.0
45.0
33.0
40.0
37.0
94 .0
63.0
20.0
50.8
50.0
50.0
24.0
93.0
98.0
65.0
65.0
55.0
55.0
55.0
55.0
8.0
83.8
61.0
42.0
88.0
87.0
78.0
81.0
79.0
83.0
39.0
43.0
49.0
16.0
15.0
16.0
COKE
SCREENED
AT STOCK
HOUSE?
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES;
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YiiS
YES
YES
YES
YES
- YES
YES
YES
YKS
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
ORE
SCREENED
AT STOCK
HOUSE?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
MO
SINTER
SCREENED
AT STOCK
HOUSE?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
LARGE
QUAN OF
COKE
ASSOC
W/ CAST?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
OCCAS .
OCCAS .
OCCAS .
OCCAS.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
OCCAS .
OCCAS .
OCCAS .
OCCAS.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
HOT
METAL
TErtP
(DEC F)
2700
27B0
2770
2750
2750
2725
2720
2720
2708
2738
2710
2738
2720
2750
2630
2700
2550
2550
2650
2650
2650
2650
2683
2600
2603
2600
2650
2653
2700
270U
2700
2703
2650
2453
2530
2730
2700
2700
2700
FREQ
IRON
RUNNER
RErtAKE
(DAYS;
8.0
a.o
3.0
3.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.8
1.0
3.0
3.0
3.8
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.8
5.0
5.8
5.8
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
7.0
1.0
1.0
2.8
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
10. 0
1.0
1.0
1.0
NO. OP
CASTS
BETWEEN
RUNNER
RELINE
35
35
24
24
3
1
1
4
4
18
18
18
16
16
16
2
2
3B
38
38
38
1
1
1
21
3
3
12
12
12
12
2
2
3
7
6
60
3
3
3
NO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN
flAJOR
TROUGH
REPAIR
40
40
48
48
20
16
253
252
520
250
4B0
24
24
24
24
24
7
7
0
0
0
0
35
35
42
42
6
6
30
30
30
30
18
18
35
30
42
2
2
2
NO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN
NOMINAL
TROUGH
REPAIR
4f»
48
3
3
6
2
2
6
3
6
1
1
0
0
0
32
24
24
7
7
8
8
8
3
1
1
1
21
6
6
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
6
0
2
2
2
TILTING
SPOUTS
USED?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
SO
NO
NO
NO
NO
SO
NO
NO
NO
KO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
S'O
SO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO'
CAST
HOUSE
VOLUME
(CU FT)
330 .003
393,003
481,419
433,932
593,324
414 ,833
512,033
512.333
434 ,333
404. 3C3
2 7 7 , C B 3
767,143
331,735
322.394
322,294
3.15.557
4B4.773
522,832
571, i;93
571,893
165.733
165,703
793.912
343, 3B4
4 IE, 9 24
63C .413
215,ti26
223,839
322,551
321 ,217
437,333
384 .753
354, B33
453,633
435.337
435,337
221,769
375,333
5 5 S , a 7 S
159,363
233.633
329, E29
397.478
394 ,223
394 ,223
-------
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HO'JSE INVENTORY
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21,1977
ENGLISH-UNITS
BLAST
FURNACE
CODE
3304
3305
3386
3303
33B9
3310
3311
3312
3313
3315
3316
3317
3318
3320
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3323
3329
3333
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
333U
3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3350
3351
3352
3356
3357
3358
3359
3360
SCRAP IN
METAL
BURDEN
(i)
6.0
7.0
7.B
3.0
6.0
5.9
5.0
1.0
2.0
6.0
10.0
4.6
2.0
2.0
10.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
i.e
i.e
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
7.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
PELLETS IN
METAL
BURDEN
(»)
30.0
28.0
28.0
47.0
39.0
34.0
24.0
20.0
29.0
23.0
50.0
17.0
17.0
28.0
52.0
28.0
S1.0
52.0
70.0
78.0
54.0
65.0
89.8
72.8
30.0
45.0
45.0
68.0
63.0
COKE
SCREENED
AT STOCK
HOUSE?
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
yes
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
ORE
SCREENED
AT STOCK
HOUSE?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
SO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
SINTER
SCREENED
AT STOCK
HOUSE?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
LARGE
QUAN OF
COKE
ASSOC
W/ CAST?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
HO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS .
OCCAS .
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
NO
NO
NO
NO
HO
HOI-
METAL
TEMP
(DEG F)
2710
2718
2720
2710
2680
2630
2680
2663
2660
26dO
2680
2680
2o30
2690
2690
2690
2690
2695
2720
2700
2675
2685
2650
2690
2650
2690
2772
2730
2700
2780
27i)0
2650
2650
2675
2675
2675
2700
2700
2760
2725
273D
27C0
2710
2720
FREQ
IRON
RUNNSR
REMAKE
(DAYS)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
1.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
NO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN
RUNNER
RELINE
4
4
4
4
4
14
14
12
12
3
8
9
11
48
40
40
48
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
30
1
20
6
6
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
9
9
9
9
NO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN
MAJOR
TROUGH
REPAIR
16
18
16
20
20
35
35
30
30
8
8
9
11
6
6
6
6
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
90
60
20
23
20
40
40
19
19
19
6
6
6
30
56
56
56
56
NO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN
NOMINAL
TROUGH
REPAIR
4
3
3
5
4
14
14
12
12
8
8
9
11
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
38
30
20
6
6
25
25
3
3
3
3
3
3
18
8
3
8
8
TILTING
SPOUTS
USED?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
HO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
SO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
CAST
HOUSE
VOLUME
(CU FT)
440,333
440,333
856,323
212,436
213.643
342,265
342,265
451,349
453,349
349,676
371 ,343
237,741
353,325
174 ,354
176 ,435
184,423
231 ,053
173,765
147,715
172,558
137,512
144 ,S92
233,731
152,290
131 ,613
146,149
146,149
1,491,259
549,637
268, D33
277,480
277 ,4aa
469,932
556,896
556,396
473, 870
473,870
484, 030
419,547
346, CJO
330,038
570,936
230,804
230,442
375,444
374,619
-------
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE INVENTOR*
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21,1977
ENGLISH-UNITS
BLAST
FURNACE
CODE
3361
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
35i!l
3502
3503
3504
SCRAP IN
METAL
BURDEN
(%)
3.0
7.0
1.0
1.0
7.0
6.0
7.0
7.0
PELLETS It
METAL
BURDEN
<«>
45.0
49.0
63.0
66.0
94.0
91.0
84.0
83.0
87.0
87.0
87.0
86.0
86.0
1 COKE
SCREENED
AT STOCK
HOUSE?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
XES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YS:S
YES
ORE
SCREENED
AT STOCK
HOUSE?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
SINTER
SCREENED
AT STOCK
HOUSE?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
LARGE
QUAN OF
COKE
ASSOC
W/ CAST?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
HOT
METAL
TEH?
(DEC F)
2700
2700
2700
2700
2733
2675
2675
2675
2703
FREQ
IRON
RUNNER
REKAKE
(DAYS;
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
SO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN
RUNNER
RELINE
9
1
1
1
1
7
7
7
9
40
40
40
25
NO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN
MAJOR
TROUGH
REPAIR
56
60
62
60
75
14
14
14
3
40
32
32
25
NO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN
NOMINAL.
TROUGri
REPAIR
a
6
6
6
8
10
IB
10
6
24
16
16
15
TILTING
SPOUTS
USED?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
MO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
CAST
HOUSE
VOLUME
(CU FT)
230 ,679
363 ,830
3 6 3 , C 3 3
353,630
493,033
335 ,BC3
2 5 'J , 1) B 3
450 ,C33
793 .ZZZ
4 2 6 , 3 1 3
2d3,339
1,227 ,439
9 '34 ,598
I
N>
O
-------
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE INVENTORY
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21,1977
SI UNITS
I
M
BLAST
FURNACE
CODE
0993
0999
1031
1032
1083
1101
1182
1231
13M1
1332
1303
1334
1401
1482
1403
1484
1405
1406
1407
1403
1409
1410
1503
1504
1505
1505
1507
1602
1603
1604
1701
1702
1824
1805
18(36
1837
2002
2101
2102
2103
2201
2232
2203
2204
2205
2206
WORKING
VOLUME
(CU MET)
644
644
1,566
678
864
2,038
1,487
1,424
1,541
1,418
1,552
1,125
1,131
1,101
1,196
1,213
734
707
1,335
1,543
1,552
1,551
1,445
1,117
1,132
1,440
1,560
943
1,347
1,375
2,525
2,453
9JB
868
698
886
1,541
794
778
1,557
875
727
934
809
1,311
1,334
RECORD
DAILY PROD
HOT METAL
(KG)
.364325E+07
.146964E*07
.163112E+07
.402427E+07
.331304E+07
.231046E+37
.350536E+07
.334723E+07
.344730E-f07
.241946S+07
.195539^+07
.19967U>a7
.253333E+07
,229i)G4b:+07
.126552E+07
.124557E+07
.225889E+07
.318785E+07
.432939E+07
.344912E+07
.313257E+07
.241356E+07
.241855E+37
.274151E+07
.338017E+07
.155354E+07
.254012E+37
.2473S9E+07
.527B91E!-07
.523633E>37
.189769:; -(-07
.95d3t)5i-n<6
.9933UE + .J6
.123111E+07
.231332E-f37
.186876£r37
.196315Ef07
.346535E+07
.194632Et37
.193962E+37
.211132E+07
.214912E4-07
.296922Et-07
.293837E+07
CURRENT
DAILY PROD
HOT METAL
(KG)
.907185E+06
.907185E+06
.338743E+07
.112582E+07
.321U3E+07
.185701E+07
.257187E+07
.187062E-f07
.239769E+07
.1603CJEf07
.U9.536E4-37
.149686E+07
.216091E+07
.191597E+07
.816467E+05
.8164S7E+06
.242581E+07
.272246E+07
.254812E+07
.2B3941E1-07
.15C233E+07
.182163Et07
,23584lJE-f07
-235142E+07
.146516E+07
.222395E+07
.227863Et37
.464025E+37
.520633G*-07
.725748E+26
.725743E4-06
.725743E+06
.725748E+36
.132177E+07
.155129E+87
.159665E+07
.282135E+07
.150593E+07
.15H213E+37
.166315E-f07
.158667E+07
.231241E+07
.203239E+07
NO. OF
CASTS
PER DAY
6
6
10
7
10
7
6
8
a
8
8
7
7
8
7
5
5
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
10
6
6
6
6
5
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
HEARTH
DIAMETER
(METERS)
5.486
5.944
7.772
5.639
5.944
10.211
8.763
8.306
9.144
8.534
9.144
7.315
7 .772
7.772
8.534
8.534
6.020
6. 020
8.534
9.144
9.144
9.144
8.992
7.925
8.233
3.839
9.144
7.925
7.925
8.534
11.659
10.668
6.934
6.401
6.492
6.629
8.915
6.096
6.096
8.839
6.343
6.096
6.706
6.401
8.233
8.077
IRON
NOTCH
BIT (
SIZE
(KM) b
101.60
38. 9fl
8U.90
88.93
83.90
83 .90
88.93
88.90
88.90
88.90
38.9?
88.93
83.93
88.93
83.93
83.90
88.90
68.90
83.90
88.90
88.90
88.93
88.90
lei.co
101.60
76.20
76.23
76.23
57.15
57.15
76.20
76.20
76.20
76.20
82.55
83.90
88.90
88.93
76.20
76.20
76.20
76.20
76.20
76.20
K>. OF
IROII
IOTCHES
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NO. OP
CINDER
SOTCHES
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
IRON
TROUGH
LENGTH
(METERS)
8.53
6.71
6.40
9.45
7.32
9.75
5.79
5.79
5.79
5.79
9.14
7.32
9.14
7.32
6.10
6.10
6.71
8.53
9.14
9.14
7.62
8.84
6.10
7.62
7.62
5.18
7.62
7.62
8.23
8.23
8.84
8.84
3.84
6.71
6.40
7.92
7.92
7.62
6.40
6.40
6.40
4.38
6.43
6.4C
IRON
TROUGH
WIDTH
(MM)
914.40
1219.20
1219.20
914 .40
914.40
993 .60
1219.20
1219.23
1219.20
1219.20
914.40
914.40
914 .43
914.40
914.43
914.40
914.40
914.40
914.40
914.40
1524.00
1524. BO
609.60
1524.00
1524.00
762.03
762.00
762.00
609.60
639.60
863.68
863.63
863.60
685. bO
1676.40
711.20
711.20
762.03
1143.00
1056.80
1219.23
1524.00
1323. B3
1320.80
IRON
TROUGH
DEPTH
(MM)
752.00
635.00
635.00
639.60
431.80
762.00
609.60
639.60
639.60
639. 50
5SB.00
533.00
533.00
503.22
5B3.C3
538.03
533.23
533.03
533 .03
533.03
1219.23
1219.20
1219.22
1219.23
1219.20
609.63
538 .U Z
503.00
609.63
629.60
533.43
533.43
533.40
431.80
639.63
331.00
331.03
331.30
553.33
sss.ae
711.20
685.80
668.40
660.40
-------
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE INVENTORY
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21,1977
SI UNITS
I
NO
NO
BLAST
FURNACE
CODE
2237
2293
2331
2332
2333
23.14
2S3L
2502
2533
2534
2535
2506
2512
2514
2601
2632
2603
2604
2701
2301
23E2
2931
29H2
2907
2908
2939
2918
2911
2912
2913
3301
30-32
3333
3088
3039
3218
3811
3314
3615
3016
3817
3318
3231
3381
3302
3303
WORKING
VOLUME
(CU MET)
1,329
1,319
1,173
765
724
798
1,540
1,242
1,529
965
1,548
391
1,336
1,624
1,125
1,125
1,125
1.45B
1,495
1,62?
1,628
1,434
1,429
1,591
1,391
1,321
1,321
462
476
328
1,535
1,213
1,316
1,27B
1,225
1,539
1,539
735
997
1.543
558
1,291
894
1,656
1.671
1.671
RECORD
DAILY PROD
HOT METAL
(KG)
.316426E+B7
.316426E*B7
.223934E-f-87
.147145E+B7
.139525E4-37
.23901SE*07
.254556E4-B7
.365142E*B7
.197857E+B7
.278415E+B7
.134159S*37
.276691E+B7
.3529S&EK17
.231214E+37
.215184E*B7
.193412E4-07
.2705132*07
.240223E+B7
.312S:)3E*a7
.3238492*37
.219448E+07
.222532E+07
.252107E+07
.253B14E*07
.251925E+37
.262449E+07
.274242E+07
.230760E+07
.197313E+07
.211465E+07
.188967E+37
.245756E+07
.250323E+37
.143514E+07
.1339d3E+07
.251835E+37
.953895E+06
.161437K+37
.145966E+87
.339545E+37
.342099E+07
.377117E+B7
CURRENT
DAILY PROD 1
HOT METAL
(KG) 1
.232239E+07
.232058E+07
.174633E+07
.952544E+06
.861826E+06
.207836E+07
.0800HUE+31
.294835E+07
.145150E+07
.000000E+01
.136078E+87
.20956SE+07
.249657E+37
.167194E+07
.168464Efa7
.165061E+07
.209015E+07
.163293E+07
.244940K+37
.249404E+07
.2Q8653E+07
.22679blit07
.199581E+07
.193509E+07
.1905B9E+07
.1905UyE+07
.635030E+B6
.703068E+06
.907185E+06
.235368E+D7
.185791E+07
.181437E+07
.189602E-1-07
.166287E-f37
.158848E+07
.191870E+87
.158122E+07
.235868E+87
.771187E+06
.164382E+87
.103862E+07
.258548E+87
.258548E*07
.258548Er07
TO. OF
CASTS
PER DAY
8
8
8
8
8
8
3
8
8
a
8
8
9
6
6
6
6
9
8
8
a
8
8
8
3
8
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
6
6
9
9
9
HEARTH
DIAMETER
(METERS)
8.077
8.077
7.696
5.992
5.791
6.401
8.839
8.637
8.839
8.687
8.839
8.321
8.3B2
9.296
8.230
8.230
8.238
8.992
8.321
8.6B7
8.687
8.321
8.321
8.230
8.230
8.001
8.BE1
4.953
4.609
6.396
8.534
8.331
8.001
8.238
8.238
8.992
8.992
6.553
6.934
8.534
5.182
7.925
6.706
8.992
9.449
9.449
IRON
NOTCH
BIT (
SIZE
(KM) h
76.20
76. 2B
88.93
38.93
88.93
81.28
88.93
83.82
88.90
88.90
76.20
76.20
63.50
63.50
63.50
63.50
88.90
101.60
101.60
88.90
88. 91)
88.90
88.90
83.93
88.98
69.85
69.85
69.85
82.55
63.50
63.50
69.85
76.20
69.85
69.85
63.58
63.50
76.28
76.20
76.20
83.90
82.55
32.55
32.55
W. OF
IRON
1OTCHES
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NO. OF
CINDER
NOTCHES
2
2
0
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
IRON
TROUGH
LENGTH
(METERS)
8.84
8.84
3.53
7.32
6.10
7.62
9.14
3.53
9.45
6.71
7.92
7.32
5.49
7.32
7.32
7.32
9.75
7.32
5.49
7.62
7.62
5.79
6.40
5.49
7.62
5.79
5.49
3.66
3.05
2.44
7.32
4.38
6.10
6.71
6.71
7.62
7.62
7.32
7.62
7.32
5.79
6.40
6.10
9.14
9.14
9.14
IROM
TROUGH
WIDTH
(rt«)
1346.20
1346.23
1219.22
993.03
6&3.44
1016. C3
1323.33
1219.22
1823.33
12X9.23
152.43
1219.23
1273.33
1219.23
762. S3
762.33
1219.23
762. f.3
1219.23
1219.23
1219.23
1219.23
1219.23
629.60
£39.63
609.68
6B9.63
1143.03
914.43
1371.63
528.33
1524.03
1524.33
965.20
1016.03
1447.80
1422.43
663.43
1163.451
1524.03
1328.80
1473.20
914.40
914.40
914 .43
914.40
IRON
TROUGH
DEPTH
(MM)
668.40
653.43
4b2.60
432.60
457.23
331 .03
1219 . 23
639.68
639 .60
457.23
58.t!3
457. 23
4B2.63
3G4 .23
652.40
653 .43
66? . 40
653.40
335.63
762. 03
762.03
914.43
762.88
762.83
762.03
762. E3
762.03
457.20
457.20
457.23
312.80
1524.30
1524.30
553.80
5*4. 23
553.80
534.23
457.23
553.30
762.33
639.60
689.60
762.03
762.00
762.03
762.33
-------
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE INVENTORY
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21,1977
SI UNITS
I
to
OJ
3LAST
FURNACE
CODE
3304
3335
3336
3303
3389
3316
3311
3312
3313
3315
3316
3317
3318
3320
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3323
3329
3330
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
3333
3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3353
3351
3352
3356
3357
3353
3359
3368
WORKING
VOLUME
(CU MET)
1.387
1,387
1,099
935
920
1,452
1,452
893
893
731
921
997
1,643
1,068
983
954
1,057
7B5
1,346
773
1,346
1,192
1.161
816
1,208
1,111
1,111
2,831
884
1,940
1,025
1,444
1,235
1,236
1,236
882
941
922
1,156
1,160
1,474
1,193
810
818
1,373
1,365
RECORD
DAILY PROD
HOT METAL
(KG)
.274877E+07
.293928E+07
.210558E+-E7
.161297E*07
.14016DE+37
.272065E+07
.2552B2E+07
.179804E+37
.141521E+07
.146148E+87
.18B711E+07
.231063E+37
.3586ieE<-07
.189330E+07
.191144E+07
.166196E*87
.174361E+07
.285854E+07
.278143E+87
.69B731E-t-B7
.144787E+B7
.341646E+07
.151681E+07
.233419E4-07
.234933E+37
.20175SE+37
.203391E+87
.113942E+07
.117934E*07
.104639E+07
.1424282*07
.155129E+37
.218359E+07
.168192E+07
.161842E+07
.164745E+07
.31942BE+07
.283394E+87
CURRENT
DAILY PROD
HOT METAL
(KG)
.127036E+87
.217724E+B7
.175722E+B7
.127036E+37
.997904E+36
.213188E+B7
.234117E+07
.825538E+06
.94B751E+06
.103362E+37
.145153E+87
.254012E+07
.154856E+07
.158667E+07
.103691E+S7
.937185E+36
.237682E+07
.172365E+07
.122470E+07
.180530E+07
.937185E-I-06
.195952E+07
.113398EHJ7
.127006E+37
.562455E+07
.997934E+06
.298101E+07
.151046Et07
.218541E+07
.170006E+07
.188332E+07
.771187E+06
.816467E+06
.839146E+06
.117934E+07
,127006E-f07
.172365E+07
.997904Et36
.136078E+07
.254012E+07
.208653E+07
NO. OF
CASTS
PER DAY
8
9
8
8
.8
7
7
6
6
6
8
9
11
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
6
8
7
7
12
7
IB
7
7
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
6
9
9
9
9
HEARTH
DIAMETER
(METERS)
8.839
8.839
7.925
7.620
7.163
8.992
8.992
7.163
7.163
6.036
7.010
7.468
8.534
7.620
7.163
7.010
7.623
6.248
8.611
6.248
8.534
8.534
8.077
7.010
8.230
7.G20
7.620
12.192
7.315
9.754
7.711
8.839
8.B77
8.077
8. 877
6.706
6.858
6.553
7.620
7.620
8.748
7.925
7.010
7.087
8.687
8.839
IRON
NOTCH
BIT 1
SIZE
(MM) ^
76.20
63.50
63.50
76.20
76.20
76.20
76.20
76.20
76.23
76.20
76.20
76.20
76.28
76.23
76.20
76.23
76.20
82.55
82.55
82.55
82.55
82.55
82.55
82.55
82.55
82.55
82.55
47.75
57.15
76.23
76.20
76.23
101.60
101.60
131.60
83.82
83.82
83.82
83.82
83.82
83.82
82.55
82.55
32.55
82.55
82.55
TO. OF
IRON
10TCHES
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NO. OF
CINDER
NOTCHES
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
B
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
IRON
TROUGH
LENGTH
(METERS)
4.88
4.88
4.88
4.88
5.49
7.01
5.18
5.79
7.32
3.66
3.66
3.66
5.49
5.49
5.18
5.18
5.18
6.71
7.01
5.79
8.84
9.45
7.01
6.71
6.71
6.71
6.71
14.33
5.79
12.50
9.14
9.45
6.48
6.40
7.92
7.92
7.01
7.62
7.62
7.92
7.32
5.49
7.01
7.01
5.18
IRON
TROUGH
WIDTH
(M«)
914.40
914.43
1219.20
914 .40
914 .43
1676.48
1219.20
1143. 03
1270 .63
914. 4B
914.40
914 .43
1219.23
1219.23
1219.23
965.23
1219.20
833.23
1066.83
833.20
1ES6.«9
1256.30
1066.83
833 .23
1066.83
333.20
83-3.23
609 .60
1371.52
1066 .82
762.38
1016.32
635.80
635.80
914.40
914.40
914.40
1219.20
1219.23
1823.30
1219.20
1524.33
1524.33
1574.33
1524.03
IRON
TROUGH
DEPTB
(MM)
312.83
812.30
812.80
312.80
312.80
955.20
914.40
635. 80
863.60
457.20
457.20
457.23
609.60
762.00
762.03
762. S3
762.03
533.43
534.23
533.46
533.40
584.23
685.83
533.43
650.43
533.40
533.43
436.40
1219.23
737.40
635.00
711.23
812. B3
312.88
914.40
914.40
914.40
1219.28
1219.23
1524.03
533.40
635.83
736.60
762.03
639.60
-------
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE INVENTORY
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21,1977
SI UNITS
BLAST
FURNACE
CODE
3361
3439
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
3501
3532
3583
3504
WORKING
VOLUME
(CU MET)
833
871
865
1.222
1,164
1,364
833
1,585
1,812
675
1,069
1,497
2,109
RECORD
DAILY PROD
HOT METAL
(KG)
.161479E+07
.120383E+07
.131542E+87
.14388BE+B7
.165833E+B7
.218178E+B7
-146783E+B7
.28413flE+fl7
.377843E+B7
.171639E+B7
.257913E+37
.342372c.-+B7
.681373E+07
CURRENT
DAILY PROD
HOT METAL
(KG)
.118663E+07
.161663E+07
.228429E+07
.373397E*07
.124919E+07
.216999E+07
.269071E*07
.42133'/E<-07
NO. OF
CASTS
PER DAY
9
6
6
6
8
7
7
6
9
8
8
8
IB
HEARTH
DIAMETER
(METERS)
7.163
6.853
6.70S
7.468
7.254
8.382
6.949
8.992
9.997
5.791
7.620
8.839
9.754
IRON
NOTCH
BIT
SIZE
(MM)
82.55
88.90
88.98
88.90
88.90
88.90
88.90
76.20
76.20
88.90
88.90
88.90
76.20
NO. OF
IRON
NOTCHES
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
NO. OF
CINDER
NOTCHES
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
IRON
TROUGH
LENGTH
(METERS)
4.88
5.49
5.49
6.10
6.10
3.53
8.23
7.01
10.67
4.88
5.49
6.71
9.14
IRON
TROUGH
WIDTH
(MM)
1524.00
660 .40
66B .40
663.40
711.20
762. 83
639 .63
762.03
762.00
838.20
1524 .00
1328.80
1823.80
IRON
TROUGH
DSPTH
-------
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE INVENTORY
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21,1977
SI UNITS
I
K>
t_n
BLAST
FURNACE
CODE
0998
0999
1021
1802
1003
1101
1102
1201
1301
1392
1303
1304
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
141B
1503
1504
1505
1506
1537
1602
1603
1604
1701
1702
1304
1805
1386
1807
2332
2101
2102
2103
2201
2202
2283
2204
2205
2206
DUR OF
CAST
(MIN)
30
30
45
25
50
45
55
45
45
45
45
45
45
53
40
3C
33
45
55
68
55
45
35
35
45
45
45
45
45
103
93
40
40
40
40
45
25
25
40
45
45
45
45
65
65
02 USED
TO OPEN
TAP?
