PB 198 349
SYSTEMS ANALYSIS OF EMISSIONS AND EMISSION CON-
TROL IN THE IRON FOUNDRY INDUSTRY. VOLUME II.
EXHIBITS
A. T. Kearney and Company
Chicago , Illinoi s
February 1971
Distributed ... 'to foster, serve
and promote the nation's
economic development
and technological
advancement."
NATIONAL -ECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
This document has been approved lor public release and sale.
-------
PB 198 349
•- ..f*^S, i^C. i~ - ••.
CONTRA|f. fPA 22-69-106;.
.SYSTEMS^LVSIS-'OF; EMISSIONS
/AND EMISSIONS CONTROL JN THE
tiSSLjrfae
jfS5aEr*'-&
•f-'.-T-^l-'i
r . .JEi-.Vt' •
-EXHIBITS
Vfk?
Raproduc*d by
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE
Sprlnqfiold, V». 22151
KSf
1'V;
fe^^ara,,
ifc£«s£fcr
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
SHEET
1. Repon No.
APTD-Q645
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Title and Subtitle
Systems Analysis of Emissions and Emissions Control in the
Iron Foundry Industry Volume II - Exhibits
5. Report Date
February 1971
6.
7. Aothor(s)
8. Performing Organization Rept.
No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
A. T. Kearney & Company, Inc.
100 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract/Grant No.
CPA 22-69-106
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
EPA, Air Pollution Control Office
Technical Center, Box 12055
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27709
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstracts \ • • >
One of three volumes of a study which was conducted for the purpose of defining
the air pollution problems of the iron foundry industry and of setting priorities
for research and development activities that will lead to improved emission control
capabilities at reduced cost.V This volume contains a list of exhibits which are
coordinated with the text in Volume I. Volume III consists of six appendices. The
study includes the following basic facilities and operations: 1. raw material
storage, preparation and charging, 2. Metal melting, 3. Molding, pouring and
shake out, 4. Sand conditioning and reclamation, 5. Cleaning, heat treating and
finishing, 6. Coremaking
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17o. Descriptors
Foundries
Foundry practices
Airborne wastes
Air pollution control equipment
Cost analysis
17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
17e. COSATI Field/Group
13/B
IB. Availability Str.tcmeut
Unlimited
[ 19.. Security Class (This
! Report)
J UNO.ASS1F1ED
NTIHB ('10-70)
?0. Security Cl.iss (This
Page
UNCLAS-.:F;,VD
21. f-Ti). of Pages
22. Price
U3COM4*DC 401!
-------
This report was furnished to the
Air Pollution Control Office by
the A. T. Kearney Company in ful-
fillment of Contract No. CPA 22-69-106.
-------
SYSTEMS ANALYSIS OF EMISSIONS
AND EMISSIONS CONTROL IN THE
IRON FOUNDRY INDUSTRY
VOLUME II EXHIBITS
FEBRUARY, 1971
FOR
Division of Process Control Engineering
Air Pollution Control Office
Environmental Protection Agency
Contract No. CPA 22-69-106
Prepared by
A. T. Kearney & Company, Inc,
Chicago, Illinois
-------
VOLUME II - LIST OF EXHIBITS
Number Title
III-l Iron Foundry Production Trends
III-2 Population Trends in the Foundry
Industry
III-3 Distribution of Iron Foundries, 1969
III-4 Geographical Distribution of Iron
Foundries
III-5 Iron Foundry Cupola Trends
III-6 Iron Foundry Electric Furnace Trends
HI-7 Characteristics and Sources of Emissions
in Various Foundry Departments
IV-1 Iron Foundry Process Flow
IV-2 Process Flow Diagram - Gray, Ductile and
Malleable Iron
IV-3 Summary of Gray Iron Specifications
IV-4 Summary of Ductile Iron