YES
YES
YES
OCCAS.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
FLUSH
AT CINDER
NOTCH?
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
MO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
DUR OF
FLUSH
(MIN)
12
20
25
25
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
45
45
BEGINNING
BLAST
PRESSURE
(PASCALS)
.124106E+06
.124106E+06
.2CS843E+06
.151685E+06
.193053E+06
.14479BE+06
.179264E+06
.186158E+05
.186153E+06
.18615SE+06
.186158E+06
.137895E+06
.137895E+36
.151685E+06
.124106E+06
.11B316E+06
.110316E+06
.124106E+06
.165474E+06
.186158E+06
.172359E+B6
.172369E+36
.151635E+06
.151635E+06
.172369E+06
.206343E+06
.137395E+06
.151685E+06
.165474E+06
.220632E+06
.262031E+B6
.153579E+B6
.153579E+06
.153579E+06
.153579E+06
.137895E+06
.205343E+06
.2B6843E+06
.206843E+06
.193B53E+B6
.193053E+06
.199948E+B5
.199948E+06
.2B6S43E+06
.193053E+06
BEGINNING
BLAST
VOLUME
(CU MET/SEC)
.235973E+02
.235973E+02
.660726E+0:
.231254E+02
.689043E+02
.539703!i + 02
.448350E+02
.5S6336E+02
.519142E+02
.566336E+B2
.471947E+32
.35396BE+02
.353960E+02
.471947E+02
.462533E+32
.259571E+32
.259571E+02
.4B1155E+E2
.514422E+02
.613531E+32
.5191422+32
.528531E-I02
.495544E-KJ2
.495544E+32
. 519142E+02
.566336E+C2
.325171E+02
.5181S3E»a2
.491769E+02
.875462E+02
.92C947E+02
.212376E+D2
.212376E+02
.198218E+02
.193213E+02
.273449E+02
.330363E+02
.330363E-I-02
.566336E+02
.2d3163E+32
.2d3163E+02
.33D363E+a2
.330363E+32
.435544E+02
.401155E-f32
STOPPED
BLAST
PRESSURE
(PASCALS)
.689476E+05
.689476E*05
.137895E+06
.965266E+05
.151685E+06
.103421E+06
.165474E+06
.551531E+05
.551581E+e5
.551581E+05
.551581E+05
-639476E-^05
.689476E+05
.689476E+05
.68947GE+0S
.275793E+05
.275790E+05
.689476E+35
.689476E+05
.186153E+06
.689476E+05
.172369E+B6
. 1516K5E + 06
. 151635E + B6
.172369E+B6
. 206343E+06
.344733E+B5
.34473BE+B5
.344733E+05
.220632E+06
.262B31E-i-06
.413685E+05
.413685E+35
.413685E+05
.413685E+05
. 131000E+35
.827371E+05
.827371E+05
.103421E-f06
.103421E+B6
.133421E+B6
.1B3421E+86
.103421E-V05
.1B3421E1-06
.103421E+06
TROUGH
NORMALLY
DRAINED
AFTER
CAST?
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO. OF SLAG
CASTS PER TON
BETWEEN HOT METAL
DRAINS (KGS)
226
226
272
313
3 299
324
273
267
263
253
278
342
353
272
272
335
335
340
254
244
324
408
403
4C3
403
4B3
264
260
262
2 246
2 259
453
453
453
453
262
204
192
215
263
293
231
272
265
274
COKE
PER TON
HOT METAL
(KGS)
589
589
521
56S
487
533
520
517
539
534
541
725
716
508
517
757
680
725
526
571
578
538
706
542
631
596
556
503
521
431
427
637
637
637
637
566
522
518
438
517
503
454
499
452
429
-------
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE INVENTORY
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21,1977
SI UNITS
BLAST
FURNACE
CODE
2287
2238
2391
2332
2383
2304
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2512
2514
2681
2682
2683
2634
2731
2381
2832
2581
2982
2987
2908
2939
2910
2911
2912
2913
3B31
3ej2
3653
3933
3889
3318
3811
3314
3615
3316
3317
3818
3281
3381
33rf2
3303
OUR OF
CAST
(WIN)
55
45
38
33
30
45
60
45
40
60
45
45
45
55
55
55
65
45
50
50
45
45
45
45
45
45
25
25
25
60
58
58
51
60
60
60
60
60
60
55
93
38
40
4t)
40
02 USED
TO OPEN
TAP?
NO
NO
YES
YES
OCCAS.
YES
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
YES
YES
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
NO
NO
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
OCCAS.
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
FLUSH
AT CINDER
NOTCH?
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
DUR OF
FLUSH
(MIN)
45
45
40
40
40
«5
15
15
15
75
20
20
75
75
75
75
20
BEGINNING
BLAST
PRESSURE
(PASCALS)
.206843E+06
.206843E+06
.186153E*06
.172369E+06
.151685E*06
.172369C<-06
.124106E+06
.241316E+06
.124106E+06
.172369E4-06
.117211t;+06
.186158E-I-06
.193053E+06
.172369E+06
.172369E+06
.172369E+06
.23S843E*-06
.172369E+06
.153579E+06
.15B579E+06
.193353E+06
.206U43E+86
.172369E+06
.172369E+06
.172359Eta6
.1723S9E+06
.110316E+36
.124106E+06
.151685E1-36
.205843E+06
.165474E+B6
.165474E+06
.206343E+06
.165474E+06
.206843E-H35
.18S158S+06
.124136E+26
.172369E+36
.227527E+06
.193053E*06
.227527E+06
.131003E+06
.186153E+06
.18GlSat>06
.186158E+06
BEGINNING
BLAST
VOLUME
(CO MET/SEC)
.471947E+02
.471947E+82
.481155E+02
.259571E+02
.264293E+82
.495544E+a2
.462533E+C2
.63712dE+82
.401155E+02
.495544E+B2
.35396CE+32
.443350E+02
.566336E+02
.35396aE+B2
.353963E+02
.353963E+a2
.424752E+02
.37755SE+02
.519142E+02
. 519142E+82
.448350E+02
.471947E+B2
.453369E+02
.401155E4-02
.431155E-I-C2
.431155E+a2
.184359E+G2
.17934BE+02
.273729Et32
. 585214E+32
.44835 3 Et02
.424752C+02
.542739E+B2
.448353E+32
. 542739E+02
.542739E+02
.259571E-H52
.40S874E+02
.565336Etfl2
.233168E+02
.471947E<-02
.273729E*-02
.495544E+32
. 49i'j44 tt J2
,495544E^02
STOPPED
BLAST
PSESSURE
(PASCALS)
.1C3421E+06
.103421E+06
.827371E+05
.827371E+05
.103421E+06
.827371E+05
.689476E+05
.131000E+06
.413635E+05
.639476E+05
.6B9476E+H5
.151635E+06
.151635E+06
.689476E+05
.689476E+05
.699476E+05
.689476E+05
.110316E+06
.158579E+06
.158579E+06
.689476E+05
.689476E+05
.344738E+05
.344738E+B5
.344738E+05
.344738E+05
.344738E+05
.344738E+05
.344733E+05
.344733E+05
.689476E+05
.639476E+B5
.344738E+05
.344738E+05
. 344738E+05
. 344738E+05
.482633E+05
.482633E+05
.827371E+05
. 344738E+05
.344738E+85
.413635E+05
.1861535+06
.laeiSbE+ae
.13615SE+06
TROUGH
NORMALLY NO. OF
DRAINED CASTS
AFTER BETWEEN
CAST? DRAINS
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YKS
YES
YES 2
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO 8
NO 8
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YE3
YES
SLAG
PER TON
HOT METAL
(KGS)
255
265
249
233
181
354
311
260
353
285
326
272
272
283
233
2
-------
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST BOOSE INVENTORY
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21,1977
SI UNITS
I
NJ
BLAST
FURNACE
CODE
3364
3305
3366
3333
33B9
3318
3311
3312
3313
3315
3316
3317
3318
3320
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3328
3329
3333
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
3338
3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3359
3351
3352
3356
3357
3353
3359
3368
DOR OF
CAST
(MIN)
48
3B
49
43
40
45
45
48
48
45
45
45
45
5B
58
59
59
48
48
48
49
40
48
40
48
40
48
118
35
90
68
75
45
45
68
60
60
75
75
99
69
55
55
79
70
02 USED
TO OPEN
TAP?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
OCCAS.
YES
NO
YES
SO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
OCCAS.
YES
YES
NO
YES
FLUSH
AT CINDER
NOTCH?
NO
NO
NO
HO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
OUR OF
FLUSH
(MIN)
69
69
68
69
60
30
38
35
35
35
35
20
120
188
29
20
29
25
25
35
45
BEGINNING
BLAST
PRESSURE
(PASCALS)
.286843E+06
.234422E+06
.199948E+06
.137895E+06
.124106E+96
.286843E+06
.227527E+06
.165474E+06
.179264E+06
.1103165+06
.137895K+36
.172369E+36
.193B53S+06
.186158E+06
.186159E+06
.179264E+05
.193353E+06
.110316E+06
.179264E+06
.103421E+06
.151685E+06
.144793E+06
.151635E+B6
.103421E+06
.144790E+06
.lltf316Et06
.117211E+06
.337843E+Z6
.124106E+85
.255106E+86
.1447935+36
.179254E+06
U79264E + 06
.179264E+06
.137895E+06
.137895E+06
.206843E+86
.172369E+06
.172369E+36
.236343E+06
.165474E+35
.137d95E+36
.124106E+06
.172369E+3S
.165474E+06
BEGINNING
BLAST
VOLUME
(CU MET/SEC)
.471947E+02
.5B97fl3E+32
.471947E+82
.377S5SE+02
.330363E+02
.542739E+02
.471947E+02
.302046E+82
.287883E+02
.259571E+02
.353969E+02
.424752E+02
.613531E+02
.401155E+02
.401155E+02
.339802E+02
.3398H2E+02
.259313E*-a2
.495544E+02
.259571E+02
.415313E+02
.363399E+02
.410594E+02
.336765S+02
.410594E+02
.377558E+02
.363399E+02
.115627E+03
.283163E+02
.892310E+02
.382277E+32
.481386E+32
.212376E+B2
.2123765+02
.212376E+02
.332346E+02
.302046E+82
.443630E+02
.306765E+82
.306765E+02
.306765E+B2
.542739E+02
.495544E+02
STOPPED
BLAST
PRESSURE
(PASCALS)
.689476E+05
.6S9475E+05
.689476E+05
.689476E+05
.623528E+05
.165474E+06
.172369E+06
.151635E+06
.158579E+B6
.163421E+06
.133421E+06
.137895E+0G
.133421E+36
.124ia6E+06
.124106E+06
.827371E+05
.1241U6E+06
.965266E+05
. 165474Et06
.965266E+05
.137895E+06
.131032E+06
.137895E+06
.9C-5266E + 05
. 13130DE+06
.965266E+05
.1B3421E+06
.337843E+06
.432633E+85
.103421E+36
.689476E+35
.103421E+36
.34473bE+05
.344738E+05
.413685E+35
.413635E+05
.413685E+05
.827371E+05
.827371E+85
. 103421K + B5
.1516B5E+36
.689476E+85
.689475E+05
.103421Ef36
.1034.21E + B6
TROUGH
NORMALLY
DRAINED
AFTER
CAST?
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
res
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO. OF SLAG
CASTS PER TON
BETWEEN HOT METAL
DRAINS (KGS)
309
3 300
3 299
301
332
294
235
303
351
317
317
317
11 317
303
332
316
255
207
355
259
239
353
254
272
234
30 238
529
20 296
346
342
326
324
256
256
256
233
233
224
340
309
337
311
283
COKE
PER TON
HOT METAL
(KGS)
566
544
536
542
618
596
562
593
537
680
539
644
539
525
557
639
575
433
533
644
523
634
531
576
571
539
795
591
556
636
498
521
635
680
612
565
493
544
725
633
647
547
559
-------
I
to
oo
SPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE INVENTORY
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21,1977
SI UNITS
BLAST
FURNACE
CODE
3361
3489
3418
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
35B1
3532
3503
3504
OUR Of
CAST1
(MIN)
55
40
43
43
43
45
4B
53
63
33
49
63
iaa
02 USED
TO OPEN
TAP?
YES
YES
YES
Yes
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
FLUSH
AT CINDER
NOTCH?
flO
YES
res
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
DUR OF
FLUSH
(HIM)
20
20
20
BEGINNING
BLAST
PRESSURE
(PASCALS)
.124186E+06
.137395E+06
.137895E+06
.172369E+06
.1938S3E+06
.193353E+05
.15i474Et06
.236843E+06
.262B31E+06
.137895E+06
.172369E+06
.172369E+06
.2482UE + 06
BEGINNING
BLAST
VOLUME
(CO MET/SEC)
.306765E+-02
.3067G5E+02
.306765E+32
.35396HE4-02
.377558E+02
.519142E+02
.306765E+02
.519142E+22
.755115E+02
.264290E+a2
.386996E+02
.528581E+B2
.759835E+02
STOPPED
BLAST
PRESSURE
(PASCALS;
.689476E+05
.344738E+05
.344733E+05
.344738E+05
.344738E+05
.827371E+-05
.275798E+05
.1241062405
.262031E+a6
.206S43E+05
.205343E+05
.482633KV35
.896318Eta5
TROUGH
NORMALLY
DRAINED
AFTER
CAST?
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO. OF SLAG
CASTS PER TON
BETWEEN HOT METAL
DRAINS (KGS)
329
327
307
232
272
320
328
303
312
188
194
198
191
COKE
PER TON
HOT METAL
(KGS)
610
620
671
579
518
597
532
486
485
494
464
490
428
-------
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE INVENTORY
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21,1977
SI UNITS
I
NJ
BLAST FUEL
FURNACE USED AT
CODE TUYERES
0998
8999
1C01
1002
1033
iiai
1102
1201
1391
1302
1303
1304
1481
1462
1403
1404
1485
1406
14B7
1403
1409
1410
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1602
1603
16C4
1781
1732
1804
1805
1806
1807
2002
2101
2102
2103
2291
2202
2203
2204
2205
2286
OIL
OIL
TAR
NATURAL GAS
TAR
TAR
TAR OR OIL
TAR OR OIL
TAR
TAR
TAR
TAR
TAR
TAR
OIL
TAR
TAR
TAR
TAR
NATURAL GAS
NATURAL GAS
NATURAL GAS
OIL
OIL
OIL
OIL
OIL
OIL
AMT OP
FUEL AT
TUYERES
.37B541E-03
.378541E-03
.567812E-03
.124951E+01
.378541E-03
.187253E-02
.1S7725E-02
.157725E-02
.1C7253E-02
.107253E-02
.107253E-32
.107253E-02
.107253E-02
.235168E-02
.340637E-02
.315451E-83
.315451E-03
.315451E-03
.315451E-83
.103910E+01
.937343E+03
.1231652+01
.189271E-32
.189271E-32
.le9271E-'J2
.176S53E-32
.302333E-02
.382333E-02
COKE
QUALITY
ASTM
UNITS STABIL.
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
51
50
50
50
43
56
55
56
55
45
46
53
57
46
48
46
58
58
46
57
57
57
57
57
60
60
60
60
60
44
44
44
44
50
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
SILICON
CONTENT
HOT METAL
(*)
8.70
1.05
1.03
1.08
1.03
1.04
1.28
1.35
1.68
1.50
1.47
1.10
1.20
1.50
1.36
1.40
1.85
1.18
1.33
1.50
1.53
1.50
1.50
1.53
1.15
1.22
1.16
1.C1
0.97
1.42
1.40
1.42
1.40
1.60
1.09
1.81
1.08
1.40
1.24
1.19
1.12
1.15
1.69
SULFUR
CONTENT
HOT METAL
(%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
8
0
0
a
0
8
0
0
0
3
0
8
0
0
0
.030
.028
.038
.030
.025
.031
.031
.029
.033
.023
.038
.030
.030
.027
.034
.032
.038
.030
.C27
.025
.025
.825
.825
.025
.321
.027
.827
.831
.031
.053
.853
.G53
.853
.020
.026
.028
.026
.317
.026
.025
.034
.020
.025
MANGAN.
CONTENT
HOT METAL
(%)
0.70
0.75
0.65
0.65
0.47
0.74
0.76
8.82
0.75
8.39
0.33
3.54
0.50
0.41
0.39
0.60
0.45
0.47
0.86
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
1.20
0.68
0.60
0.82
0.80
0.45
0.45
8.45
8.45
0.40
0.75
0.78
0.74
0.79
0.72
0.91
0.78
0.74
0.60
SLAG
BASICITY
(B/A)
1.18
1.03
1.87
1.07
0.95
0.96
0.97
1.01
0.92
0.98
0.97
0.97
8.95
0.96
1.03
0.99
0.97
0.93
8.96
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.11
1.12
1.11
1.17
1.20
8.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
1.00
1.05
1.06
1.06
1.23
1.23
1.26
1.25
1.28
1.24
SULFUR
CONTENT
OF SLAG
(»)
1.200
1.670
1.180
1.188
1.620
1.680
1.708
1.730
1.603
1.330
1.320
0.930
1.300
1.320
1.220
1.240
1.000
1.100
1.840
1.538
1.503
1.538
1.503
1.503
1.550
1.560
1.530
1.710
1.650
1.150
1.150
1.150
1.150
1.500
1.160
1.253
1.370
1.940
1.840
1.960
1.960
2.080
2.13B
ORE IN SINTER IN
METAL METAL
BURDEN BURDEN
(%) (»)
60.0
68. E
74 .0
7.0
5.8
3.0
15. B
10.3
2S.e
3.0
15.0
72.0
62.3
23.0
20.0
62.0
62.0
43.0
15.0
14.0
30.0
5.2
10.0
10.3
5.0
5.0
10.8
15.3
12.0
45.0
45.8
45.8
46.0
31.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
16.0
3.0
0.8
3.0
0.0
8.0
35.0
35.0
26.0
K.B
17.0
23.0
32.0
44.0
39.0
39.0
25.0
35.0
37.0
37.0
35.0
35.0
40.0
33.3
33.0
40.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25 .8
25.0
33.8
31.2
34.8
33.8
33.8
50.0
53.8
51.3
43.8
4.0
23.8
23. 0
19.8
13.0
19.8
19. e
-------
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE IN/ENTORY
BET2 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21.1977
SI UNITS
BLAST
FURNACI
CODE
2207
2208
2331
2382
2383
2304
2501
2532
2503
2504
2585
2536
2512
2514
2631
2632
2603
2634
2701
2831
2802
2931
2932
2937
2913
2929
2910
2911
2912
2913
3BS1
3332
3B33
3083
3039
3010
3011
3814
3015
3016
3017
301S
3201
3331
3332
3333
FUEL
2 USED AT
TUYERES
TAR
OIL
COKE OVEN GAS
OIL
TAR
NATURAL GAS
OIL
OIL
OIL
OIL
OIL
OIL
NATURAL GAS OR OIL
NATU:-tAL GAS
NATURAL GAS OR OIL
NATURAL GAS OR OIL
NATURAL GAS
NATURAL GAS
NATURAL GAS
OIL
OIL
OIL
OIL
OIL
TAR
TAR
TAR
OIL
OIL
TAR OR OIL
TAR OR OIL
OIL
TAR OR OIL
NATURAL GAS
NATURAL GAS
OIL
OIL
OIL
AMT OF
FUEL AT
TUYERES
.220816E-02
.277597E-32
.707921E-03
.946353E-03
.946353E-33
.825908EV00
.201889E-32
.189271E-02
.138798E-02
.1135G2E-02
.164034E-32
,164U34t:-32
.365237E+0B
.865237E+0B
.8-SS237K+BO
.933224E+33
.141584E+31
.141534E+31
.22B316E-32
.220816E-32
.189271E-02
.208198E-32
.315451E-32
.37bi41E-02
.177914E-32
.157725E-32
.227125E-32
.473176E-32
.580433E-32
.315451E-03
.574121E-02
.157725E-B2
.377223E-I-B3
.358S77E+00
.252361E-32
.252361E-02
.252361E-32
I
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
cu
CU
CU
CU
cu
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
cu
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
<
JNITS i
MET/SEC
MET/ SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
HET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
HET/SEC
HET/SEC
COKE
3UALITY
ASTM
JTABIL.
51
51
49
49
45
•49
48
48
48
46
48
53
53
36
36
36
48
57
58
53
50
53
53
58
50
58
51
51
51
45
58
52
42
42
45
45
51
44
54
54
52
47
47
47
SILICON
CONTENT
HOT METAL
(%)
0.91
0.92
1.00
1.75
3.50
1.20
1.38
1.37
1.32
1.32
1.40
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
0.92
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.C0
1.S0
1.20
1.00
2.25
2.25
2,25
1.19
1.42
1,45
1.17
1.23
1.33
1.24
1.28
1.14
1.10
1.31
1.60
0.90
0.90
0.90
SULFUR
CONTENT
HOT METAL
(%)
1.750
3.334
0.330.
0.033
0.027
a. 035
0.326
0.331
3. 329
3.032
0.B29
Q. 041
3. 036
a. 330
0.333
0.3J0
a. 035
3.332
0.319
0.317
3.350
a.asa
0.325
3.325
0.025
a. 025
0.025
3. 025
0.325
3.342
0.037
2. 334
8.035
0.040
0.024
0. 023
0.033
0.034
0.051
0.046
a. 023
3. 033
0.030
0.030
MANGAN.
CONTENT
HOT METAL
(%)
0. 78
0.78
0.90
0.90
0.85
0.88
0.73
0.72
3. 68
0.76
8.68
0.70
0.73
0.27
0.25
0.25
3.25
0.36
1.10
l.lfl
0.90
0.90
0.75
0.75
0.75
0. 75
1.00
1.03
1.03
0.57
0.88
0.89
0.27
3.28
0.40
0.33
0.53
0.88
0.48
0.47
1.00
0.60
0.69
0.68
SLAG
BASICITY
(B/A)
1.19
1.21
1.15
1.13
8.91
1.08
1.03
1.03
1.05
1.03
1.84
l.lfl
1.C9
1.12
1.12
1.12
1.12
0.68
l.lfl
1.10
1.00
1.83
1.23
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.18
1.18
l.lfl
1.87
1.02
1.28
1.06
1.07
1.83
1.97
1.19
1.32
0.90
0.95
1.05
1.03
1.30
1.80
SULFUR
CONTENT
OF SLAG
(»)
1.57fl
1.750
1.700
1.803
1.950
1.940
1.953
2.050
1.880
1.910
1.963
1.693
I.b30
1.350
1.3(52
1.353
1.350
1.100
i.iaa
1.103
1.750
1.750
2.253
2.250
2.250
2.250
1.808
1.750
1.750
1.490
1.570
1.8SJ0
1.510
1.588
1.590
1.533
1.520
1.360
1.700
1.9B0
2.03B
1.300
1.830
1.630
ORE IN £
METAL
BURDEN
(%)
3.0
0.0
1.0
30.0
3.0
0.0
12.0
11.0
10. e
1.0
5.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
83.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
80.0
53.3
83.0
15.0
33.3
46.0
12.0
12.6
11.0
11.0
15.0
37.0
32.0
40.0
19.9
19.0
19.0
SINTER IN
KETAL
BURDEN
(»)
0.0
0.0
45.0
30.0
0.0
62.0
50.6
50.3
49.3
48.0
32.0
23.0
23.3
23.0
23.0
26.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
33.0
2.0
1.0
24.3
22.8
58.8
58.0
58.0
-------
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE INVENTORY
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21,1977
SI UNITS
BLAST
FURNACI
CODE
3304
33B5
3336
333d
33B9
3318
3311
3312
3313
3315
3316
3317
3318
332B
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3323
3329
3330
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
3338
3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3350
3351
3352
3356
3357
3353
3359
3368
FUEL
5 USED AT
TUYERES
TAR
TAR
TAR
TAR
TAR
OIL
OIL
OIL
OIL
OIL
OIL
OIL
TAR OR OIL
TAR OS OIL
TAR OS OIL
TAR OR OIL
OIL
OIL
OIL
TAR
TAR
TAR OS OIL
TAR OR OIL
TAR
TAR
AMT OF
FUEL AT
TUYERES
.6309B2E-03
.6339T2E-83
.630932E-33
.630902E-03
.113562E-B2
.1BB944E-82
.1U0944E-02
.630932E-03
.441631E-33
.946353E-03
.315451E-02
.63B902E-03
.189271E-B2
.883263E-B3
.151416E-02
.189271E-B2
.2B1889E-02
.757082E-B3
.630982E-B3
.9463532-83
.946353E-H3
.638902E-B3
.63e9a2E-03
(
cu
cu
cu
cu
cu
cu
cu
cu
cu
cu
cu
cu
cu
cu
cu
cu
cu
cu
cu
cu
cu
cu
cu
(
JNITS i
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
KET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
COKE
3UALITY
ASTH
5TABIL.
50
52
50
50
50
52
52
52
52
50
50
50
50
46
46
46
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
53
53
53
53
5B
5B
42
42
42
5B
50
5B
45
59
SB
5B
58
SILICON
CONTENT
HOT METAL
(%)
1.28
1.18
1.5B
1.28
1.2B
1.00
1.05
1.20
1.30
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
B.93
1.22
1.22
1.61
1.32
1.19
1.5B
1.40
1.34
1.50
1.40
1.21
1.40
1.00
1.20
1.39
1.31
1.00
1.08
1.28
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.28
1.20
2.ee
1.26
1.29
1.24
1.16
SULFUR
CONTENT
HOT METAL
(%)
B.025
0.028
0.040
0.025
0.030
0.033
0.035
8.030
8.030
0.030
0.03B
0.038
0.030
8.033
0.036
0.023
0.831
0.030
0.025
0.026
0.027
8.063
B.032
0.038
B. £24
0.031
0.027
0.033
B.034
0.059
0.028
O.B32
B.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.825
8.018
B. 026
0.029
0.030
0.029
HANGAN .
CONTENT
HOT METAL
(%)
0.70
8.88
0.78
8.85
0.80
0.90
0.90
0.78
0.58
8.80
0.80
0.88
0.80
8.86
0.99
1.36
8.58
8.48
8.96
0.53
0.37
8.83
8.33
0.43
0.72
8.42
0.65
0.69
0.89
0.81
0.14
8.16
0.30
8.30
0.30
0.37
0.37
8.40
1.83
0.89
1.83
0.77
0.82
SLAG
BASICITY
(B/A)
1.10
1.10
1.03
1.10
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.C0
1.05
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.10
1.15
1.15
1.12
1.76
1.71
1.42
2.80
1.28
1.14
1.30
1.43
1.43
1.06
1.14
1.14
1.13
1.13
1.14
1.11
1.00
1.80
1.00
1.00
1.03
1.00
1.15
1.04
1.06
1.B6
1.06
SULFUR
CONTENT
OF SLAG
(%)
1.750
1.758
1.880
1.723
1.758
1.800
1.803
1.950
1.903
1.450
1.750
1.753
1.7C2
1.840
1.970
1.590
2.122
2.180
1.250
2.450
1.620
1.550
1.720
1.890
1.890
1.650
1.800
1.738
1.650
1.690
8.085
0.860
1.700
1.703
1.70B
1.430
1.480
1.530
1.903
1.250
1.320
1.160
1.173
ORE IN <
METAL
BURDEN
(»)
10.0
19.8
19.0
40.0
13.0
10.0
57.0
24 .0
43.0
10.0
10.0
17.0
7.0
20.0
28.8
28.8
44.8
38. B
39. fl
19.8
5.0
44.8
44. B
44. B
20.3
23.0
33.0
93.8
52.0
52.8
29.0
29.8
SINTER IN
METAL
BURDEN
(%)
60. 0
47. fl
47.0
47.8
60.0
48.0
53.0
33.0
47.8
43.0
63.0
60.8
SB. 0
60.0 .
66.0
£10.0
48.8
47.0
SB. 8
49.0
48 .0
46.0
63.0
33.8
63.0
22.0
27.0
29.8
11.3
23.3
54.8
54.0
54.0
83.3
B0.0
48.8
-------
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE INVENTORY
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21.1977
SI UNITS
BLAST FUEL
FURNACE USED AT
CODE TUYERES
3361
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
3531
35B2
3593
3594
TAR OR OIL
TAR
TAR
OIL
OIL
OIL
NATURAL GAS
GAS OR TAR
NATURAL GAS
AMT OF
FUEL AT
TUYERES
.567812E-33
.757082E-03
.I45107E-02
.132489E-B2
.214507E-32
.145107E-02
.714633E<-03
.126180E-02
.107253E-02
.28863921-81
COKE
QUALITY
ASTM
UNITS STABIL.
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
CU
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
MET/SEC
50
53
48
49
49
41
44
46
46
53
53
53
54
SILICON
CONTENT
HOT METAL
(»)
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
.22
.98
.27
.43
.35
.22
.06
.10
.97
.17
.15
.24
.39
SULFUR
CONTENT
HOT METAL
(%)
0.027
0.028
0.041
0.049
0.034
0.033
0.329
0.029
0.031
0.032
0.032
0.035
0.031
MANGAN .
CONTENT
HOT METAL
(%)
0.90
1.02
0.85
0.85
0.60
1.03
1.69
1.26
1.22
1.52
1.56
1.43
1.32
SLAG
BASICITY
(B/A)
1.06
1.21
1.21
1.11
1.14
1.19
1.15
1.23
1.11
1.05
1.07
1.07
1.06
SULFUR
CONTEST
OF SLAG
(%)
1.230
2.250
2.170
, 2.12C
2.330
1.410
1.170
1.650
1.360
1.3S0
1.440
1.420
1.320
ORE IN SINTER IN
KETAL METAL
BURDEN BURDEN
(%) (»)
52.0
15.0
1.0
3. 8
2.0
2.0
22.0
20. a
22.0
3.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
I
u>
to
-------
I
OJ
U)
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE INVENTORY
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21,1977
SI UNITS
NO. OF NO. OF
LARGE FREQ NO. OF CASTS CASTS
SCRAP IN PELLETS IN COKE ORE SINTER QUAN OF HOT IRON CASTS BETWEEN BETWEEN CAST
BLAST METAL METAL SCREENED SCREENED SCREENED COKE METAL RUNNER BETWEEN MAJOR NOMINAL TILTING HOUSE
FURNACE BURDEN BURDEN AT STOCK AT STOCK AT STOCK ASSOC TEMP REMAKE RUNNER TROUGH TROUGH SPOUTS VOLUKE
CODE
HOUSE? HOUSE? HOUSE? W/ CAST? (DEC C) (DAYS) RELINE REPAIR REPAIR USED? (CU MET)
0998
0939
leai
1032
1033
nei
1102
12«1
1381
1332
1333
13C4
1401
1402
14C3
1434
1435
1436
14B7
1438
1439
Hie
1533
1504
15135
15B6
1507
1602
1633
16iI4
1731
1732
1804
1835
1836
1807
2332
21C1
2102
2103
2231
2232
2203
2234
22D5
2236
5.0
5.0
7.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
7.0
tJ.fl
2. a
2.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
6.0
4.0
8.0
100.0
87.0
81. 0
88.0
55.0
58.0
36.0
52.0
46.0
40.0
43.0
15.0
45.0
50.0
27.0
65.0
66. e
63.0
65.0
65.0
49.0
47.0
4(>.^
6?.0
65.0
61.0
95.0
90. 0
83.0
54.0
75.0
72.0
76.0
79.0
77.0
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YEU
YES
YES
NO
NO
MO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
HO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
n;>
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
1,454
1,504
1,504
1,526
1,526
1,496
1,493
1,493
1,510
1,510
1,565
1,565
1,543
1,543
1,565
1,543
1,543
1,548
1,482
1,482
1,482
1,482
1,482
1,537
1,537
i, -5 17
1.531
1,531
1,412
1,412
1,412
1,412
1,454
1.482
1,482
1,482
1,482
1,482
1,4U2
1,482
1,482
1,537
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
7.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
i.e
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.3
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.11
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
8.0
3.0
8.0
8.0
3.0
3.0
14
1
1
3
6
8
a
8
8
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
16
16
16
16
16
24
8
X
19
10
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
35
35
35
35
35
35
20
35
3
16
16
16
16
15
15
20
23
10
10
20
20
30
20
56
56
56
56
56
24
24
24
15
15
30
30
33
30
35
28
23
23
40
40
43
40
40
40
4
7
3
2
6
16
16
16
16
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
3
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
15
15
15
15
5
0
0
0
43
43
40
43
40
43
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
MO
NO
NO
NO
NO
;i )
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
HO
HO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
5,146
5,146
9,693
12,905
8,838
18,151
8,636
16,443
21,735
15,478
19,332
13,124
14,335
13,066
12,694
12,855
11,983
11,933
13,529
16,895
33,812
21,334
18,711
6,631
12,877
18,748
13, /43
8,331
19. 330
1 1 , . ••• 7
19,403
19,337
4,946
5,127
5,116
5,321
12,264
11,639
11,609
23,359
4,533
4,1C5
6,229
9,051
11,326
12,459
-------
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE INVENTOR*
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21,1977
SI UNITS
I
OJ
BLAST
FURNACE
CODE
2207
2268
2381
23d2
2383
2384
2501
2502
2533
2584
2585
25UG
2512
2514
2601
2682
2603
2634
2701
2831
2382
2931
2932
2907
2938
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
3031
3632
3333
j«23
3339
3B10
3C11
3814
3315
3816
3317
3818
3231
3331
3332
3333
SCRAP IN
METAL
BURDEN
<»)
0.e
0.0
i.e
0.8
5.0
5.0
0.3
5.0
s.e
5.0
5.0
5.0
17.3
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.6
7.0
7.3
7.0
7.0
12.0
12. e
11.0
3.8
4.3
11.0
10.0
8.0
7.0
5.0
3.0
11. B
7.3
7.0
7.0
PELLETS IN
METAL
BURDEN
(«)
1BB.0
103.0
55.0
7fl.e
99.0
70.0
30.0
45.0
33.0
40. 0
37.0
94.0
63.0
20.0
sa.0
50.0
5U.0
24.0
98.0
98.0
65.0
65.0
55.0
55.0
55.0
55.0
3.0
63.0
61.0
42.0
83.0
87.0
78.0
81.0
79.0
83.0
39.8
43.0
49.0
15.0
16.0
16.0
COKE
SCREENED
AT STOCK
HOUSE?
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
ORE
SCREENED
AT STOCK
HOUSE?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
SINTER
SCREENED
AT STOCK
HOUSE?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
LARGE
QUAN OF
COKE
ASSOC
W/ CAST?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
OCCAS .
OCCAS .
OCCAS.
OCCAS.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
OCCAS.
OCCAS .
OCCAS.
OCCAS .
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
SO
HOT
METAL
TEMP
(DEG C)
1,482
1,482
1,521
1,510
1,510
1,496
1,493
1,493
1,4B2
1,498
I,4o7
1,498
1,493
1,510
1,476
1,482
1,398
1,398
1,454
1,454
1,454
1,454
1,426
1,426
1,426
1,426
1,454
1,454
1,482
1,482
1,482
1,482
1,454
1,343
1,371
1,498
1,482
1,482
1,482
FREQ
IRON
RUNNER
REMAKE
(DAYS)
3.0
8.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
7.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
J.0
10.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
NO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN
RUNNER
RELINE
35
35
24
24
3
1
1
4
4
18
18
18
16
16
16
2
2
38
38
38
33
1
1
1
21
3
3
12
12
12
12
2
2
3
7
6
60
3
3
3
NO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN
MAJOR
TROUGH
REPAIR
40
40
48
48
23
Ifi
250
250
503
250
403
24
24
24
24
24
7
7
0
0
e
0
35
35
42
42
6
6
30
30
30
30
18
13
35
30
42
2
2
2
NO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN
NOMINAL
TROUGH
REPAIR
40
40
3
3
6
2
2
6
3
6
1
1
0
0
0
32
24
24
7
7
8
8
8
3
1
1
1
21
6
6
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
6
0
2
2
2
TILTING
SPOUTS
USED?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
HO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
CAST
HOUSE
VOLUME
(CO MET)
10,760
11,E43
13,632
11,439
16,792
11,723
14,493
14 ,438
11 ,440
11,440
7,b43
21 ,723
22,702
9 ,123
9,123
8,652
11,461
17,E',6
16,194
16,194
4 ,692
4,692
22,481
9,652
11 ,636
17,E31
6,111
6,535
9,133
23,254
12,376
IB, 895
10,025
12,844
13,733
13,733
5,279
18,619
15,593
4,534
10,777
9,317
11.255
11,163
11,163
-------
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE INVENTORY
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
FEBRUARY 21,1977
SI UNITS
I
LO
U1
BLAST
FURNACE
CODE
3304
3305
3386
3393
3389
331B
3311
3312
3313
3315
3316
3317
3318
3320
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3323
3329
3338
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
3333
3344
3345
3346
3347
3343
3349
3350
3351
3352
3356
3357
3358
3359
3360
SCRAP IN
METAL
BURDEN*
(t)
6.0
7.0
7.B
3.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
6.0
10.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
10.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
7.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
LARGE
PELLETS IN COKE ORE SINTER OUAN OF
METAL SCREENED SCREENED SCREENED COKE
BURDEN AT STOCK AT STOCK AT STOCK ASSOC
(%) HOUSE? HOUSE? HOUSE? W/ CAST?
30.0
28.0
28.3
47.0
39.0
34.0
24.0
20.0
29.0
23.0
50.0
17.0
17.0
23.0
S2.0
23.0
51.0
52.0
70.0
78.0
54.0
65.0
39.3
72.0
30.0
45.0
45.0
68.0
68.0
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
MO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO .
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
OCCAS .
OCCAS .
OCCAS .
OCCAS .
OCCAS.
OCCAS .
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
HOT
METAL
TEMP
(DEC C)
1,487
1,487
1,493
1,487
1,471
1,471
1,471
1,460
1,460
1,471
1,471
1,471
1,471
1,476
1,476
1,476
1,476
1,479
1,493
1,482
1,468
1,473
1,454
1,476
1,454
1,476
1,521
1.482
1,482
1,482
1,482
1,454
1,454
1,468
1,463
1,463
1,482
1,432
1,482
1,496
1.498
1,482
1,487
1,493
FREQ NO. OF
IRON CASTS
RUNNER BETWEEN
REMAKE RUNNER
(DAYS) RELINE
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.9
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
4
4
4
4
4
14
14
12
12
8
8
9
11
40
40
40
40
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
30
1
20
6
6
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
9
9
9
9
NO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN
MAJOR
TROUGH
REPAIR
16
18
16
20
20
35
35
30
30
8
8
9
11
6
6
6
6
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
90
60
20
20
20
40
40
19
19
19
6
6
6
30
56
56
56
56
NO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN CAST
NOMINAL TILTING HOUSE
TROUGH SPOUTS VOLUME
REPAIR USED? (CU MST)
4
3
3
5
4
14
14
12
12
8
8
9
11
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
30
30
20
6
6
25
25
3
3
3
3
3
3
18
8
3
8
8
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
-NO
:JQ
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
12,469
12,468
24,240
6,215
6,049
9,691
9,691
12,733
12,837
9,834
10,515
6,732
26,994
4,951
4,997
5,222
5,693
4,923
4,132
4,o36
3,S93
4,033
5,635
4,312
3,727
4 ,138
4 ,133
42,227
15,565
7,533
7,357
7,857
13,307
15,769
15,769
13,560
13,550
13,735
11,833
9,797
17,339
16,167
6 , 535
6,525
10,631
13,603
-------
EPA BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE INVENTORY
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL EN3INEERS
FEBRUARY 21,1977
SI UNITS
BLAST
FURNACE
CODE
3361
34C9
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
3531
3502
3503
35B4
SCRAP IN
METAL
BURDEN
(»)
3.8
7.0
1.0
1.0
7.8
e.e
7.0
7.0
PELLETS 11
METAL
BURDEN
(%)
45. 0
49.0
63.0
66.0
94.0
91.0
84.0
83.0
S7.0
87.0
87.0
86.0
86.0
* COKE
SCREENED
AT STOCK
HOUSE?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
ORE
SCREENED
AT STOCK
HOUSE?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
SINTER
SCREENED
AT STOCK
HOUSE?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
LARGE
QUAN OF
COKE
ASSOC
«/ CAST?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
HOT
METAL
TEMP
(DEC C)
1,482
1.482
1,482
1,482
1,482
1,468
1.468
1,468
1,482
FREQ
I ROM
RUNNER
REMAKE
(DP.YS)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
NO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN
RUNNER
RELINE
9
1
1
1
1
7
7
7
9
40
40
40
25
NO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN
MAJOR
TROUGH
REPAIR
56
60
60
60
75
14
14
14
8
40
32
32
25
NO. OF
CASTS
BETWEEN
NOMINAL
TROUGH
REPAIR
8
6
6
6
8
10
10
10
6
24
16
16
15
TILTING
SPOUTS
USED?
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
HO
HO
NO
NO
NO
CAST
HOUSE
VOLUME
(CU MET)
6,515
10,194
13,194
3,910
13,875
3,635
7,B79
12,742
22.370
11,497
8,325
34,755
27,883
I
U)
Ch
-------
BLAST FURNACE DATA SHEET
Date of Survey
1. Company's Identification of Furnace
2. Furnace Working Volume, cu. ft.
3. Record Daily Production of Hot Metal,
Tons
4. Current Daily Production of Hot Metal,
Tons
5. Number of Casts Per Day
6. Hearth Diameter, Feet & Inches
7. Iron Notch Drill Bit Size, Inches
8. Number of Iron Notches
9. Number of Cinder Notches
10. Iron Trough (Pool) Length as made up for
cast, ft.
11. Iron Trough (Pool) Width as made up for
cast, in.
12. Iron Trough (Pool) Depth as made up for
cast, in.
CURRENT AVERAGE OPERATING STATISTICS AND PRACTICES
13. Duration of Cast, Minutes
14. Is o Used to Open Tap Hole?
15. Is Flushing Routinely Accomplished at
Cinder Notch?
16. Duration of Flushing, Minutes
17. Normal Blast Pressure at Beginning of
Cast, psig
18. Normal Blast Volume at Beginning of Cast,
SCFM
A-37
-------
19. Normal Blast Pressure when Tap Hole is
Stopped, PSIG
20. 113 Trough Normally Drained After Each
Cast?
21. If No, How Many Casts Between Draining
AVERAGE MATERIAL VALUES
22. Slag Per Ton of Hot Metal, Lbs.
23. Coke Per Ton of Hot Metal, Lbs.
24. Fuel Used at Tuyeres
25. Amount of Fuel at Tuyeres
26. Coke Quality, ASTM Stability
27. Silicon Content of Hot Metal, %
28. Sulfur Content of Hot Metal, %
29. Manganese Content of Hot Metal, %
30. Slag Basicity, B/A
31. Sulfur Content of Slag, %
32. Ore in Metallic Burden, %
33. Sinter in Metallic Burden, %
34. Scrap in Metallic Burden, %
35. Pellets in Burden, %
36. Is Coke Screened in Stock House?
37. Is Ore Screened in Stock House?
38. Is Sinter Screened in Stock House?
39. Are Large Quantities of Coke Associated
with Cast?
40. Hot Metal Temperature, °p.
A-38
-------
TROUGH AND RUNNER MAINTENANCE
41. Frequency of Iron Runner Remaking, Days
42. Material Used to Line Iron Runners
43. Number of Casts Before Relining
Runners
44. Number of Casts Between Major
Trough Repairs
45. Number of Casts Between Nominal
Trough Patching
46. Material Used to Line Trough
CAST HOUSE PHYSICAL DATA
47. Age of Cast House
48. Are Tilting Spouts Used?
49. Width of Cast House, Column to
Column
50. Length of Cast House, Centerline Fur-
nace to End Column
51. Distance from Centerline Furnace to
Column Line at Rear of Cast House
52. Height from Floor to Bottom of Trusses
53. Height of Sloping Roof, Bottom of Trusses
to Monitor
54. Attach Rough Sketch of Cast House Plan,
if Possible
55. Please Attach any Plan Drawings of
Cast House that are Available
A-39
-------
B. ENGINEERING DATA
-------
TABLE NO. B-l
03
I
METRIC CONVERSION GUIDE
SI- INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM OF UNITS
Quantity
length
area
density
power
pressure
energy
volume
electrical
mass
temperature
length
weight
pressure
velocity
volume /time
volume/time
acceleration
mass/ volume
mass/mass
SI
metre2
metre -,
kilogram/metre
watt
pascal
joule..
metre,.
metre /second
joule
kilogram
Q
Celsius
metre
Kilogram
pascal
metre/second
metre ../second
metre /second
metre/second
kilogram/ me tre-^
kilogram/tonne H.M.
English
Unit
foot2
foot -.
lb./ft
watt
psi
inch of H?0
BTU
ft3
foot /minute
kilowatt-hour
ton (2000 Ib)
grain
Fahrenheit
micron
Metric ton
inches of water
feet/minute
feet /minute
gal ./minute,,
foot/second
Grains/DSCF
Ib/ton HM
Conversion
To Metric
(Multiply By) Remarks
3.048
9.290
1.601
-
6.895
2.488
1.055
2.831
4.719
3.600
9.071
6 479
(6F-32
1.000
1.000
2.488
5.080
4.719
6.309
3.048
2.2871
5.001
E-01
E-02
E+01
E+03
E+02
E+03
E-02
E-04
E+06
E+02
E-05
)/1.8 Note:
l°Kelvin = l°Celsii;
E+06
E+03
E+02
E-03
E-04
E-05
E-01
E-03
E-01
-------
AIR FLOW CALCULATIONS
FOR TAP HOLE AND IRON TROUGH CURTAIN ENCLOSURE
HEAT TRANSFERRED TO AIR IN CURTAIN ENCLOSURE:
A. Heat Transfer From Hot Metal Pool Area By Convection
During Casting —
h = 0.38 x At3* ±
0.38 x (2700 - 130)4
2.70 BTU/HR/FT2/°F
Ch = hxAx&T
2.70 x 100 x (1700 - 130)
693900 BTU/HR
B. Heat Radiated From Hot Metal Pool During Casting —
Q2 = 0.173 x A x / T \4 x er
0.173 x 100 x 3160 \4 x 0 3
5,175,063 BTU/HR
C. Heat Transfer From Furnace Shell By Convection —
h = 0.30 x
0.30 x / 600 - 130 \*
V 37 J
0.566 BTU/HR/FT2/°F
0.3 = hxAx^t
0.566 x 555 x (600-130)
147,641
D. Heat Radiated From Furnace Shell —
Q4 = 0.173 x A x / T \ x e,
V 100;
0.173 x 555 x / 460 + 600 \ 4 x 0 90
V TOO 7
1,090,950 BTU/HR
B-2
-------
E. Heat Transfer From Bustle Pipe —
h = 0.42 ' A - xJ*
0.42
12
0.671 BTU/HR/FT2/°F
= h x A x
0.671 x 283 x (600-130)
89,249 BTU/HR
F. Heat Radiated From Bustle Pipe
Q6 = 0.173 x A x / T \ 4 x eg
0.173 x 283 x / 600 + 460 Y x 0.90
100
+ 460^ x 0.
KT^
556286 BTU/HR
G. Total Heat Transferred to Air Within Curtain Enclosure
QT = 7,753,089
H. Face Area Below and Around Curtain Enclsoure Affected
by Air Currents —
Below Curtain (below bustle pipe)
8 x 15 + 2(8 x 32) = 632 sq. ft.
Above Bustle Pipe (between curtain and furnace -
below trusses)
(12 x 7) 2 =84 sq. ft.
Total Face Area = 716 sq. ft.
B-3
-------
I. Assumed face velocity necessary to prevent interruption
of air flow by cast house cross-currents: 250 feet oer minute*
J. Total Required Flow to Enclosure = 250 x 716 x 60 =
1074 x 104 cubic ft./hr.
or 179,000 ACFM @ 130°F
K. 1074 x 104 Cu. Ft./Hr. at 130°F = 1074 x 104 x .0673 =
722800 Ibs./hour
L. Temperature Inside Enclosure Due To Heat Transfer —
QT = Wc x Cp x Afc
Qt = Wc x .241 x (t2 - tx)
t2 = Qt
Wc x .241
t2 = 7753089 + 130°
722,800 x .241
t2 = 44° + 130°
t2 = 174 °F
M. 1074 x 104 CFH x 460 + 174 = 1154 x 104 CFH
460 + 130
1154 x 104 CFH = 192,349 ACFM at 174°F
192349 x 530 = 160796 SCFM
634
N. Area Inside Curtain at Bustle Pipe = 375 sq. ft.
192349 = 513 FPM at Bustle Pipe
375
0. Take-Off Duct Diameter = 7 ft.
P. Take-Off Duct Velocity - 4998 FPM
* Depending upon the cross-currents present in the cast house
this face velocity may not be sufficient and may need to
be increased.
B-4
-------
h = Local Individual Coefficient of Heat
Transfer, BTU/Hr./sq. ft./°F
t = Temperature of air, °F
A = Area of Heat Transfer Surface, Sq. Ft.
T = Temperature of Surface of Body, °R
w = Weight of Flow of Air, Lb./Hr.
c
d = Density, Lb/cu. ft.
e
V = Velocity, Ft./Min.
e = Emissivity Coefficient of Radiation
(Dimensionless)
Q1/Q2-'Q3'Q4 = Heat Loads, BTU/Hr.
t = Temperature Difference, °F
s = Stefan-Boltzmann constant,
0.173 x 10~8 BTU/Sq. Ft-Hr-°R4
e^ = 0.30 For Cast Iron at 2700°F (luminous)
(^
eb = 0.90 For Blast Furnace Shell
d = diameter of bustle pipe, in
H = Height of Shell Contact in Cast House, Ft.
c = Specific Heat of Air, BTU/Lb./°F
(0.241 @ 155°f)
Qt = Total BTU/HR
References: Chemical Engineers Handbook- Perry
Mechanical Engineers Handbook - Kent
Heat Transfer - C.B. Cramer
B-5
-------
O
CN
Retractable
Enclosure
Trusses
- !
m I
CM
In-draft !
00'
Iron Pool
32'
25
B-6
-------
Sample Calculation
The following is a sample calculation for each of the
four power house fuel condition curves plotted on figures
5-5, 5-6, and 5-7. The sample calculations use an evacuation
rate of 189 m^/sec. (400,000 cu. ft. per minute) during fur-
nace tapping, casting, and plugging for a total of 7 hours
per day. For 17 hours per day when the furnace is melting,
the evacuation rate is reduced by 50%. The evacuation rate
from any particular cast house should normally never be less
than the existing rate of evacuation through the use of
natural ventilation with cast house roof monitors.
Basis of Calculations-
1. 1.054E + 07J(10,000 BTU) to produce 1 KW or
100 KW requires 1.054E + 09J(1,000,000 BTU)
2. New Source Standards for Coal Fired Boilers:
Particulate Matter: 4.5E-02 kg(0.1 Ib) per
1.054E + 09J(MMBTU)
or: 4.5E-04 kg(.001 Ib) per KW
Sulfur Dioxide: 5.4E-01 kg(1.2 Ib) per
1.054E + 09J(MMBTU)
or: 5.4E-03 kg(.012 Ib) per KW
Nitrogen Oxides: 3.2E-01 kg(0.7 Ib) per
1.054E + 09J(MMBTU)
or: 3.2E-03 kg(.007 Ib) per KW
3. New Source Standards for Oil Fired Boilers:
Particulate Matter: 4.5E-02 kg(0.1 Ib) per
1.054E + 09J(MMBTU)
or: 4.5E-04 kg(0.001 Ib) per KW
B-7
-------
Sulfur Dioxide: 3.6E-01 kg(0.8 Ib) per
1.054E + 09J(MMBTU)
or: 3.6E-03 kg(0.008 Ib) per KW
Nitrogen Oxides: 1.4E-01 kg(0.3 Ib) per
1.054E + 09J(MMBTU)
or: 1.4E-03 kg(0.003 Ib) per KW
Calculations:
KW-HR = QxPxT
Day ExF
Where:
KW-HR = Kilowatts per day
Day
Q = Volume of air evacuated from cast house,
m3/Sec (CFM)
P = System pressure resistance, Pa("H20)
T = Time of operation, hours per day
E = Fan efficiency
F = Conversion Factor 1000 W/KW
Assumptions:
1) Air flow = 189 m3 (400,000 CFM) - Avg. cast
Sec.
house volume, 60 air changes per hour, during
tapping
2) Air flow - 94.5 m3 (200,000 CFM) - Flow reduced
Sec.
when not tapping
3). Pressure drop, high flow - 3*98 E +03 Pa(16"H2O),
1.99 E +03 Pa(8"H2_0) across baghouse; 1.99 E+03
Pa(8"H2_0) loss in duct and entry loss
4) Pressure drop low flow = 1.99 E +03 Pa(8"H2_0)
5) Time, high flow - 7 hours per day - Avg. 7 casts
per day with Avg. cast duration of 46 min. and
14 min. to get fan to proper flow prior to tap.
B-8
-------
6) Fan efficiency, high flow = 0.63 - Typical for
radial blade fan at operating point.
7) Fan efficiency, reduced flow = 0.30 typical
efficiency at half flow.
6. SI Calculations:
189 m3 x 3984 Pa x 7 Hr/Day
Sec
.63 x 1000
94.5 x m3/Sec x 1992 x 17 Hr/Day =
0.30 x 1000
8345 KW-HR
Day
10635 KW-HR
Day
18980 KW-HR
Day
Power House Fuel - Condition #1
Source: Duquesne Light Company, projected 1986
53.1% coal - .531 x 18980 = 10,078.4
10.0% oil - .100 x 18980 = 1,898.0
36.9% nuclear - .369 x 18980 = 7,003.6
100%
18,980 KWH/Day
Coal
Particulate Matter = 4.5E-04 kg/KW x 10,078.4 KWH/Day
S02_ = 5.4E-03 kg/KW x 10,078.4 KWH/Day
NOx = 3.2E-03 kg/KW x 10,078.4 KWH/Day
Oil
Particulate Matter = 4.5E-04 kg/KW x 1,898 KWH/Day
S02_ = 3.6E-03 kg/KW x 1,898 KWH/Day
NOx = 1.4E-03 kg/KW x 1,898 KWH/Day
TOTAL
101.7 kg/Day x 365 Day/Year = 3.7E + 04 kg/yr.
4.5 kg/Day
=54.5 kg/Day
=32.3 kg/Day
= 0.9 kg/Day
: 6.8 kg/Day
: 2.7 kg/Day
=101.7 kg/Day
B-9
-------
Power House Fuel - Condition #2
100% Coal = 18980 KWH/Day
Particulate Matter = 4.5E-04 kg/KW x 18980 KWH/Day = 8.5 kg/Day
S02_ = 5.4E-03 kg/KW x 18980 KWH/Day - 102.5 kg/Day
NOx = 3.2E-03 kg/KW x 18980 KWH/Day = 60.7 kg/Day
TOTAL 171.7 kg/Day
171.7 kg/Day x 365 Day/Year = 6.3E + 04 kg/ yr
Power House Fuel - Condition #3
85% Coal - .85 x 18980 = 16,133
15% Oil - .15 x 18980 = 2,847
100% 18,980 KW/Day
Coal
Partioulate Matter = 4.5E-04 kg/KW x 16133 KW/Day = 7.3 kg/Day
S02_ = 5.4E-03 kg/KW x 16133 KW/Day = 87.1 kg/Day
NOx = 3.2E-03 kg/KW x 16133 KW/Day =51.6
Oil
Particulate Matter = 4.5E-04 kg/KW x 2847 KW/Day = 1.3 kg/Day
S02_ = 3.6E-03 kg/KW x 2847 KW/Day = 10.2 kg/Day
NOx = 1.4E-03 kg/KW x 2847 KW/Day = 4.0 kg/Day
TOTAL 161.5 kg/Day
161.5 kg/Day x 365 Day/Year = 5.9E + 04 kg/yr
Power House Fuel - Condition #4
Bureau of Mines
51.6% Coal - .516 x 18980 = 9793.7 KWH/Day
18.4% Oil - .814 x 18980 = 3492.3 KWH/Day
30.0% Nuclear- .300 x 18980 = 5694.0 KWH/Day
100% 18980.0 KWH/Day
B-1C
-------
Coal
Particulate Matter = 4.5E-04 kg/KW x 9793.7 KWH/Day = 4.4 kg/Day
S02_ = 5.4E-03 kg/KW x 9793.7 KWH/Day =52.9 kg/Day
NOx = 3.2E-03 kg/KW x 9793.7 KWH/Day = 31.3 kg/Day
Oil
Particulate Matter = 4.5E-04 kg/KW x 3492.3 KWH/Day = 1.6 kg/Day
S02_ = 3.6E-03 kg/KW x 3492.3 KWH/Day = 12.6 kg/Day
NOx = 1.4E-03 kg/KW x 3492.3 KWH/Day = 4.9 kg/Day
TOTAL 107.7 kg/Day
107.7 kg/Day x 365 Day/Year = 3.9E + 04 kg/.yr
English Units Calculation
Full Evacuation: 400,000 x 16 x 7 = 11,188
0.63 x 6356
50% Evacuation: 200,000 x 8 x 17 = 14,265
0.30 x 6356
Total HP-HR for one day = 25,453
Kilowatt - hours (KWH) = 25,453 x .7457 KWH/HR-HR
KWH/Day = 18980
Power House Fuel - Condition #1
Source: Duquesne Light Company, projected 1986
53.1% Coal 10,078.4 KWH/Day
10.0% Oil 1,898.0
36.9% Nuclear 7,003.6
100% 18,980.0
B-ll
-------
Coal
Particulate Matter = .001 LB x 10,078.4 KWH = 10.1
KWH DAY
S02_ - .012 LB x 10,078.4 KWH = 120.9
KWH DAY
NOx = .007 LB x 10,078.4 KWH = 70.5
KWH DAY
Oil
Particulate Matter = .001 LB x 1,898 KWH = 1.9
KWH DAY
S02_ = .008 LB x 1,898 KWH = 15.2
KWH DAY
NOx = .003 LB x 1,898 KWH = 5.7
KWH DAY 224.3
224.3 LB/DAY x 365 DAY/YEAR = 40.9 Tons from Power House
2,000 LB/TONYR
Power House Fuel - Condition #2
100% Coal = 18980 KWH/Day
Particulate Matter = .001 LB x 18980 KWH = 19.0 LB
KWH DAY DAY
S02_ = .012 LB x 18980 KWH = 227.7 LB
KWH DAY DAY
NOx = .007 LB x 18980 KWH = 132.9 LB
KWH DAY DAY
379.6 LB
DAY
379.6 LB/DAY x 365 DAY/YR =69.3 Ton from Power House
2000 LB/TONYR
B-12
-------
Power House Fuel - Condition No. 3
85% Coal - .85 x 18980 KWH/Day = 16,133 KWH/Day
15% Oil - .15 x 18980 KWH/Day = 2,847
100% 18,980 KWH/Day
Coal
Particulate Matter = .001 LB x 16,133 KWH = 16.1 LB/Day
KWH DAY
502^ = .012 LB x 16,133 KWH = 193.6 LB/Day
KWH DAY
NOx = .007 LB x 16,133 KWH = 112.9 LB/Day
~ KWH DAY
Oil
Particulate Matter = .001 LB x 2847 KWH = 2.8 LB/Day
KWH DAY
S02_ = .008 LB x 2847 KWH = 22.8 LB/Day
KWH DAY
NOx = .003 LB x 2847 KWH = 8.6 LB/Day
KWH DAY
TOTAL 356.8 LB/DAY
356.8 LB/DAY x 365 DAY/YEAR = 65.1 TON from Power House
2,000 LB/TON YR.
Power House Fuel - Condition No. 4
Source: Bureau of Mines
51.6% Coal - .516 x 18980 KWH = 9793.7 KWH/Day
Day
18.4% Oil - .184 x 18980 KWH = 3492.3 KWH/Day
Day
30.0% Nuclear- .300 x 18980 KWH = 5694.0 KWH/Day
100.0% Day 18980 KWH/Day
B-l 3
-------
Coal
Particulate Matter = .001 LB x 9793.7 KWH = 9.8 LB/Day
KWH Day
S02_ = .012 LB x 9793.7 KWH = 117.5 LB/Day
KWH Day
NOx = .007 LB x 9793.7 KWH = 68.6 LB/Day
KWH Day
Oil
Particulate Matter = .001 LB x 3492.3 KWH = 3.5 LB/Day
KWH Day
502^ = .008 LB x 3492.3 KWH = 27.9 LB/Day
KWH Day
NOx = .003 LB x 3492.3 KWH = 10.5 LB/Day
KWH Day
TOTAL 237.8 LB/Day
237.8 LB/DAY x 365 DAY/Year = 43.4 Ton From Power House
2000 LB/TONYr.
SUMMARY
Emissions From
Condition Power House
No. (Tons/Yr) (Kg/Yr)
1 40.9 3.7E + 04
2 69.3 6.3E + 04
3 65.1 5.9E + 04
4 43.4 3.9E + 04
B-14
-------
C. MISC. EMISSION EVALUATION DATA
OF THE NO. 1 CAST HOUSE AT
DOMINION FOUNDRY AND STEEL COMPANY
-------
Sampling Procedures
Test Station and Traverse Location—
The sampling location was on a platform servicing the bypass
stack. The inside diameter, as obtained from drawings and direct
measurement, was 84 inches. Due to test considerations, 2U
sample points were used: 12 points per each of the two ports.
Gas Flow and Temperature Determinations—
The gas flow rates and temperature profiles were measured by
conducting simultaneous velocity and temperature traverses. Gas
velocity heads were measured with a calibrated "S" type Pitot
tube which was connected to an inclined manometer. A chromel-
alumel thermocouple connected to a potentiometer was used to
determine the gas temperature.
Moisture Content—
Moisture sampling was conducted concurrently with particulate
sampling employing the principles presented in E.P.A. Method
Four. Parameters evaluated in order to determine gas stream
moisture content were: sample gas volume, sample gas
temperature, sample gas pressure, impinger moisture gain, and
silica gel moisture gain. Some minor modifications were made to
the Method Four train to allow concurrent particulate and
moisture content sampling; these modifications involved no
deviations from sampling principles. Modifications involved
substitution of a glass fiber filter for Pyrex wool as a
filtering medium and substitution of a calibrated orifice for a
rotameter as a flow metering device.
C-1
-------
Sulfur Dioxide Sampling—
Samp].ing was performed using the principles in Method 6 of
the Federal Register and concurrently with the particulate
sampling. Specifically, 150 milliliters of 80% isopropyl alcohol
was place:d in the first impinger and 150 mis of 3% hydrogen
peroxide was placed in each of the second and third impingers.
Samples were isokinetically withdrawn in order to meet the
requirements of Method Five.
Upon completion, the contents of the impingers were measured
volumetrically and placed in a sealed sample bottle. The
glassware was rinsed with small amounts of distilled water which
was added to the sample bottle.
Particulate Sampling—
All samp]ing procedures and equipment utilized in the test
program were those outlined in Method Five of the Federal
Register, Volume 36, Number 247, December 23, 1971. The size of
the nozzle required to maintain isokinetic sampling was
calculated from the results of the initial temperature and
velocity traverses through the use of a nomograph. The sampling
train utilized a heated stainless steel probe which was
maintained at a temperature in excess of 250°F by an internal
heating element. A calibrated "S" type Pitot tube and a chromel-
alumel thermocouple were clamped to the probe and were used to
monitor the gas velocity and temperature at the individual
traverse points during the test period. Sampled gas passed
through the nozzle and the probe to a glass fiber filter. The
C-2
-------
filter was housed in a box maintained at a temperature above
250°F attached to the end of the probe. The gas then passed to
the impinger train through a length of tygon tubing. The first
impinger contained 150 ml of isopropyl alcohol. The second and
third impingers contained 150 mis of hydrogen peroxide. The
fourth impinger contained approximately 200 grams of coarse
silica gel which collected any moisture and/or vapors which had
not been captured in the preceeding impingers.
The first, third, and fourth impingers were 500-ml knock-out
impingers. The second impinger was a 500 ml Greenburg-Smith
impinger. The entire impinger train was immersed in an ice bath
at 32°F for all sample runs.
The sample gas was conducted from the impinger train through
an umbilical cord to the control console, a Model 2313 RAC Stak
Samplr, which contained the following pieces of equipment (listed
in the order in which the sample gas passed through them): a
main valve; a bypass valve for flow adjustment; an air tight
vacuum pump; a calibrated dry gas meter; and a calibrated
orifice. The orifice used to maintain isokinetic conditions was
equipped with pressure taps which were connected across an
inclined manometer. A schematic diagram of the sampling train is
depicted on page C-21 of this Appendix.
The sampling train was subjected to a leak check prior to
each sample run. The inlet of the filter holder was plugged, and
the pump vacuum was held at 15 in. Hg for one minute. In all
C-3
-------
cases the1 leakage rate was minimal and did not exceed the maximum
allowable leakage rate of 0.02 CFM.
Upon completion of a testr the soiled glass fiber filter was
removed from its holder and placed in a plastic Petri dish which
was subsequently sealed. The probe and nozzle were rinsed
internally with acetone; the particulate matter remaining in the
probe was removed with a nylon brush attached to a rifle cleaning
rod. The brush was rinsed, and the washings obtained were added
to the nozzle and probe washings. The front-half of the filter
holder was also rinsed with acetone. All washings were stored in
a sealed bottle. The content of the first three impingers were
measured volumetrically and then stored in a sealed bottle. The
silica gel was removed from the fourth impinger and stored in a
sealed polyethylene sample bottle. Samples of the deionized
water and all reagents used in the test program were stored in
separate bottles to be analyzed as blanks.
Particle Size Analysis - Andersen Method—
The particle size distribution for the particulate matter
suspended in the gas stream was determined utilizing an Andersen
2000 Impactor, Model No. 50-001. The gas velocity pressures and
the gas temperatures were measured at each point of the sampling
program.
The ij;okinetic nozzle was attached to the inlet of the
Andersen head to facilitate the use of the particulate sampling
nomograph in the calculation of the isokinetic sampling rate.
Sampled geis was drawn through the nozzle at an isokinetic rate to
C-U
-------
the Andersen head which contained nine separate stainless steel
collecting plates. Each plate was perforated with a series of
precision drilled orifices arranged in concentric circles which
are offset on each succeeding plate. The diameters of all
orifices on a given plate were equal, but orifice diameters on
subsequent downstream plates decreased in size for each
succeeding plate. As the gas sample was drawn through the
Andersen head, air jets flowing through a particular plate
directed suspended particulates toward the collection area on the
downstream plate directly below the orifices on the plate above.
The decrease in jet diameter from plate to plate resulted in an
increase in gas velocity. A sufficiently large increase in gas
velocity resulted in a situation where the inertial forces acting
on a particular particles were great enough to overcome the
aerodynamic drag of the turning airstream. This situation
resulted in the impaction of the particle on the collection
surface. An insufficient increase in gas velocity allowed the
particular particle to remain in the gas stream, and to undergo
another velocity increase as it passed through a jet on the next
downstream plate. Therefore, particles of decreasing particle
diameter were impacted out on successive plates.
Each plate had been cleaned, dried, desiccated, and tare
weighted prior to its insertion into its position in the Andersen
head.
Sample gas exiting the Andersen head proceeded through the
probe to a glass fiber filter which collected any particulate
C-5
-------
matter not impacted on a collection plate and then to an impinger
train identical to the train described in the "Particulate
Sampling Program" section of this Appendix, with the exception
that the first two impingers contained water. Gases exiting the
fourth Ijipinger were then conducted to the R.A. C., Model 2343,
Stak Samplr also described in the same "Particulate Sampling
Program" section. Refer to pages C-46 and C-47 of this Appendix
for schematic diagrams of both the Andersen head and the sampling
train.
Upon completion of the sampling period the entire Andersen
head was returned to the laboratory. The probe was rinsed
internally with acetone in order to remove any particulate matter
which had collected in it during the sampling period. Any
particulates remaining in the probe following the acetone washing
were removed with a nylon brush attached to a rifle cleaning rod;
the probe was then again rinsed internally with acetone. All
washings were combined and stored in a sealed polyethylene sample
bottle. The soiled glass fiber filter was removed from the
filter holder and stored in a sealed plastic Petri dish.
Visible Emissions Observations—
The visible emissions evaluation as reported in Table 5-3 was
conducted by a certified opacity observer in the manner
prescribed by the UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
in its Visible Emissions Evaluation Course. Stack opacity
readings were recorded at fifteen (15) second intervals for a one
C-6
-------
(1) hour period. Also recorded were pertinent meteorological
conditions.
Field Data Sheets
The flue gas velocity head, the flue gas temperature, the
inlet and outlet dry gas meter temperatures, the orifice pressure
differential, the sample volume, the sampling time, and the pump
vacuum were recorded during the entire sampling program. Copies
of all field data sheets generated follow.
C-7
-------
PLANT DOFASCO (EPA)
DATE_2/i August 1976
.... . Out let
SAMPLING LOCATION
SAMPLE TYPE Pa
DMU WHMPCD 1 _K
OPERATOR RPH
/ Q D ., / c; Q _
Cast No. 3475
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE 85U
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE
STATIC PRESSURE. (P..I
FILTER NUMBER is) C. 904
GEL NUMBER (S) C 319
g.<
"•I EL
CO
0
CO
RECORC
J
PROBE NUMBER AND TYPE
LJIJ.I-* A-I J. NOZZLE ID AND NO 0
AKIIMFD MOISTURE ', 2
ORSAT • SAMPLE BOX NUMBER
MPTFP RfW NIIMHCP 7
METER AH 2.01
2 C FACTOR 1 . 1 R
PROBE HEATER SETTING 1
HEATER BOX SETTING 2.
REFERENCE .sp 7 .
PITOT Cp AND NO.
1 Al 1 DATA FVFRY 3 MINUTFS L . C OK 0
10 'SS
.125
. 5
. OW AC
5O
3 -^ 7
.010 C
R
^
TRAVERSE
POINT
NUMBER
A-12
A-ll
A-10
A-9
A-8
A- 7
A-6
A- 5
A-4
A- 3
A- 2
A-.l
NT CLOCK TtME
Sr7MPpLIN^\CL!chK)
TIME. mm X^
~0^~~ 3rir^3O__
03 11 :40
06 11:43
09 11:46
12 11:49
15 11:52
18 11 :55
21 11 : 58
24 12:01
27 12:04
30 12:07
33 12 :10
35 12:13
GAS METER READING
-------
PLANT DOFASCO (EPA)
DATE 25 August 1976
SAMPLING LOCATION
SAMPLE TYPE P art
B^PJ
/S n7 / sn
Cast No. 3480
RUN NUMBER ?-high
OPERATOR RPH
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE .
STATIC PRESSURE. |PS)_
FILTER NUMBER (s)
GEL NUMBER(S)
FIELD DATA
CO.
/
°2
CO
PROBE NUMBER AND TYPE.
NOZZLE I.D. AND NO. _
ASSUMED MOISTURE,'.
SAMPLE BOX NUMBER
METER BOX NUMBER ~L
METER AHg
C FACTOR _
11
Q .12*
2.01
15
PROBE HEATER SETTING _
HEATER BOX SETTING
REFERENCE ap
PITOT Cn AND NO.
READ AND RECORD ALL DATA EVERY___3 MINUTES
"P
L .C.
0.000
TRAVERSE
POINT
NUMBER
A- 12
A-ll
A-10
A-9
A- 8
A-7
A-6
A- 5
A-4
\. CLOCK TIME
sf!ELIIK ^NpSS)
TIME, mm X.
m5 0-9 -:-&£_,
03 09 25
06 09 28
09 09 31
12 09 34
15 09 37
18 09 40
21 09 43
24 09 46
27 09 49
GAS METER READING
(Vro>. It3
47 . 703
49 . 5
51 .5
53 . 5
55 . 5
57 .6
59 . 5
61 . 5
63 .5
65.434
VELOCITY
HEAD
Upsl. in. H20
6 .0
6. 3
6 . 5
7 .0
7 .5
5 . 8
6 . 3
6 .0
5 . 8
ORIFICE PRESSURE
DIFFERENTIAL
(AH), in. H20)
DESIRED
1.45
1 . 50
1 . 55
1 .65
1 . 80
I . 40
1 . 50
1 .45
1 .40
ACTUAL
1.45
1 . 50
1 . 55
1 .65
|JU 80
1 .40
1 .50
1 .45
1 .40
STACK
TEMPERATURE
(TS)."F
130
130
132
130
140
150
152
151
145
DRY GAS METER
TEMPERATURE
INLET
(Tm in».»F
79
79
83
86
89
91
93
96
98
OUTLET
-------
PLANT DOFASCO (EPA)
DATE 25 August 1976
FIELD DATA SHEET
Cast No. 3481
SAMPLING LOCATION Bypass Outl et
SAMPLE TYPE Part
RUN NUMBER J-'nigh
OPERATOR RPH
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE
STATIC PRESSURE, (P$l
FILTER NUMBER is)
GEL NUMBER(S)
/SO-j/SO-
ORSAT:
PROBE NUMBER AND TYPE
NOZZLE I.D. AND NO. __
ASSUMED MOISTURE. °. 2
SAMPLE BOX NUMBER
i_L
CO.
CO
mETER BOX fiumBER
METER 4Hfe
C FACTOR
_
1 • 99
1-15
PROBE HEATER SETTING.
HEATER BOX SETTING
REFERENCE AP
PI TOT
AND NO.
READ AND RECORD ALL DATA EVERY.
MINUTES
L.C
0.019 CFM
TRAVERSE
POINT
NUMBER
A- 12
A-1 1
A-10
A- 9
A- 8
A-7
A-6
A-5
A-4
A-3
A-2
A-l
x
\. CLOCK TIME
STArUNG\CLOCK)
TIME, mm N^
~QQ~~— L^-ll_
03 15 22
06 15 25
09 15 28
12 15 31
15 15 34
18 15 37
21 15 40
24 15 43
27 15 46
30 15 49
33 15 52
36 15 55
44 16 03
GAS METER READING
76
80
80
«n
80
an
80
80
80
o
I
-------
Cast No. 3482
1 g-n
I
PLANT DOFASCO (EPA) ,lTn,Vr
DATE 25 Auaust 1976 * lELb
SAMPLING LOCATION Bypass Outlet
SAMPLE TYPE Part./SO-j/SO^
RUN NUMBER 4
OPERATOR FJK CO
AMBIENT TEMPFRATURF 2
BAROMETRIC PRFSSIIRF O2
STATIC PRF^IIRF IP \
Fll TFR NIIMRFRK1 5 CO
GEL NUMBER (S)
^n ^
DATA SHEET
ORSAT:
PROBE NUMBER AND TYPE
NOZZLE 1.0. AND NO.
ASSUMED MOISTURE. °,
SAMPLE BOX NUMBER
METER BOX NUMBER 1_
METER AH&
C FACTOR L
10
125
PROBE HEATER SETTING.
HEATER BOX SETTING
REFERENCE ip_
7. 8
PI TOT C., AND NO.
READ AND RECORD ALL DATA EVERY.
MINUTES
TRAVERSE
POINT
NUMBER
A-12
A-ll
A-10
A-9
A- 8
A-7
A-6
A-5
A-4
A- 3
\. CLOCK TIME
s*«MpcLING\cSchw
TIME, mm X^
^—— A*U^
03 18 56
06 18 59
09 19 02
12 19 05
15 19 08
18 19 11
21 19 14
24 19 17
27 19 20
30 19 23
GAS METER READING
-------
PLANT DOFASCO (EPA)
DATE 26 August 1976
Bypass Stack
FIELD DATA SHEET
SAMPLING LOCATION.
SAMPLE TYPE Part . /SO-,/SO-
.
S — 1
ORSAT:
CAST NO. 3487
OPERATOR RPH
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE.
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE _
STATIC PRESSURE. IP )_
FILTER NUMBER (s)
GEL NUMBER(S)
CO.
CO
PROBE NUMBER AND TYPE 1 1 '
NOZZLE 1.0. AND NO . 0.122
ASSUMED MOISTURE.'. 2 . 5
SAMPLE BOX NUMBER
MFTFR RfU NIIMRFR 7_
METER AH,-. 2 . 01
C FACTOR
PROBE HEATER SETTING _
HEATER BOX SETTING
REFERENCE Ap
PITOT C_ AND NO.
1 . 15
8. 0
READ AND RECORD ALL DATA EVERY.
MINUTES
L.C. ok ( . 1)
TRAVERSE
POINT
NUMBER
A-12
A- 11
A-10
A-9
A-S
A-7
A-6
A-5
A-4
A-3
A-2
A-l
\. CLOCK TIME
SAMPLING \v rfnrl^
-ri.ir- \LLULM
TIME. mm x^
~on -iJ_UL2
03 1125
06 11 2£
09 11 31
12 11 34
IS 1 1 3 -
18 11 4C
21 11 4;
24 11 46
27 11 4S
30 11 52
33 11 5E
36 11 5£
GAS METER READING
.°F
80
81
83
85
87
89
90
91
93
97
99
98
OUTLET
-------
Cast No. 8488
1 •§•< a
I
PLANT DOFASCO (EPA)
DATE 26 August- 1Q76 t -LE-J-.U
SAMPLING LOCATION" Bypass Stack
SAMPLETYPE Pa r t . /P ^ 3 /S n2
RUN NUMBER 6 Me'd. J'
OPERATOR GWB CO
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE 2
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE O.,
STiTir PRF^NRF (P 1
Ell TFR NUMBER Kl * CO
GEL NUMBER (S)
^n ^
DATA SHEET
ORSAT •
11
PROBE NUMBER AND TYPE
NOZZLE I.D. AND NO. 0-122
ASSUMED MOISTURE.'. 2. 5
SAMPLE BOX NUMBER
METER BOX NUMBER 7
METER AHf
C FACTOR
PROBE HEATER SETTING.
HEATER BOX SETTING
REFERENCE Ap.
1. 99
1-15
8. 0
PITOT Cp AND NO.
READ AND RECORD ALL DATA EVERY.
MINUTES
TRAVERSE
POINT
NUMBER
A-12
A-ll
A-10
A-9
A-8
A-7
A-6
A-5
A-4
A- 3
A-2
NSV CLOCK TIME
i7;FuNG\cLoi
TIME, mm x^
~~ ^___
00 15 06
03 15 09
06 15 12
09 15 15
12 15 18
15 15 22
18 15 25
21 15 28
24 15 31
27 15 34
30 15 37
GAS METER READING
(Vm). ft3
131. 9 21
134. 0
136. 0
138. 1
off 140.422 of
on 140.422 on
142. 4
144. 8
146. 7
148. 9
off 150.879
VELOCITY
HEAD
(Aps>. in. H20
6 .5
7. 2
7. 5
7. 0
f
7. 5
7. 5
7. 5
6. 3
5. 7
ORIFICE PRESSURE
DIFFERENTIAL
(AH), in. H20)
DESIRED
1. 6
1. 75
1. 8
1. 7
1. 8
1. 8
1.8
1. 5
1. 4
ACTUAL
fan <
STACK
TEMPERATURE
(TS),°F
130
148
150
140
lown
153
175
180
185
170
DRY GAS METER
TEMPERATURE
INLET
(Tm in>.°F
82
83
85
88
86
89
91
93
94
OUTLET
.°F
83
82
82
83
83
84
85
86
86
PUMP
VACUUM.
in. Hg
5
5
6
7
7
8
7
8. 5
9. 5
SAMPLE BOX
TEMPERATURE.
°F
270
300
270
255
250
220
230
260
250
IMPINGER
TEMPERATURE.
"F
80
70
79
80
80
77
77
77
77
-------
PLANT DOFASCO (EPA)
DATE 3 ft A u.g U st. 1976
SAMPLING LOCATION Bypass
SAMPLE TYPE Part/SOo/SOo
FIELD DATA SHEET
Stack
ORSAT:
Cast No. 3489
OPERATOR
RPH
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE .
STATIC PRESSURE, (Ps)_
FILTER NUMBER Is)
GEL NUMBER(S)
CO.
CO
READ AND RECORD ALL DATA EVERY.
PROBE NUMBER AND TYPE
NOZZLE I.D. AND NO. ..
ASSUMED MOISTURE. °.
SAMPLE BOX NUMBER
METER SOX NUMBER
METER iH&
C. FACTOR "
0
7,
1
1
1
11 '
. 122
. 5
. 99
. 15
PROBE HEATER SETTING
HEATER BOX SETTING
REFERENCE *f
PI TOT Cp AND NO.
ES L.C. Ok (
8
1.
. 0
5)
TRAVERSE
POINT
NUMBER
A-12
A-ll
A-10
A-9
A- 8
A-7
A- 6
A-5
A- 4
A- 3
A-2
\, CLOCK TIME
STA:PFUNG XCLOC'K,
TIME, mm ^\
00 — 1£___30
03 18 33
06 18 36
09 18 39
12 18 42
15 is 45
18 18 46
21 18 51
24 18 54
27 18 57
30 19 OC
33 19 02
GAS METER READING
-------
PLANT DOFASCO (EPA)
DATE 37 Auust 1Q7ft
FIELD DATA SHEET
Cast No. 3492
SAMPLING LOCATION Bypass Stac k
SAMPLE TYPE Part/SO3/SO2
RUN NUMBER S-mpd . ___
OPERATOR RPH _
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE _
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE _
STATIC PRESSURE. (P$l _
FILTER NUMBER (s) _
GEL NUMBER (S) _
ORSAT:
CO.
CO
READ AND RECORD ALL DATA EVERY
PROBE NUMBER AND TYPE
NOZZLE 1.0. AND NO.
ASSUMED MOISTURE °.
SAMPLE BOX NUMBER
METER BOX NUMBER
METER AHp
C FACTOR
PROBE HEATER SETTING
1
0.
2 ,
7
1.
1 .
1 '
122
5
99
15
HEATER BOX SETTING
REFERENCE ^
PI TOT Cp AND NO.
ES L . C • Ok
8 .
( + 3
0
)
TRAVERSE
POINT
NUMBER
A-12
A-ll
A-10
A-9
A-8
A-7
A-6
^N, CLOCK TIME
sTA,riNG \cScK,
TIME, mm \^
~5o — — oai4?
01 08 48
on 09 01
03 09 03
06 09 06
08 09 08
10 09 10
12 09 12
14 09 14
14.5 09 14
GAS METER READING
(Vml. «3
174. 300
176. 8
178. 8
180. 2
181. 5
182. 8
184. 1
.30 184.500
VELOCITY
HEAD
(Apsl. in. H20
6. 8
lost
6. 5
6 . 5
5 . 7
6. 2
5.9
5. 5
ORIFICE PRESSURE
DIFFERENTIAL
(AH), in. H20)
DESIRED
1. 60
elect
1. 57
1. 57
1. 37
1. 50
1.40
1. 32
ACTUAL
1. 60
rical
1.57
1.57
1. 37
1. 50
1. 40
1. 32
STACK
TEMPERATURE
(TS)."F
165
power
165
172
155
142
150
154
DRY GAS METER
TEMPERATURE
INLET
-------
Cast No. 3493
PLANT DOFASCO (EPA)
DATE 27 August 1976
SAMPLING LOCATION Bypass Stack
SAMPLE TYPE Part . /SO
RUN N":V!DC:R ^
OPERATOR FJK
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE
STATIC PRESSURE, (P$)
FILTER NUMBER Is)
GEL NUMBER(S)
FIELD DATA SHEET
ORSAT:
CO.
CO
PROBE NUMBER AND TYPE.
NOZZLE I.D. AND NO. _
ASSUMED MOISTURE.".
SAMPLE BOX NUMBER
METER BOX NUMBER
METER iHg
C FACTOR
PROBE HEATER SETTING.
HEATER BOX SETTING
REFERENCE Ap
PI TOT
AND NO.
READ AND RECORD ALL DATA EVERY.
MINUTES
TRAVERSE
POINT
NUMBER
A-12
A- 11
A-10
A-9
\, CLOCK TIME
STA,M;FLING X^ScK)
TIME. mm N^
IK) — -^-2-iUJ
03 12:10
06 12 : 13
09 12:16
12 12:19
GAS METER READING
(Vml, »3
185.2
187 . 1
189.0
196. 7
.
VELOCITY
HEAD
(ips), in. H20
5.0
5 . 3
5. 7
T.OC;1-
ORIFICE PRESSURE
DIFFERENTIAL
(iH). in. H20)
DESIRED
1. 2
1.25
1. 4
? 1 e> r t-. i
ACTUAL
1. 2
1.25
1. 4
•i na 1
iTACK
TEMPERATURE
(TS).°F
125
140
140
Power
DRY GAS METER
TEMPERATURE
INLET
(Tn in>.°F
84
Rfi
90
OUTLET
.°F
R4
R5
87
PUMP
VACUUM.
in. Hg
4
4
4
SAMPLE BOX
TEMPERATURE.
°F
225
230
200
IMPINGER
TEMPERATURE.
°F
82
RT
RO
1
!
1
|
n
i
-------
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC.
Da IP 25 August 1976
Oljs<:rvi!r G.W. Bainton
Location
DOFASCO (EPA)
Address Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Observation Point Southwest of Stack
Stack - Distance. FromiQO 'Height 50'
Wind - Speedo_5 jnphDirection from east
Type of Installation Cast House
Evacuation Bypass Stack
r uci
Observation hepnnlS : 18 Knclorl 16:01
Density Smoke Tabulation
No. Units X Equiv. No. 1 Units
Units No. 0
1 Units No. '/, 0. 50
13 Units No. 3/4 9.75
77 Units No. 1 77.00
50 Units No. 1 1/4 62. 50
32 Units No. 1 1/2 48. 00
2 Units No. 1 3/4 3. 50 ~
1 Units No. 2 2. 00
Units No. 4
Units No. 4'/i
Units No. 5
176 Units 203. 25 .ICquiv. Units
Equiv. Units .
Units
23.1 "'«, Smoke Density
Remarks: one-half hour observa-
tions of bypass stack conducted
durinq cast no. 3481
(test run no. 3-high)
Sky: blue-gray
0
1
2
;j
4
r.
i,
7
(I
9
10
1 1
1-2
n
it
ir,
Hi
IV
in
1!>
20
21
•2-1
2.-f
2-1
3 Ti
2li
2Y
2 ft
20
0
SO
25
20
30
25
30
30
30
30
30
30
25
30
20
25
25
15
20
25
20
20
20
20
20
1 5
20
20
29
20
15
1!'.
?n
39
30
30
25
30
35
25
20
30
30
20
30
20
20
20
15
20
25
20
20
15
20
20
1 5
20
35
29
20
15
HO
?5
39
25
25
30
20
30
25
20
30
20
25
30
20
20
20
15
15
25
20
20
20
25
20
20
20
40
20
15
20
•i;.
20
29
25
20
30
25
25
30
25
20
25
30
30
25
20
15
?0
15
25
20
15
20
20
20
20
20
25
20
10
20
;.
Vi
.VI
. ) .r)
-,i,
."» i
>'<>,
>' < i
0
20
20
25
25
25
20
20
25
30
25
30
30
20
20
10
20
20
25
25
20
20
20
20
30
30
25
25
20
25
:$o
20
25
25
25
20
25
25
20
30
L30
25
30
20
25
40
20
25
25
20
25
25
25
20
.25
20
25
25
20
25
O.vncr
Manager DOFASCO
Address
Hamilton, Canada
C-17
-------
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, Inc.
VELOCITY DETERMINATIONS
Client:
DOFASCO (EPA)
Sample Port Location:
Location:
Date:
Bypass Stack
23 August 1976
Stack Pressure:
Barometric Pressure:
Pitot Factor:
Engineer:
#9. 3
5°*
64-" r, D.
RPH/FJK
Pitot/Temperature Readings
Point
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
TOTAL
AVG.
Distance
(Ir.ches)
4 1/4
8 1/8
12 7/16
17 3/8
23 1/2
32 5/16
56 11/16
65 1/2
71 5/8
Ib 9/16
8 0 7/8
84 3/4
Port A^
AP
6. 7
6. 7
7. 2
7. 5
7. 0
6.5
6.0
6.0
5. 3
5.8
5. 5
5. 5
T
Amb .
Port B
AP
6.0
6. 3
6. 5
6. 3
6. 8
6.8
6. 5
5.7
6. 3
6.8
6.0
5.2
6. 3
T
Amb .
Port
AP
T
Port
AP
T
Port
£P
T
C-18
-------
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, INC.
TRAVERSE POINT LOCATION FOR CIRCULAR DUCTS
DOFASCO (EPA)
PUNT.
DATE
SAMPLING LOCATION Bypass Stack
INSIDE OF FAR WALL TO
OUTSIDE OF NIPPLE. (DISTANCE A) _
INSIDE OF NEAR WALL TO
OUTSIDE OF NIPPLE. (DISTANCE B) _
STACK I.D.. (DISTANCE A - DISTANCE B).
NEAREST UPSTREAM DISTURBANCE
NEAREST DOWNSTREAM DISTURBANCE _
CALCULATOR E£H
84
PLATTOEM
AT
/^-"
. PORTS
SCHEMATIC OF SAMPLING LOCATION
TRAVERSE
POINT
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
FRACTION
OF STACK I.D.
0. 021
0.067
0. 118
0. 177
0.250
0. 355
0.645
0. 750
0.823
0.882
0.933
0. 979
STACK I.D.
84"
PRODUCT OF
COLUMNS 2 AND 3
(TO NEAREST 1 8 INCH)
1 3/4
5 5/8
9 15/16
14 7/8
21
29 13/16
54 3/16
63
69 1/8
74 1/16
78 3/8
82 1/4 r
DISTANCE*
2 1/2
TRAVERSE POINT LOCATION
FROM OUTSIDE OF NIPPLE
(SUM OF COLUMNS 4 & 5)
4 1/4
8 1/8
12 7/16
17 3/8
23 1/2
32 5/16
56 11/16
65 1/2
71 5/8
76 9/16
80 7/8
84 3/4
C-19
-------
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, Inc;,
NOMOGRAPH DATA
PLANT.
DATE_
DOFASCO (EPA)
24 August 1976
SAMPLING LOCATION
Bypass Stack
Particulate System
CALIBRATED PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL ACROSS
ORIFICE, in. H90
L Box 7
AVERAGE METER TEMPERATURE (AMBIENT + 20°F),°F
PERCENT MOISTURE IN GAS STREAM BY VOLUME
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE AT METER, in. Hg
STATIC PRESSURE IN STACK, in. Hg
(Pm±0.073 x STACK GAUGE PRESSURE in in. H20)
RATIO OF STATIC PRESSURE TO METER PRESSURE
AVERAGE STACK TEMPERATURE, °F
AVERAGE VELOCITY HEAD, in. H20
MAXIMUM VELOCITY HEAD, in. H20
C FACTOR
CALCULATED NOZZLE DIAMETER, in.
ACTUAL NOZZLE DIAMETER, in.
o S t -j
REFERENCE Ap, in. H20
AH@
Tfnavg.
Bwo
pm
c
P
"•/p.
savg.
*Pavg*
APmax.
2. 01
95
2.5
.832
110
4 .8
-
1.15
0. 135
0. 122
7. 3
EPA (Dur) 234 * Estimated from proposed flow rate of
4/72 300,000 ACFM from DOFASCO - contact Al Kruzins
C-20
-------
o
i
NJ
S TYPE
PITOT
J1EAIED. CHAMBER
^^^jr^/pa-TiL
r
i
IMPINGERS IN ICE BATH
0©
DRY
GAS
METER
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, Inc.
One Plymouth Meeting Mall • Plymouth Meeting, Pa. 19402
""MODIFIED PARTICULATF
SAMPLING TRAIN
APPROVED er
NONb
"7 l-KT-75
-------
n
i
NJ
NJ
PO 1 NT
1
2
~ 3
4
" 5
6
7
8
9
~ 10
II
12
D IS T.
i%
55/8
9%
14%
21
29%
54}/6
63
69 /s
74 Xe
78%
82 14
QETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, Inc.
One Plymouth Meeting Mall • Plymouth Meetinj. Pa. 19452
TITlES7AC/< DRAWING TOP W/TW
SHOWING SAMPLE POINTS +I.D.
"FJK
APPHOVEO BY
NONE
"V/-/O-75
-------
STAKSAMPLR CALIBRATION SHEET
Date 20 August 1976
Pump x_
Pump Oil x_
Clean Quick Connects_
Manometers
Box No.
Dry Test Metcr_
Thermometers_
Lights
changed
x
X
Inspector
Pump Serial No.
Valves
x
In
Meter Serial No.
°F Out °F Ambient
°F
Electrical Check - Amphenol_
Variac
Vacuum Gauge_
'Leak Check at 27" Hg. --Leakage_
Remarks
.0.00 CFM
en
tn
0
fN
ni
Q
0)
g
H
M
H«
T3
H
O
TJ
H
*—\
£
H
•n
U
^
k
U
0)
a .S
« ^
S5
'"
en
CN
••
n
CO
ro
00
rH
M
^
O
0
^
in
0
in
CN
.
m
in
o
r-H
••
cn
tn
00
rH
CO
CTi
CO
n
r-
rH
O
in
in
0
rH
ro
••
i— i
CN
00
oo
r-
oo
ro
^
m
o
rH
O
rH
O
•~" *
O
rg
O
*~*
O
o
""
o
0
0
00
c
n)
U
M
60
(1)
U
U
-------
CALIBRATION CALCULATIONS METER AND PUMP BOX
Date 20 August 1976 Box No. 7
n
G.GSis (Ivldii. orif i<_c) / (T ! 460) \
/ w \
I J
P^ (OT,, + 460) \ CF /
l> d \_ w ^/
S ^\2
0.01585 / ( + 460) \
1 1
( 4 460) \ /
\. _^
0.0317 /{ 4 460) \Z
/ \
( + 460) V /
^ -^
0.0634 f( +460) \
^
( + 460) \ /
^ _^
0. 1268 / ( + 460) \
/ \
~ 1 t
( 4 460) \ /
^^^ _^/
0.1902 f( +460) \
/ " " 1
( -t- 460) \ /
^-^ ^y
0,2635 /f +460) \
( + 460) V y
Man.
. 5
1.0
2. 0
. 0
. 0
8. 0
AHtf
1 . 805
1.870
2 . 015
rv -p IT *ve . + 46,0}
w b ' d
Man. orifice
CF,, (P, + 13.6 (T + 460)
do w
X . ( + 460)
( + 0.0368) ( + 460)
X ( + 460)
( 4 0.0737) ( + 460)
X ( + 460)
( + 0. 147) ( + 460)
X ( + 460)
( . 40. 294) ( 4 460)
X ( 4 460)
( 4 0.431) ( 4 460)
X • ( 4 460)
( 4 0. 588) ( 4 460)
Man.
. 5
1.0
2. 0
4. 0
. 0
8.0
it'
). 997
L. 002
L . 001
-------
Pitot No. 9. 3
PITOT CALIBRATION
Date e/8/76 Engineer CAM/JK
"S" TYPE
AP
RANGE
\LEG
PT>\
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
AVG.
1
A
.07
.07
. 07
. 08
.095
. 10
B
.07
.075
. 08
.08
.09
.095
. 08125
2
A
. 32
. 32
. 32
. 32
. 315
. 30
B
. 335
. 33
. 33
. 32
. 315
. 315
. 32
3
A
. 54
.63
.65
. 66
.64
.63
B
.56
.66
.66
.67
.66
.67
.6358
4
A
.74
.89
.895
.87
.89
. 89
B
,90
.95
.92
, 91
,91
, 895
0.88
5
A
1. 1
1.2
1. 2
1. 2
1.15
1. 1
B
1. 1
1. 5
1.2
1. 5
1. 15
1.1
1. 15
6
A
1. 35
1.6
1. 55
1. 5
1.45
1.4C
B
1. 35
1. 6
1.5
1. 5
1.45
1.4
1.4875
7
A
1.85
L.8
1. 75
1. 7
1.65
1.65
B
1.8
1.8
1.65
1.6
1. 55
1.6
1. 70
STANDARD
\ap
PTXS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
AVG.
CP
1
.06 .06
.06 .06
.06 .06
.055 .06
.06 .06
.065 . 06
.0608
. 856
2
>
>
. 2213
.823
3
.38 .45
.47 .47
.47 .46
.46 .45
.46 .47
.475 .47
.4675
.840
4
5
1. 125
. 826
5
.89 .75
.89 .89
.875 .88
.83 .85
. 825 . 81
.80 .80
.8412
.846
6
)
1.065
.838
7
L.35 1.35
L. 25 1.3
L. 15 1.25
L. 15 1.15
L.I 1.15
L.I 1.1
1. 20
. 832
std
'"S"
C-25
-------
3. 0 EQUATIONS FOR SAMPLING EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION
3 . 1 Pitot Calibration
The Pitot tubes were calibrated by measuring the velocity head in a duct with
both a Type "S" Pitot tube and a standard type Pitot tube with a known coeffic-
ient.
This was done at several different velocities. The Pitot tube coefficient can be
calculated:
AP
C test: = C , std eq. 1
P P std AF~
test
Where:
C test: = Pitot tube coefficient of Type "S" Pitot tube.
C std = Pitot tube coefficient of standard type Pitot tube.
A. P , = Velocity head measured by standard type Pitot tube.
S CCi
£>-P = Velocity head measured by type "S" Pitot Lube.
3.2 Piy Gas Meter and Orifice Meter
The dry gas meter and orifice were calibrated using a wet test meter. Gases were
moved throug.h the dry gas meter at A H's of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, 6.0 and 8.0.
With the information obtained, 0 , the ratio of accuracy of wet test meter to dry
test meter, and AH @, the orifice pressure differential that gives 0.75 cfm of
air at 70 F and 29.92 inches of mercury, were calculated. The 0 has a tolerance
+ 0.01 and the A H @ has a tolerance of j- 0.15.
cq. 2
+ 4H_) (t
13.6
C-26
-------
Where:
V
w
w
A H<§
Where:
9
A H
Barometric Pressure
Volume wet test meter
Average temperature of dry gas meter in F
Volume dry gas meter
Temperature wet test meter in F
0.0317AH •
+ 460)
(t + 460)9
w
Time in minutes
Manometer orifice pressure drop
Eq. 3
C. Potentiometer Calibration
The Thermo Electric Potentiometers were calibrated using a known voltage source.
C-27
-------
Calculations
The following series of equations were utilized to perform
the calculations leading to the results of the program.
C-28
-------
4 . 0 EQUATIONS FOR PARTICULATE CALCULATIONS
1. Mc = 0.0474 ML
2. Qs = 17.71 (L, (Ph.ni- +-07355 (H))
17. I
Tm +460
3. M = 100 Mc
(Me + Qs)
4. X = 100-M
100
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
MW
xa
d
Cp
vs
vga
CJS
6^
Wd
18(1-X) +[0.44 (% C02) +0.28 (% CO) +0.32(%02) +0.28 (%
100 (% 0-? - 0.5% CO)
0.264% N2 - (%02 - 0.5% CO)
0.5
0.99 (Ap for Standard Pitot/AP for type "S" Pitot)
(85.48)(60)(Cp)fPty |(TS + 460) / (Ps) (Mw)| °'5
= Vs (As_.)
( 144)
XV (530 ) ( PR )
(Ts + 460) (29.92)
(0.0154) _W£_
12. Ww = (0.0154) _WL
(Qs +
13. Wc
14. W = 530 W ( 530 ) (Pg)
S " "(Tg + 460) JgTg;
15. W = 0.00857 V W,
P gs d
" ' -TT /.. ^2
u'T"
(60) (1.667) (Ts + 460) (0.00267 Mj + Qs/17.7l)
(D) (V^) (Po) (An)
C-29
-------
LEGEND
A = Area of nozzle in square feet
Ag = Stack area square inches
C = Pitot correction factor
D = Duration of test
D = Nozzle diameter in inches
gc = lg/(atm)(cm)(sec)2
H = Orifice pressure drop in inches of water
I = % Isokinetics
M = % Moisture
M-^ = Volume of liquid (in milliliters) collected in impingers
and silica gel
MC = Volume of Mi converted to cubic feet
M^ = Molecular weight of stack gases
P, = Barometric pressure (inches of mercury)
P = Stack pressure absolute (inches of mercury)
O
Pt = Average of square roots of pressure drop across "S"
pitot in (in water)l/2
Q = Sample volume (dry) meter conditions in cubic feet
Qs = Sample volume (dry) standard cubic feet
T£ = Temperature after jet in °F
T^ = Temperature after jet in °K
Tm = Average meter temperature in °F
TS = Average stack temperature in °F
Vga = Stack gas flow in ACFM
C-30
-------
LEGEND
V s = Stack gas flow in SCFM
Vg = Stack velocity feet per minute
Wc = Particulate concentration in grains per SCF (dry)
at 12% C02
W(j = Particulate concentration in grains per SCF (dry)
W = Pounds per hour particulates
W = Particulate concentration in grains per cu. ft.
(Stk. conditions)
Wt = Total weight of particulates collected in test in
milligrams
Ww = Particulate concentration in grains per SCF (wet)
X = Dry sample fraction
Xa = % excess air
C-31
-------
Equations for Sulfur Oxides Emission Calculations
PPM S03 - A° Tso3 Nso3 (836)
2. PPM S02
80 Qs
N (836)
64 Q
s
3. Lbs. S0_/hr. = 60(V ) (PPM S00) (2.110 x 10~?)
3 gs 3
4. Lbs. S00/hr. = 60(V ) (PPM SOJ (7.05 x 10~5)
2 gs 2
LEGEND
N = Normality of titrant for SO-
N = Normality of titrant for SO-
so J 3
Q = Sample volume (dry) standard cubic feet
5
T = Milliliters titre for S00
S°2
T = Milliliters titre for SO-
so3 3
V = Stack gas flow in SCFM
gs
C-32
-------
Testing Parameters
The complete results of the computer analysis of the input
data generated from the particulate and sulfur oxide moisture
content sampling program are presented on the following pages.
C-33
-------
(il
I • KMOwlH
° «^o
Na Tie of Client Domi*Jlo*.>
Project
De >eription
COMPUTATION SHEET
^ g
favr,UL
Sheet Number / of L_
Date 6- 7- 7(,
J.0. Number^P- "£777 _O/
Computed by
Checked by
BfE 17 1.71
UJiTH
C-34
-------
PARAMETERS (SI UNITS)
1-HIGH
2-HIGH
3-HIGH
O
I
AREA OF BREECHING (SQ METER)
SAMPLE VOLUME(DRY) (NORM CU METER)
MOISTURE (%)
MOLECULAR HEIGHT
GAS TEMPERATURE
GAS VELOCITY
GAS VOLUME
GAS VOLUME
STACK GASES
( C)
(M/S)
(NM3/S)(DRY)
(CU M/S)
PARTICULATE CONC
KG/N CU METER
KG/N CU METER
KG/N CU METER
KG/CU METER
KG/S
(DRY BASIS)
(WET BASIS)
«? 12% CO2
(STK COND)
GASEOUS CONC :
SULFUR TRIOXIDE (KG/CU M)
SULFUR TRIOXIDE (KG/S)
SULFUR DIOXIDE (KG/CU M)
SULFUR DIOXIDE (KG/S)
ORSAT ANALYSIS :
CARBON DIOXIDE (VOL %)
CARBON MONOXIDE (VOL %)
OXYGEN (VOL %)
NITROGEN (VOL %)
EXCESS AIR (*)
ISOKINETIC (%)
3.5753E+00
6.1867E-01
.7322
28.79636
61.11
4.3641E+01
1.3705E+02
1.5603E+02
1.2868E-03
1.2774E-03
5.1474E-02
1.1303E-03
1.7633E-01
6.3410E-07
8.6901E-05
1.0934E-04
1.4961E-02
.33
.00
20.70
79.00
13269.38
101.95
3.5753E+00
4.8988E-01
1.4846
28.71454
60.00
4.5568E+01
1.4216E+02
1.6292E+02
4.2207E-04
4.1581E-04
1.6883E-02
3.6828E-04
5.9990E-02
7.6812E-07
1.0919E-04
1.3809E-04
1.9599E-02
.30
.00
20.70
79.00
13269.38
100.88
3.5753E+00
8.0803E-01
2.8875
28.56195
53.33
4.5663E+01
1.4329E+02
1.6326E+02
2.2897E-04
2.2236E-04
9.1587E-03
2.0096E-04
3.2803E-02
1.6101E-06
2.3071E-04
5.3911E-06
7.7123E-04
.30
.00
20.70
79.00
13269.38
101.30
-------
PARAMETERS (SI UNITS)
4-LOW
5-LOW
6-MED
O
U)
AREA OF BREECHING
SAMPLE VOLUME(DRY)
MOISTURE
MOLECULAR WEIGHT
GAS TEMPERATURE
GAS VELOCITY
GAS VOLUME
GAS VOLUME
PARTICULATE CONG :
KG/N CU METER
KG/N CU METER
KG/N CU METER
KG/CU METER
KG/S
(SQ METER)
(NORM CU METER)
(%)
STACK GASES
( C)
(M/S)
(NM3/S)(DRY)
(CU M/S)
(DRY BASIS)
(WET BASIS)
(3 12% CO2
(STK COND)
GASEOUS CONG :
SULFUR TRIOXIDE (KG/CU M)
SULFUR TRIOXIDE (KG/S)
SULFUR DIOXIDE (KG/CU M)
SULFUR DIOXIDE (KG/S)
ORSAT ANALYSIS :
CARBON DIOXIDE (VOL %)
CARBON MONOXIDE (VOL %)
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
EXCESS AIR
ISOKINETIC
(VOL %)
(VOL %)
3.5753E+00
3.6487E-01
8.7294
27.92659
65.56
3.0447E+01
8.6498E+01
1.0886E+02
3.8207E-04
3.4872E-04
1.5283E-02
3.0359E-04
3.3043E-02
5.7993E-05
5.0162E-03
1.5362E-04
1.3266E-02
.30
.00
20.70
79.00
13269.38
111.12
3.5753E+00
4.8757E-01
9.6953
27.82154
70.56
3.3287E+01
9.2576E-f01
1.1901E+02
5.3132E-04
4.7981E-04
2.1253E-02
4.1329E-04
4.9179E-02
2.8916E-05
2.6769E-03
1.6082E-04
1.4864E-02
.30
.00
20.70
00
3.5753E+00
5.2560E-01
5.1588
28.31493
70.56
4.8694E+01
1.4232E+02
1.7410E+02
4.7048E-04
4.4621E-04
1.8819E-02
3.8460E-04
6.6947E«02
3.9523E-06
5.6256E-04
1.2615E-04
1.7924E-02
79
13269.38
115.61
.30
.00
20.70
79.00
13269.38
97.29
-------
PARAMETERS (SI UNITS)
7-MED
8-MED
9-MED
O
i
AREA OF BREECHING
SAMPLE VOLUME(DRY)
MOISTURE
MOLECULAR WEIGHT
GAS TEMPERATURE
GAS VELOCITY
GAS VOLUME
GAS VOLUME
PARTICULATE CONC :
KG/N CU METER
KG/N CU METER
KG/N CU METER
KG/CU METER
KG/S
(SQ METER)
(NORM CU METER)
(%)
STACK GASES
( C)
(M/S)
(NM3/S)(DRY)
(CU M/S)
(DRY BASIS)
(WET BASIS)
ti 12% C02
(STK COND)
GASEOUS COUC :
S'JLFUR TRIOXIDE (KG/CU M)
SULFUR TRIOXIDE (KG/S)
SULFUR DIOXIDE (KG/CU M)
SULFUR DIOXIDE (KG/S)
ORSAT ANALYSIS :
CARBON DIOXIDE (VOL %)
CARBON MONOXIDE (VOL %)
OXYGEN (VOL %)
NITROGEN (VOL %)
EXCESS AIR (%)
ISOKINETIC (%)
3.5753E+00
6.2408E-01
1.8989
28.66948
62.22
4.5485E+01
1.4093E+02
1.6262E+02
2.9390E-04
2.8832E-04
1.1756E-02
2.5468E-04
4.1411E-02
1
1
4
9
1
2.5657E-06
3.6157E-04
8.6738E-05
1.2204E-02
.30
.00
20.70
79.00
13269.38
106.07
3.5753E+00
2.8504E-01
8.8033
27.91855
70.00
4.6007E+01
1.2994E+02
1.6449E-I-02
1.2253E-04
1174E-04
9012E-03
6793E-05
1.5919E-02
5.1540E-06
6.6969E-04
1.2799E-04
1.6604E-02
.30
.00
20.70
79.00
13269.38
119.56
3
1
11
27
57
4
1
5753E+00
5140E-01
7376
59942
22
2270E+01
2001E+02
1.5113E+02
.8145E-04
.4842E-04
.1258E-02
,2350E«04
3.3771E-02
3.9661E-06
4.7597E-04
8.5050E-06
1.0190E-03
.30
.00
20.70
79.00
13269.38
110.76
-------
PARAMETERS (ENGLISH UNITS)
1-HIGH
2-HIGri
3-HIGH
n
i
w
oo
AREA OF BREECHING
SAMPLE VOLUME(DRY)
MOISTURE
MOLECULAR WEIGHT
GAS TEMPERATURE
GAS VELOCITY
GAS VOLUME
GAS VOLUME
PARTICULATE CONC :
GRAINS/STD CU.
GRAINS/STD CU.
GRAINS/STD CU.
GRAINS/CU.
POUNDS/HOUR
GASEOUS CONC :
SULFUR TRIOXIDE
SULFUR TRIOXIDE
SULFUR DIOXIDE
SULFUR DIOXIDE
(SQ IN)
(STD CU FT)
(%)
STACK GASES
( F)
(FPM)
(SCFM)(DRY)
(ACFM)
FOOT (DRY BASIS)
FOOT (WET BASIS)
FOOT 12% C02
FOOT (STK COND)
(PPM)
(#/HR)
(PPM)
(f/HR)
5541.77
21.85
.7322
23.80
142
8591
290385
330609
5541.77
17.30
1.4846
28.71
140
8970
301211
345210
5541.77
28.54
2.8875
28.56
12d
8989
303614
345930
22
1399
ORSAT ANALYSIS :
CARBON DIOXIDE (VOL
CARBON MONOXIDE (VOL
OXYGEN (VOL
NITROGEN (VOL
EXCESS AIR (%)
ISOKINETIC (%)
,5623
,5582
4938
,4939
4504
.1904
.6897
41.0329
118.7397
.30
.00
20.70
79.00
13269.38
101.95
.1844
.1817
7.3778
.1609
476.1228
.2306
.8666
51.8205
155.5471
.30
.00
20.70
79.00
13269.38
100.88
260
,1001
,0972
.0023
,0878
3473
.4835
1.8310
2.0231
6.1210
.30
.00
20.70
79.00
13269.38
101.30
-------
PARAMETERS (ENGLISH UNITS)
4-LOW
5-LOW
6-MED
O
cl
AREA OF BREECHING
SAMPLE VOLUME(DRY)
MOISTURE
MOLECULAR HEIGHT
GAS TEMPERATURE
GAS VELOCITY
GAS VOLUME
GAS VOLUME
PARTICULATE CONG :
GRAINS/STD CU.
GRAINS/STD CU.
GRAINS/STD CU.
GRAINS/CU.
POUNDS/HOUR
(SQ IN)
(STD CU FT)
STACK GASES
( F)
(FPM)
(SCFM)(DRY)
(ACFM)
FOOT (DRY BASIS)
FOOT (WET BASIS)
FOOT 12% C02
FOOT (STK COND)
GASEOUS CONC :
SULFUR TRIOXIDE (PPM)
SULFUR TRIOXIDE (#/HR)
SULFUR DIOXIDE (PPM)
SULFUR DIOXIDE (#/HR)
ORSAT ANALYSIS :
CARBON DIOXIDE (VOL %)
CARBON MONOXIDE (VOL %)
OXYGEN (VOL %)
NITROGEN (VOL %)
EXCESS AIR (%)
ISOKINETIC (%)
5541.77
12.89
8.7294
27.93
150
5993
183278
230655
.1670
.1524
6.6785
.1327
262.2470
17.4133
39.8119
57.6490
105.2910
.30
.00
20.70
79.00
13269.38
111.12
5541.77
17.22
9.6953
27.82
159
6553
196156
252175
.2322
.2097
9.2874
.1806
390.3177
8.6826
21.2458
60.3493
117.9679
.30
.00
20.70
79.00
13269.38
115.61
5541.77
18.56
5.1588
28.31
159
9585
301559
368889
.2056
.1950
8.2238
.1681
531.3339
1.1869
4.4648
47.3385
142.2575
.30
.00
20.70
79.00
13269.38
97.29
-------
PARAMETERS (ENGLISH UNITS)
7-MED
8-MED
9-MED
AREA OF BREECHING
SAMPLE VOLUME(DRY)
MOISTURE
MOLECULAR WEIGHT
GAS TEMPERATURE
GAS VELOCITY
GAS VOLUME
GAS VOLUME
PARTICULATE CONG
GRAINS/STD CU.
GRAINS/STD CU.
GRAINS/STD CU.
GRAINS/CU.
POUNDS/HOUR
(SQ IN)
(STD CU FT)
O
I
STACK GASES
( F)
(FPM)
(SCFM) (DRY)
(ACFM)
FOOT (DRY BASIS)
FOOT (WET BASIS)
FOOT 12% CO2
FOOT (STK COND)
5541
22
1
28
144
8954
298604
344580
,77
,04
,8989
,67
GASEOUS CONC :
SULFUR TRIOXIDE (PPM)
SULFUR TRIOXIDE (#/riR)
SULFUR DIOXIDE (PPM)
SULFUR DIOXIDE (#/HR)
ORSAT ANALYSIS :
CARBON DIOXIDE (VOL %)
CARBON MONOXIDE (VOL %)
OXYGEN
NITROGEN
EXCESS AIR
ISOKINETIC
(VOL %)
(VOL %)
.1284
.1260
5.1373
.1113
328.6620
.7704
2.8697
32.5495
96.8567
.30
.00
20.70
79.00
13269.38
106.07
5541.77
10.07
8.8033
27.92
158
9056
275323
348532
.0535
.0488
2.1418
.0423
126.3412
1.5476
5.3151
48.0296
131.7770
.30
.00
20.70
79.00
13269.38
119.56
5541
5
11
27
135
8321
254286
320224
,77
,35
,7376
,60
.1230
.1086
4.9197
.0977
268.0303
1.1909
3.7776
3.1916
8.0876
.30
.00
20.70
79.00
13269.38
110.76
-------
Analytical Methods
All filters and Andersen plates in the sampling program were
analyzed on-site by B.E.E. personnel. All other samples were
returned to B.E.E. LABORATORIES, INC. of PLYMOUTH MEETING
PENNSYLVANIA for analysis. The following discussions describe
the analytical methods employed.
Particulate Samples—
All glass fiber filters used in particulate sampling had been
tare weighed following a twenty-four (24) hour drying period at
105°C and desiccation prior to their use in the field. Upon
their return to the laboratory, they were dried for twenty-four
(24) hours at 105°C, desiccated and reweighed to constant weight.
The weight difference was the amount of sample collected on the
filter.
Moisture Content—
The total volume of the impinger solutions minus the original
volume of reagents in the impingers plus the volume of moisture
and/or vapors collected by the silica gel equalled the total
moisture gain of the sampling train. This volume was used as the
basis for percent moisture by volume calculations. The
laboratory results of the moisture analyses appear concurrently
with the results of the particulate testing program on page C-49
Particulate Size Distribution - Andersen—
All sample collection plates were dried in a desiccator for a
minimum of twelve hours and then tare weighted prior to their use
in the field. Upon their return to the laboratory, they were
C-41
-------
desiccated and reweighed. The weight difference was the amount
of sample collected on a particular plate during a sample run.
Acetone washings and filters were treated as per the procedure
outlined in "Particulate Samples' above.
Sulfur Dioxide Samples—
The analysis of the sulfur dioxide samples was conducted
utilizing the following method as specified in the Federal
Register.
An aliquot was taken and isopropyl alcohol was added. The
sample was then titrated to its thorin endpoint with 0.01N Ba
f£) !2 (barium perchlorate) .
C-U2
-------
Figure 1. Aerodynamic Diameter Venui Flow <*ate throuon Andersen Stack Sampler
I
oo
0
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
"3 •
o*
0>
ri-
ll)
0 '°
t 0.9
j.5
C •:
03
01
O.I
0.
1 - 0.2 0.3 04 0.5 0.6 07 OB 091 0 20 30 40 5.0 60 70809010 20 30 40 SO 60 70 B090K
"
1
1
j
1
1
|
S
'
.
I,
IN
\
v
\
1
~^
y,
^
\
\1
v
1
l\
\j
•
H
\
S
\
N,
J\
^
N
N '
\
\
V
\
\\
\
\
V "i
\
\
s' \
\
N
N
\
N
\
\i
V-
-A"
,
\
N
\
N
\
\
\
\
\
N
XA
y
\
V
Yi
\
N
N
\
N
\
\
\
&
V
.
\
*
\
a
v
"N
.N
\,
N
^
\
\
s. *
\
\
\
\
IN
\
\
\
\
y
\
&
N
\
\
N:'
;:\
•••
i
' i
i
i j i • • •
!.' !,.!..
\-
A
L • '
;ii;H.:::
r - •
1
.
.
i
-..
-;
•
i ! , !
.• .i-.
1. .i"
! I'
:;:;':;U-
r--
• -
-•
...
--
...
i
)0
10
9
8
7
6
4
3
1.0
09
If.
07
06
OS
04
0.3
0.2
1 0.2 0.3 0.4 O.S 0.6 07 OB OS 1.0 2.0 3.0 . 4.0 3.0 6.0 7.0O0.9.010 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80901OO
3.2 Andersen Classification Figures I,2s3
Op. Aerodynamic Diameter, microns
-------
e 2 Density Collection F«Ctor'<" Physical Silt of
I',nuclei CjpluieO in And°'"n Slack Sampler
10-
9
3
25
• 5
.5 10
•^ oo
07
06
03
0.?'.'
0? •
015
015 02 0.25 O.J 0405 OBOJ 080910 15 2 2b 3
Panicle Dfiisnv. gm/cm »
& 6 7 8 9 10
C-44
-------
Figure3. Temperature CorrectWN fivctor lor Aerodynamic
Size of ParticlM Captured in Andersen Stack Sampler
n
Ul
1
(
*
u
c
L,
<
J
i.O
1.60
1.SO
I.JO
L
t.30
'
1 20
1 10
5
1 00
0.80
•'.-.1
~-—
^-*
^
s
i
.X
/
0 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 100 .
X
/
/
/
/
/
/
^
>
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
I
/
/
•
'
•-. •
I
••-
[-
...
—
""•
'•'-
'•'-
'•'-
~&
I.. ..
i
..L.
"4.:::
^
-t-
h:
-
• -
-
{__ 200 300 400 500 600 BOO 100O 1SOO 20OO
Stack Temperature. °F
-------
PLATE NQ'<=>
0123456
7 8
TO
NOZZLE
n
i
V '
' >
f \
t 1
.3
|
i
^
i
1
v
Y
TO PROBE*-
SAMPLING TRAIN
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, Inc.
One Plymouth Meeting Mall • Plymouth Meeting, Pa. 19462
FOR
BANDERS EN IMPACTOR
DIAGRAM
FJK
APPROVED BY
SCALE
NONE
DATE
6//R/75
DRAW NO
-------
ANDERSEN HEAD
o
I
GLASS LINED
PROBE
F/LTEP(OPT/ONAL]
IN HEATED
Q-iAM^ER
ICE BATH
DRY
GAS
METER
BETZ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, Inc.
One Plymouth Meeting Mall • Plymouth Meeting, Pa. 19463
FOR
^ANDERSEN HEAD SAMPLING
TRAIN
CRAWN BY
FJK
APPROVED BY
SCALE
NONE:
DATE
6 1181 75
DRAW NO
-------
BEETZ EiMViROMMEBMTAL ENGINEERS, Inc.
NOMOGRAPH DATA
DOFASCO (EPA)
PLANT.
DATE 24 August 1976
SAMPLING LOCATION Bypass Stack
Andersen System
CALIBRATED PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL ACROSS
ORIFICE, in. H,0
L Box #5
AVERAGE METER TEMPERATURE (AMBIENT + 20°F),°F
PERCENT MOISTURE IN GAS STREAM BY VOLUME
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE AT METER, in. Hg
STATIC PRESSURE IN STACK, in. Hg
(Pm±0.073 x STACK GAUGE PRESSURE in in. H20)
RATIO OF STATIC PRESSURE TO METER PRESSURE
AVERAGE STACK TEMPERATURE, °F
AVERAGE VELOCITY HEAD, in. H20
MAXIMUM VELOCITY HEAD, in. H20
C FACtOR
CALCULATED NOZZLE DIAMETER, in.
ACTUAL NOZZLE DIAMETER, in.
Set 1
REFERENCE Ap, in. H20
AH@
Tmavg.
Bwo
P™
C
P
PVP
/rm
savg.
A"avg.
APmax.
1.99
95
2. 5
-
.83
-
L10
4.8
-
1. 15
0.135
0. 120
7. 8
EPA (Dur) 234
4/72
C-48
-------
LABORATORY RESULTS OF THE PARTICULATE/MOISTURE TESTS
O
i
*>.
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Filter
Gain
(mg)
224.3
56.2
58.4
48.5
111.1
122.5
35.6
13.5
26.5
Nozzle, Probe
and Total
Filter Holder Particulate
Gain Gain
(mg) (%)
573.
151.
127.
91.
148.
125.
148.
21.
16.
5
0
0
2
5
3
2
5
2
71.9
72.9
68.5
65.3
57.2
50.6
80.6
61.4
37.9
PERSONNEL SAMPLER
Run No .
2 + 3H
4 + 5L
Filter
1.8
0.5
Gain
mg
mg
(mg)
797
207
185
139
259
247
183
35
42
.8
.2
.4
.7
.6
.8
.8
.0
.7
LABORATORY
Impinger
Gain
(mis)
-7
-2
6
18
29
13
0
16
10
RESULTS
Cyclone Gain
1.092 mg
19.913 mg
Total
Silica Gel Moisture
Gain Pick-Up
(mis)
10.
7.
11.
8.
10.
8.
9.
4.
5.
4
5
9
0
0
3
0
5
0
(mis)
3
5
17
26
39
21
9
20
15
Total
2.892 mg
20.413 mg
.4
.5
.9
.0
.0
.3
.0
.5
.0
-------
LABORATORY RESULTS OF SO^SO,, ANALYSES
Run- ID
o
i
Cn
O
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
SO
SO,
so~
S02
SO-
SO,
so~
SO2
SO.,
so:;
S03
so.
so^
so.
so.
S02
so^
S02
Sol'n Vol.
123
320
118
330
116
340
118
350
119
360
118
345
125
325
131
335
125
335
Aliq.
Vol .
50
5
25
5
25
5
25
1
25
5
25
5
25
5
25
5
25
25
Titrant
Factor (mis)
2.
64
4.
66
4.
68
4.
350
4.
72
4.
69
5
65
5.
67
5
13.
46
72
64
72
76
72
24
4
0.
3.
0.
3.
0.
2.
11.
0.
7.
3.
1.
3.
0.
2.
0.
1.
0.
0.
4
3
2
2
7
2
2
5
4
4
1
0
8
6
7
7
3
3
Total
(mis)
0.
211.
0.
211.
3.
13.
52.
175.
35.
244.
5.
207
4.
169
3.
113.
1.
4.
98
2
94
2
25
6
86
0
22
8
19
0
67
9
5
02
(N)Ba(C104)2
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
-------
DOFASCO , Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Biast Furnace No. 1 Daily Cast_ Reports
DAiLY CAST SEPCRT _ BLAST FURNACE M; DAILY CAST REPORT - BLAST FURNACE «- DAILY CAST REPORT - PS.AST PURNACE
DA'.LY CAST REPORT - BLAST FU^HACE
ri FURNACE
;) rURNACI
SI1-. iLIL. ! MM.
'~lto.' \ "'"•'- ! TOWN. J
DATE- M ut^Z>
.»^\V5* rm \vt
: ] ! \
-------
Canada
" NO 1 FURNACE »•
Blast Furnace No. 1 Operation Report 1 "TEMP SIL% SULl" MN%"
August 24 , 1976
DAILY BUST FURNACE OPERATH
i » NO. 1 FURNACE '
" BURDEN " X NT/DAY K'T/MON '
' SHERMAN V"2S. 7 551.7 18! 93.4'
'WABUSH "23.5 452.2 16291.6'
•ADAMS "37.7 723.5 22604.3'
'C.LAKE " 221.2'
'ITABIRA "10.1 193.4 6492.1
•WILLIAMS" J
•TOTAL " 1920.3 6 3302.9'
•MILLSCLE" '
'BR-T.ORE"3.33 1920.8 63802.9'
•FE SCRAP" 79.2 2525.3'
•BR-T.MET"3.47 20fO.O 66328.2'
•COKE PRO" 576.4 18442.7'
' STOCK" '
i NUpi •
•TOT COKE" 576.4 18442.8'
•M.S»SLAG" 198.0 6129.0'
'LIM.ESTON" 35.6 1155.5'
•DOLOMITE" 63.9 2155.5'
'TOT CHGE" 2873.9 94211.2'
i n o-4 4-12 12-8 '
•CHARGES " 23 27 38 '
'TOT-AVG " 88 113 '
•FILL-SEQ"OOSCCC/0()SCC '
• " TOTAL TOTAL/AVG
' PRODUCTION " DAY MONTH
'GROSS PROD " 7682.2 201936.7
•'GROSS-AVG " 8077.5
•GROSS TO PC.v" 8341 .1
'NET FROM PC7" 7983.6
•'M.S. GROSS " 7682.2 192037.6
•'COLD IRON " 1577.8
"INVENTORY JI
"REC COLD I !'" 771.8
"M.S. NET " 7682.2 191265.6
"DFS " 1706.4
" TONS OH HEARTH
« STACK
• "2750 .82
iCast No. 347^2740 ,6'5
i "2700 .84
' "2750 .86
"2830* .96
"2800 .70
n
1 DAY AVG "276! .80
MTD AVG "2776 .81
J^f PARAMETERS " DAY
COKE #/NTHV " 764
:OIL tf/HTHM " 177
TAR LB/NTHM "
>CARB #/NTHM " 832
'FLUX #/HTHM " 138
•BOF. SLAG tf/NTHM" 262
'02 NT "
JDRY DUST /rVHTHM" 15
iBLAST TEMP F " 1706
TOP TEMP F " 39.1
'BLAST PRESS PSI" 23.6
:TOP PRESS PSI " 5.0
'MOISTURE GR/CF " 7.2
•02 IN BLAST % •" 21.0
'ORDERED WIND CF" 6 1 1 00
iAVG WIND CFM l! 44UOO
'CF 21% 02 ' WD/#C" 51.4
ITURBO BLO.VER # » 2
JTOT OPER DELAYS" 375
j CAST DELAYS" 21
;OIL USED GALS " 26780
ITAR USED GALS »
" # 1 FURNACE '
" DAY MONTH '
"1509.3 45887.0'
" 1835.51
" 577. 3'1 SlAG
550.5-1 flfes\«/"/
"1509 3 41758 2'1 nNnv-.^j^ (,,
n R71 ^n
*' 4 ' '.' NO 1
J ' " DAY
< •==== '•-=:=- = -
n 550 5« 'K2° " -bl
_1_. 'S 4I 2.02
— icR) « m
H Q?^'i^^ '• *
^ . "CAO " 1Q 71
n 0?3HTA "
V<::JDJO 'MM " .64
'SI 02 " 36. W
•MGO " 10,'K.i
•AL203 " 8.59
.046 .3r.''
.054 ..?6(:
.045 .39'!
.046 .39"
.031 .40I:
.032 .152"
n
.042 1.40"
.047 1.39"
MONTH ';
804 '•'
137 "
80 "
906 '!
144 '!
267 lj
n
21 -i
1800 '!
401 '!
26.7'!
5. 1"
9.5';
21 .0"
65828 '!
59476 "
51 .5'"
ii
3750 •'
469 '!
632340 "
302750 ''
\
FURNACE "
MONTH "
.60 »
1 .84 "
.52 ''
39. 19 '•
.76 !'
36.61 "
10.19 "
8.72 "
C-52
-------
DOFASCO, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Blast Furnace No. 1 - Operating Report
August 25,
DAILY BLAST FURNACE
n ii
" BURDEN " %
'SHERMAN* "28. 6
:",vABUSH' "24.2
••ADAMS "37.1
'C.LAKE "
'ITABIRA "10.1
"WILLIAMS"
•TOTAL "
i — _ — -
•MILLSCLE"
•BR-T.ORE"3.4i
•FE SCRAP"
•BR-T.MET''3.55
•COKE PRO"
' STOCK"
• HUT-"
•TOT COKE"
•M.S. SLAG"
'LIMESTON "
•DOLOMITE"
•TOT CHGE"
1976
OPERATE
NO. I FURNACE "
NT/DAY NT/MOM *
697.6
588.6
904.7
245.3
2436.2
2436.2
97.2
2533.4
714.0
714.0
247.5
45.2
90.2
3630.3
Ji 8-4 4-1
CHARGES " 27 40
TOT-AVG » 109
FILL-SEQ"OOSCCC/OOSCC
n
PRODUCTION "
TOTAL
DAY
13091 .0"
16880.2"
23509.0"
221.2"
6737.4"
it
66239.1"
n
66239. I1' ""
2622.5"
68861.6"
19156.7"
n
ii
19156.0"
6376.5"
1200.7"
2245.7"
97841.4"
2 12-8 "
42 "
112 "
TOTAL/AVG "
MONTH "
; " NO 1 FURHACi:
^ " CAST 3480 TO 3-^6
"TEMP SILJi SUI.S '.
-------
DOFASCO, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Blast Fui-nace No. 1 Operating Report
August' 26, 1976
DAILY BUST FURNACE OPERATIf
11 NO 1 FURNACE "
" CAST 3487 TO 34VI "
"TEMP SIL% SULS .•;!!%»
1 BURDEN "
NO. 1 FUPMACE •'
NT/DAY NT/MOM '
Cast No. 3137 -»2700 .'55 .034 1.46"
; » " 3 1.83
" .49
" 39.78
" . 72
" 36.55
" 10,50
8.75
it
.10.
.59 "
1.85 "
.52 "
39.24 "
.76 "
36.61 "
10.23 "
8.72 "
5-!rr: II
-------
DOFASCO , Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Blast Furnace No. 1 Operating Report r:':r?'r*
August 27_, 1976 ~^V
Jl NO ! FURNACIZ
•" CAST 3.492 TO 3496 '
"TEMP SILK SULS MNS?
' " NO.
' BURDEN " % N
'SHERMAN "29.8
•UA3USH -"22.5
'ADAMS "37.8
C.LAKE "
'ITABIRA "9.9
1 FURNACE "
T/DAY NT/M01I "
Cets't No. 3=W2-"28IO .74 .046
:?-"2700 .79 .076
"2790 .69 .055
"2800 .61 .056
"2720 .52 .061
n
u
,38'
,32'
,36'
,35'
,22:
648.6 20273.0"
490.9 17072.3"
823.0 25271.6"
221.2"
215.6 7196.0"
DAY AVG "2780 .67 .059 1.32'
MTD AVG "2776 .80 .047 1.39'
PARAMETERS " DAY MONTH '
"WILLIAMS"
'TOTAL "
'MILL5CLE"
"BR-T.ORE"3.
•FE SCRAP"
'BR-T.,MET"3.
•COKE PRO"
' STOCK"
i ]juT"
'TOT COKE"
•f/.S.SLAG"
'LIMESTON'.'
•DOLOMITE"
'TOT CHGE"
i ' • u
•CHARGES "
•TOT-AVG "
'FILL-SEQ"00
i
'.PRODUCTION
2178.1
54 2178.1
54 2178.1
615.7
615.7
208.3
36.2
90.7
3129.0
8-4 4-1
42 23
94
SCCC/OOSCC
41 TOTAL
" DAY
• .. n
70840.1"
ii
70840. I"
2694.5"
73534.7"
20479.8"
.: n
u
20479.9"
6027.7"
1267.4"
2422.9"
104532.7"
2 12-0 "
29 "
112 "
TOTAL/AVG
MONTH
COKE #/NTHH "
TAR LB/NTHM "
SARD #/NTMM "
id_^_— FLUX ,VNTHM •"
-^•oT^ BOF SLAG #/NTHM"
02 NT Jl
DRY DUST #/NTHM"
3LAST TEMP F "
TOP TEMP F "
'3LAST PRESS PSI"
TOP PRESS PSI "
MOISTURE GR/CF "
02 IN BLAST % "
ORDERED WIND CF"
AVG HIND CFM "
CF 21% 02 IVDA'iC"
TURBO BLOi'/ER # "
TOT OPER DELAYS"
CAST DELAYS"
OIL USED GALS "
TAR USED GALS "
" # 1 FURNACE '
11 DAY MONTH '
86.9
.200
954
1 79
294
8
1797
365
28.6
4.9
1 ? ?
21.0
65300
47300
50.4 •
2'
405
10
23370
807
1 14
82
908
145
269
| y
1800
399
26.7
5. 1
0 7
21.0
657^9
58768
51 .4
4575
522
680630
344530 '
•GROSS PROD "
•GROSS-AVG »
•GROSS TO PCM"
•NET FROM PCM"
'M,S. GROSS "
•COLD IRON "
•INVENTORY "
•REC COLD IRN"
•M.S. NET
•DFS .
8257.4
316.4
303.7
7941.0
227267.4
0116.7
8962.3
'8530.3
216727.2
1577.. 8
59.5
" 7881.5
" 16.1
831.3
215895.7
1775. a.
"1417.1 50741.2'
11 . ' 1812.2'
11 577.3'
" '••'.- 550. 5 !
"1417.1 49592.4'
•571.3'
u . i
ii • •'• .• '.
u . '•:. .. t
,,,\
(f/o)
550.5'
».;••-• ••••_•
'" :; "'
SK20
•S
•FEO
•CAO
C-55
"SI02
•MGO
;|AL203
•" NO I FURNACE "
" DAY MONTH "
" , .76 .60 "
" 1.54 1 .84 "
" .50 .52 "
11 38.04 39.23 "
" .81 .76 "
11 37. 14 36.63 "
" 10.41 10.23 "
" 8.73 8.72 »
-------
DOMINION FOUNDRIES AND STEEL, LIMITED
P.O. BOX 46O
HAMILTON, ONTARJIO, CA.NA.TiA.
3JS
September 7, 1976
Betz Environmental Engineer,
1 Plymouth Meeting Mall,
PLYMOUTH MEETING, Pennsylvania,
19462
U.S.A.
Attention - Mr. Dave Lindsay
Dear Dave:
Please find attached production data sheets and
cast times for #1 Blast Furnace, August 24 - 27,
1976 corresponding to your sampling schedule on
the Baghouse By-Pass Stack, as well as strip
charts for: HQt Blast Temperature
Hot Blast Pressure
B.F. Top Gas Temperature
B.F. Top Pressure
and Cold Blast Flow Rate for the corresponding
time period of testing.
Additional data:
Weight of personnel monitor cyclone catch
Sample 1 1.0921 mg
Sample 2 19.913 mg
Coke Strength from South Coke Plant
Aug. 25/76 Stability No. 57.9
Hardness No. 69.8
Amperage on Fan Motor based on Fan Louvre modulation:
100% 340-60 amps
70% 320
40% 280
Yours truly,
C~56A. Kruzins
AK:jp c/o Blast Furnace Office
ENCL.
-------
DOMINION FOUNDRIES AND STEEL, LIMITED
F.O. BOX 46O
HAMILTON, O1STTA.RJCO, CA.NA.DA
3J5
June 25, 1976
Mr. David Lindsay,
Betz Environmental Engineers,
1 Plymouth Meeting Mall,
PLYMOUTH MEETING, Pennsylvania,
19462,
U.S.A.
Dear Dave:
RE - #1 BLAST FURNACE BAG HOUSE
Please find attached a fan curve for our #1 blast
furnace bag house fan. Inlet temperatures to the
fan are presently in the 120°F - 150°F range and
the fan amps are approximately 360. v This converts
to 1670 HP. Voltage on the motor is 2400. Design
HP for the motor is 1500.
The system is operated with the louvres all the way
open during a cast. In colder weather, amperage went
up to 380 with the louvres all the way open.
Mr. R. Bean talked with Mr. Morrison and suggested
a couple of minor modifications so that now the Morrison
design meets Dofasco specifications.
If there are any more questions, do not hesitate to
call.
Yours truly,
:\\
M. Greenfield
MG:jp Air & Water Quality Engineer
ENCL.
C-57
-------
/
^LDONS ENGINEERING LTD^CAMBmoGE^ONTARIO
PERFORMANCE CURVE FOR:- i '. ; )'••••
r-
.ll. KAN TYPE .^S'S'd
,J'{ J.' * ' a • • ' '•
"'_[. FAN SPEED 8SO RPrf WHEEL D1A.
-------
Report SS7704
SPARK SOURCE MASS SPECTROMETRIC ANALYSIS OF FIFTEEN SAMPLES
OF BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE EMISSIONS
March 1977
by
Dr. E. Hunter Daughtrey, Jr.
J. Kent Bostick, Jr.
Northrop Services, Inc.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
C-59
-------
FOREWORD
This work was performed under task instruction #4 of work
ordur 2.1 (T.D. 2.1-2) of contract 68-02-2566 in support of the
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Environmental
Research Center, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Fifteen particulate samples of blast furnace cast house
emissions plus two blank glass fiber filters were analyzed by
spark source mass spectrometry to determine their elemental
composition.
C-60
-------
1. EXPERIMENTAL
1.1 Sample Preparation
Following the suggestion of the customer, attempts were made
initially to physically remove the sample particulate matter from
the glass fiber filters by scraping with a Teflon-coated spatula.
This proved unsuccessful, since as much filter as sample was removed
by this process.
Removal was achieved by boiling the filter in 10 ml of constant
boiling aqua regia to extract the sample from the filter. The filter
was removed from the acid, the acidic sample solution spiked with 1 ml
each of 100 ppm erbium and 1000 ppm yttrium stock internal standard
solutions, and as appropriate weighed amount of spectroscopic-grade
graphite powder added. The sample/graphite slurry was evaporated to
dryness under an infrared lamp. The dried mixture was shaken in a
mixing mill to promote homogeneity, and then compacted into electrodes
in the standard manner.
The blank glass fiber filters were treated in the same manner as
the samples to determine their contribution to the background and to
determine lower limits of detection of the elements found.
1.2 Analysis
The electrodes were analyzed using the electrical detection/com-
puter data system of the mass spectrometer. Duplicate runs at each
of five different multiplier gain settings were made in order to cover
the full concentration range of the samples. The electrical detection
data is corrected for differences in relative sensitivity between the
elements. The data processing program has also been modified to avoid
most of the commonly encountered interferences found with a graphite
C-61
-------
electrode matrix. An evaluation of the electrical detection/computer
system has been performed, the report of which is in preparation.
2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
2.1 Sample Preparation
The chief difficulty with the analysis of these samples was due
to the high background obtained for several elements in the glass
fiber filters. The aqua regia dissolution necessary to remove the
sample from the filter was more severe sample pretreatment than
normally performed in SSMS analysis. Some carry-over of filter
material was unavoidable in order to remove the sample material
as completely as possible.
2.2 Analysis of the Blank Filters
Analysis of the aqua regia wash solution of duplicate blank glass
fiber filters was performed. The results of the analyses (in micro-
grams of each element) were averaged, the standard deviation found
(via the small number statistics approximation ), and the detection
2
limits calculated from the standard deviation of the blank values.
This information is presented in Table 2-1.
2.3 Analysis of Samples
Since blank values were substantial for several elements, the
computer data system was instructed to report results in micrograms
rather than directly in sample concentration. The blank level (in
ug) was subtracted from the weight of the sought-for element in the
sample. This net weight of the element in the sample was compared
to the detection limit, and reported as present if above the LD.
The net weight of the element (in ug) was then divided by the net
C-62
-------
weight of the sample (in grams), as given in the tabulation accompany-
ing the samples, to yield the concentration of the element in the
sample. This assumes 100% recovery for all elements, so some results
may be expected to be biased low. The results of the analysis are
given in Table 2-2 through 2-4.
2.4 Potential Interferences
Examination of the mass spectra revealed less interference than
expected from molecular ions of major elements in combination with
chlorine (from the HC1 of the aqua regia). This would indicate that
a large portion of the chlorine must have volatilized on evaporation
of the acid from the sample/graphite slurry. Elements which may be
interfered with and the potential interferants are: Cu (Si Cl );
Co+(Mg Cl+); Se+ (Ca Cl+, KC1+); and, Nb+ (Fe Cl+).
Elements not reported for obvious cases of interference are:
Ta (source parts), In (electrode holders), Er and Y (internal stan-
dards), S (N and 0), Cl (acid), and F (Fe+3, iron matrix). Nickel
was not report in most cases due to interference from carbon and
iron, only when its concentration was sufficient to see the very
insensitive (but interference-free) Ni+2 isotope (30.5 m.u.) was
nickel reported.
2.5 Estimates of Precision and Accuracy
Replicate scans were made at each multiplier gain setting to
provide an estimate of the precision of analysis. The average % RSD
ranged from 30-40% for each of the samples, which was reasonable com-
pared to the 35% RSD normally associated with survey electrical de-
tection scans. Not measured in the above uncertainty is that of
sample preparation, which is likely larger than normal, given the
usual sample pretreatment procedure.
C-63
-------
With regard to accuracy, a negative bias may be expected due to
incomplete extraction of the sample from the filter, but it should
be small relative to the uncertainty of analysis. Any bias observed
due to relative sensitivity differences between elements, should be
removed by the element detail calibration of the data system.
Despite the larger than normal uncertainty and possible slight
bias, the analyses should be well within the - factor of 2 in the
request for analysis.
3. CONCLUSION
Fifteen blast furnace cast house particulate samples were analyzed
by spark source mass spectrometry. Due to high levels of several
elements in the blank filters, full characterization of the samples was
not possible. The elements which were quantitated should be well within
the I factor of two specified in the analysis request.
C-64
-------
References
1. R. B. Dean and W. J. Dixon, Anal. Chem 23. 636 (1951)
2. L. A. Currie, Anal. Chem 40, 587 (1968)
C-65
-------
Table 2-1
Analysis of Blank Glass Fiber Filters
Results in Micrograms
Element
Ba
Sn
Zr
Sr
Se
Zn
Cu
Co
Fe
Mn
Cr
V
Tl
Sc
Ca
K
P
Si
Al
Mg
Na
Blank
9.1
.445
1.28
6.56
4.58
26.8
8.6
15.2
110
4.31
34.4
.798
41.6
2.89
4020
3419
2.65
5080
570
525
4110
Std. Deviation
4.82
.614
1.30
1.02
2.48
2.49
1.85
17.5
27.1
.196
18.1
.031
42.6
1.47
1067
1298
1.02
3010
119
5
872
Detection Limit*
15.9
2.02
4.29
3.37
8.18
8.23
6.10
57.8
89.4
.65
59.7
.10
140
4.85
3520
4280
3.37
9930
393
15
2880
^Detection Limit = 3.3 x Standard Deviation of Blank.
C-66
-------
Table 2-2
Analysis of Blast Furnace Cast House Particulates
Results in yg/g unless otherwise noted
Sample #
Weight
Element
Bi
Pb
Tl
Ce
La
Ba
Cs
I
Te
Sb
Sn
Cd
Ag
Rh
Ru
Mo
Nb
Zr
Sr
Rb
C778 C783 C864 C886 C903
48.5 mg 13.5 mg 111.1 mg 8.6 mg 4.2 mg
* .45
305 1.3% 327 3046 2060
8 .8
7.4 6.5 1.3 4.6
0.5 2.2 3.5
<330** 1380 348 2744 <3780
80 6.1
270 20 130
41.5 95
36
<41 <148 <235 <480
2.9 370 27 45
7.5
260 66 71
1.9 17
<89 <320 <39 <500 <1024
162 <250 102 <395 <810
13 710 180 1120
*Blank indicates value was less than 1 pg/g
**Less than values due to high background in filter (LLD = 3.3 x a of blank)
C-67
-------
Table 2-2 Continued
Sample #
Weight
Element
Br
Se
As
3a
Zn
:u
Co
:?e
Hn
Or
V
'.:±
Sc
Ca
K
P
Si
Al
Kg
Na
C778
48
<170
4.3
40
<170
<125
1220
13%
2.1%
<1240
33
<2890
<101
<7.3
<8.8%
<69
<20%
<8100
<3100
<6%
C783
180
<600
7.4
2540
<450
<4300
25.8%
17.1%
<4440
163
<1%
<360
<26%
<32%
1700
<73%
<2.9%
<1000
<21%
C864
19
<74
.63
7.2
580
160
1970
37%
6.1%
<540
42
<1260
<43
<3.2%
9.4%
1050
13%
<3510
5400
<2.6%
C886
300
<960
1.2
<960
<710
8700
13%
12%
<7000
12
<1.6%
<560
<41%
<50%
<400
<100%
<4.6%
<1700
<33%
C903
590
<1950
4.8
<1980
<1450
<13.8%
20.1%
5.0%
<1.43%
<24
<3.3%
<1150
<84%
<100%
3400
<100%
<9.4%
<1.43%
<68%
C-68
-------
Table 2-3
Analysis of Blast Furnace Cast House Particulates
Results in ug/g unless otherwise noted
Sample //
Weight
Element
Bi
Pb
Tl
Ce
La
Ba
Cs
I
Te
Sb
Sn
Cd
Ag
Rh
Ru
Mo
Nb
Zr
Sr
Rb
C904
224.3 mg
*
76
5.5
71
1030
2.4
18
3.6
81
6.5
10.7
60
30
<19
223
3.1
C905
6. 8 mg
5.9
1.1%
5.9
1.5
<2340**
725
72
79
<297
622
40
462
<630
1040
228
C906 C907
10.1 mg 9.5 mg
1 6.3
850 1050
11
10
<1574 <1670
83 209
3
26 21
<200 <213
121 123
50
80 235
<426 <450
<1390 <1260
574
C909
56.2 mg
283
22 .
18
1.6
<283
17
15
<36
29
34
52 .
<76
212
206
*Blank indicates value was less than 1 Vg/g
**Less than values due to high background in filter (LLD = 3.3 xa of blank)
C-69
-------
Table 2-3 Continued
Sample #
Weight
Element
Br
Se
As
Ga
Zn
Cu
Ni
Co
Fe
Mn
Cr
V
Ti
Sc
Ca
K
P
Si
Al
Mg
Na
C904
472
44
2.0
5.2
1.1%
1060
2450
8800
Major
6890
7.3%
71
6820
37
<1.6%
5%
<15
<4.4%
<1750
<67
<1.3%
C905
144
<1200
128
<1220
1620
1.1%
Major
20.6%
<8800
<15
<2.0%
<713
<52%
<63%
3400
<100%
12.5%
6.9%
<42%
C906
37
<812
3.0
5.9
<820
<600
5440
10.4%
6.1%
<5940
<9.9
<1.4%
<480
<35%
<42%
4540
<98%
<3.9%
<1485
<28%
C907
926
<860
4.7
<874
642
<6080
30%
10.5%
7160
13
<1.5%
510
<37%
<45%
574
<100%
3.6%
<1600
<30%
C909
311
219
1.8
176
400
658
2120
38%
3.5%
2.3%
68
2490
<85
<6.3%
<7.6%
735
<18%
<6990
3810
<5.1%
C-70
-------
Table 2-4
Analysis of Furnace Cast House Particulates
Results in yg/g unless otherwise noted
Sample //
Weight
Element
Bi
Pb
Tl
Ce
La
Ba
Cs
I
Te
Sb
Sn
Cd
Ag
Rh
Ru
Mo
Nb
Zr
Sr
Rb
C918
18.5 mg
3
1290
*
4.3
<860
60
2.7
17.5
<110
1.6
34
43
18
<230
886
590
C939
13.5 mg
1185
1.8
<1180**
144
14
4.8
<150
40
39
127
8.9
<320
490
440
C940
122.5 mg
7.4
860
1.9
<130
76
50
2.8
62
17
31
95
<35
210
67
C941
35. 6 mg
1.4
921
.4
<447
17
7.3
16.4
<56
5
11
180
<120
97
177
C942
58.4 mg
9.6
3730
<270
45
28
63
<34
39
54
23
<74
675
265
*Blank indicates value was less than 1 yg/g
**Less than values due to high background in filter (LLD = 3.3 x o of blank)
C-71
-------
Table 2-4 Continued
Sample #
Weight
Element
Br
Se
As
Ga
Zn
Cu
Ni
Co
Fe
Mn
Cr
V
Ti
Sc
Ca
K
P
Si
Al
Mg
Na
C918
340
<440
1.0
540
1500
6860
Major
15.4%
<3240
86
7950
<260
Major
Major
5620
<50%
9.7%
3.0%
Major
C939
690
<610
12
4.4
<610
<450
<4280
Major
21%
<4440
58
<1.0%
355
<26%
<32%
6830
<74%
<2.9%
2.2%
<21%
C940
69
71
27
158
206
162
23%
2.6%
<490
46
<1140
<39
<2.9%
3.5%
346
<8.1%
<3210
<122
<2.3%
C941
<230
3.4
2.2
<230
<170
<1630
62%
6.2%
<1680
<3
<3930
<135
<9.9%
<12%
<96
<28%
-------
Report SS7705
SPARK SOURCE MASS SPECTROMETRIC ANALYSIS
OF BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE BAGHOUSE SAMPLE
by
Dr. E. Hunter Daughtrey, Jr.
J. Kent Bostick, Jr.
April 1, 1977
Northrop Services, Inc.
Research Triangle Park, N.C.
C-73
-------
FOREWORD
A sample of blast furnace cast house dust was analyzed by spark
source mass spectrometry to determine its elemental composition.
This work was performed under task instruction //5 of Work Order
2.1 (T.D. 2.1-2) of contract 68-02-2566 in support of the Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Environmental Research Center,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Task instruction received March 14, 1977
Analysis completed April 1, 1977
C-74
-------
Section I
EXPERIMENTAL
1.1 Sample Preparation
The sample was low temperature dry-ashed to remove the organic content.
Physically, the sample was black with metallic flecks which ashed to brown-
black powder with metallic flecks, 93.6% ash.
The resultant ash was mixed 50:50 by weight with graphite, the mixture
spiked with erbium and yttrium internal standards, the sample/graphite
slurry evaporated to dryness under an infrared lamp. The dry mixture was
then shaken in a mixing mill to promote homogeneity, and electrodes were
prepared in the standard manner.
1.2 Analysis
The electrodes were prepared using the electrical detection/computer
data system of the mass spectrometer. The full concentration range of
the sample was covered by making runs at various multiplier gain settings.
The analyses were performed in the usual manner.
C-75
-------
Section II
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
2.1 Sample Preparation
No difficulties were encountered in the sample preparation procedures.
Sufficient sample was available to yield reasonable elemental sensitivity
for all samples.
2.2 Analysis of Samples
The results of the analyses are given in Table 2. Elements not reported
were not seen at the maximum gain setting of the mass spectrometers. "Less
than" (<) indicates the probability of interference on the isotope used for
quantification of an element. Of the elements requested, beryllium and
sulfur were not done, as calibration for these elements in the presence
of ir.terference of most environmental samples is not practical by electrical
detection. Photoplate capabilities are restricted at present due to a very
limited supply of plates and the absence of the densitometer which is being
computer control retrofitted. Low biased response for the halogens is
expected since the samples were low temperature ashed.
Normal precision and accuracy should be observed for these samples well
within the criteria set in the analysis request (within order of magnitude).
Lower limits of detection are difficult to estimate for elements not
seen using the computer data system (due to limitations of the output options
of the computer). As a rough approximation (but should be within the order
of magnitude accuracy), the detection limit for elements not reported is
.1 ppm times the % ash of the sample.
076
-------
Section III
CONCLUSION
A sample of blast furnace cast house dust was analyzed by spark source
mass spectrometry (electrical detection). Full elemental characterization
was performed from trace to major components of the ashed sample.
C-77
-------
Table 2
ANALYSIS OF BLAST FURNACE BAGHOUSE SAMPLE
(results in ug/g)
Element Concentration
Pb 2100
Ce .42
La .17
Ba 36
Te 1.3
Sb 8.2
Sn 1.6
Cd 25
Ag 1.1
Mo 580
Nb 25
Zr 36
Sr 110
Rb 245
Br <360
Se <240
Ga 230
Zn 3800
Cu 940
Co 1360
Fe 470,000
Mn 49,000
C-78
-------
Table 2 Continued
Element Concentration
Cr 1100
V 200
Ti 1500
Sc 460
Ca 87,000
K 140,000
Cl 2700
P 2400
Si 52,000
Al 760
Mg 8700
Na 39,000
Approximate L for elements not reported - .09 yg/g.
C-79
-------
D. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION
CAST HOUSE EMISSION EVALUATION DATA
-------
PART1CULATE K-USGIOMri TEST RFSULTS
(1)
a
i
Test
No._
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
n
12
13
1-1
P
16
17
18
19
-2.G
VlTiD.
.9-r)
1(50
D.5
06
58 .
91
85
97
90
103.
51
71
64.
80
81
93
55
78
61
67
Evacuation Rate
ACFM. DSdv'i
x lO^ x 10
211.9
177. G
179.9
172.5
249.0
259.1
245.5
251.1
246.4
284.8
307.7
. 300.9 .
300.5
322.1
330.5
467.7
450.5
438.2
47.0.G
191.9
1G0.1
171.2
•160.8
225.2
243.1
227.2
236.7
. 220.0
294.5
297.6
256.2
286.9
297.6
300.2
466.7
433.1
440.9
422.0
(2 )
"E" Blast Furiucc -- Baghousc Inlet
BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION
JOHNSTOWN PLANT
Concentration (gr/dscf)
Front Hack Total
.0399
.0511
.0402
.0574
.0342
.0262
.0403
.02.20
.0234
.0227'
.0305
.0277
.0256
.0355
.0239
.0107
.0200
.0060
.0082
.0011
.0019
.0007
'.0006
.0018
.0018
!0021
.0014
. .0022
.0009
.0008
.0018
. .0014
.0027
.0039
.0022
.0020
,0010
.0026
.0410
.0530
.0409
.0530
.0360
.0280
.0421
.0234
.0255
.023G
.0313
.0295
.0270
-.0302
.0278
.0129
.022.0
,0070
.0108
Capture Rate
Front Back
65.6
70.1
58.8
79.0
65.9
54.6
78.4
48.4
44.2
57.3
78.9
70.4
63.0
90.4
61.4
43.8
74.0
22.7
29.5
1.7
2.7
1.0
0.8
3.6
3.8
4.0
3.0
4.1
2.4
2.0
4.5
3.5
7.0
10.1
9.0
7.2
3.8
9.4
(Ib/hr)
Total
67.3
72.8
59.8
79.8
69.5
58.4
82.4
51.4
48.3
59.7
80.9
74.9
66.5
97.4
71.5
52.8
81.2
26.5
38.9
Averages
Emission Factor (Ib/ton)
Front • Back Total
0.18
0.12
0.39
0.60
0.18
0.13
0.20
0.26
0.14
0.23
0.28
0.14
0.13
0.28
0.11
0.19
0.15
6.05
0.11
0720"
0.004
0.005
0.007
0.006
0.010
0.009
0.009 ••
0.018
0.013
0.009
0.007
0.009
0.007
0.022
0.018
0.035
0.018
0.009
0.026
0.02
0.18
0.13
0.40
0.60
0.19
0.14
0.21
0.28
0.16
0.24
0.23
0.15
0.14
0.30
0.12
0.23
0.17
0.08
0.14
OT2T
Cast
Duration
(tain.)
31
28
39
33
34
32
22
33
39
50
32
25
35
20
21
32
29
38
46
Production
(tcr.s/c=3t
191
252
99
8-'.
200
222
133
100
201
2C5
151
207
280
107
203
122
234
214
218
(1)
(2)
Date
10/6/7G
10/6/76
10/7/76
10/7/76
10/11/76
10/12/76
10/12/76
10/13/76
10/13/76
10/10/76
10/10/76
10/19/76
10/19/76
10/14/76
10/14/76
11/0/76
11/0/76
11/10/75
11/10/70
Testing conducted by Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Normally a ferromanganese furnace. During this testing program furnace was producing basic iron.
-------
TABLE NO. 1
o
I
N>
Particulate Emissions Test Results
BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION
BETHLEHEM PLANT
"E" BlaSL Furnace Through He
TEST
SUF-1
2DF-2
'.BF-3
:BF-S
;BF-6
:BF-7
!BF-9
BF-10
,3-11
TEM?
OF
106
108
108
118
116
97
139
128
114
FLOW
ACFM
89400
92400
90100
304100
289900
294800
163800
159400
165100
DSCFM
81884
84430
81479
272454
260795
272370
145264
143780
.151231
CONCENTRATION (Rt/dscf)
FRONT
.0373
.0905
.0346
.0581
.0374
.0307
.1069
.0823
.0918
BACK _,_
.0502
.0367
.0221
.0587
.0352
.0144
.0125
.0155
,0246
TOTAL
.0875
.1272
.0567
.1165
.0727
.0451
,1194
.0978
.1163
>ccl Exhaust nnc
:+- si.de
EMISSION RATE_Jlb/hr)
FRONT
26.17
65.49
24.16
135.68
83.60
71.67
133.10
101.43
113.93
BACK
35.23
26.56
15.43
137.08
78.68
33.61
15.56
19.10
31.89
TOTAL
61,41
92.05
39. GO
272.06
162.51
105.29
148.66
120.53
150.75
Port
EMISSION FACTOR
__FRONT •
.069
.190
.049
.253
.305
.202
.262
.229
,228
BACK
.093
.077
.031
.256
.288
.095
.031
.043
.061
(Ib/TotO
TOTAL
.163
.267
.079
.509
.594
.296
.292
.272
.289
(1) Tests conducted in the horizontal axis of exhaust duct
-------
TABLE NO. II
D
I
U)
Partieulati Imiiiioni Test Results
BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION
BETHLEHEM
PLANT
"E" Blast Furnace Through Hood Exhaust Duct Top Port
TEST
••:BF-I
•BF-2
•BF-3
:BF-S
:BF-6
:BF-7
ZBF-9
ZBF-10
2BF-11
TEMP
op
106
127
110
113
111
91
128
128
110
FLOW
ACFM
85264
93045
89489
312704
312681
310926
154597
158776
154343
DSCFM
79265
82395
81747
283410
285247
294222
138193
142360
142375
CONCENTRATION .^r/dscf)
FRONT
0.037
0.047
0.056
0.046
0.042
0.034
0.036
0.099
0.118
. BACK .
0.026
0.032
0.003
0.021
0.010
0.014
0.007
0.010
0.013
TOTAL
0.063
0.079
0.059
0.067
0.052
0.048
0.093
0.109
0.131
EMISSION RATE
FRONT
25.14
33.19
38.54
111.74
102.69
85.74
101.87
120.80
144.00
BACK
17.66
22.60
2.10
51.01
24.45
37.83
8.29
12.20
15.86
(Ib/hr)
TOTAL
42.80
55.79
40.64
162.75
127.14
123.57
110.16
133.00
159.86
EMISSION
FRONT
0.07
0.10
0.03
0.21
0.38
0.24
0.21
0.27
0.27
FACTOR fib/Ten^
BACK
0.05
0.07
0.004
0.10
0.09
0.11
0.02
0.03
0.03
TOTAL
0.12
0.17
0.084
0.31
0.47
0.35
0.23
0.30
0.30
(1)
Tests conducted in the vertical axis of exhaust duct.
-------
D
I
Particulate Emission Test Results
BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION
BETHLEHEM PLANT
"E" Blast Furnace Through Hood Exhaust
—
r.
*
I.
L
f.
v
K
K
j\
'. ; ^ i '
\
Yi-l
:i •/-?.
:i:-'-3
37-5
3 :•'- G
->;•-- 7
r>v-9
:>!••- 10
:,?-n
vc.
I "'^ %
•'. i ! i
40
30
40
40
35
65
31
35
35
7;.:;?
o ;.-
1C 5
113
111
116
114
94
103
134
123
1L?.
125
87332
92723
39930
3C3402
301291
302 SG 3
304 185
159199
159033
1597_2_2.
15933G
yr.O;.'
£0575
82413
8J.;;_1 3
S I c 6 7
2.77932.
27302.1
233296
273003
14172.9
14 JO/0
14G30_3
143S67
CC!!C
0.
0.
0.
o..
0.
/;-. i-
52
73
40
55
2.17
144
U4
153
129
126
L5_5_
137
.)
.11
.92
.3D
.76
.72.
.97
.42
.77
.37
.18
v;
• ."i
0,
0,
0_,
0,
0.
0.
0_.
0.
0.
0.
p_.
0.
~S-;T
"vij'_
07
15
10
23'
34
2.6
24
2.5
2JL
2.5
ON' '-'AC
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
9.-.
0.
:,:•:•.
07
07
' V
05
13
19
J._0
16
03
04
.05
04
(IV70,
T."' i'AI,
0,14
0.2.2
p_.09_
0.15
0.41
0.53
0.32
0.42.
0.27
0.2.9
O..J30
0.29
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Intinictions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-77-231
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Blast Furnace Cast House Emission Control
Technology Assessment
5. REPORT DATE
November 1977
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
William P. May
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Betz Environmental Engineers, Inc.
One Plymouth Meeting Hall
Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania 19462
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AB604
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2123
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final; 9/75-6/77
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES IERL-RTP project officer for this report is Robert C. McCrillis,
Mail Drop 62, 919/541-2733.
16. ABSTRACT The gj-u(jy describes the state-of-the-art of controlling fumes escaping from
blast furnace cast houses. Background information is based on: a study of existing
literature; visits to blast furnaces in the U.S. , Japan, and Europe; meetings with an
ad hoc group of experienced blast furnace operators and engineers appointed by the
American Iron and Steel Institute; and a questionnaire sent by AISI to all its members
(the questionnaire resulted in operating and physical characteristics data on 151
standing blast furnaces). The limited emissions data available at the start of the
study had been obtained through the use of various rather imprecise methods. To
obtain additional more precise data, approval was obtained from Dominion Foundries
and Steel, Ltd. , to sample emissions from its No. 1 blast furnace cast house using
EPA sampling methods. (This furnace employs full emissions control using a total
cast house evacuation technique.) Existing cast houses were classed according to
major factors influencing control scheme selection. For yet-to-be-design cast houses,
suggestions are made for optimizing the integration of cast house emission control.
For both retrofit and new classes, technology gaps are identified and the nature and
scope of suitable development programs are proposed to fill these gaps.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
Iron and Steel Industry
Emission
Fumes
Blast Furnaces
Casting
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Cast Houses
13B
11F
13H
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
3] ti
20. SECURITY CLASS (Tliis pav?)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
D-5
------- |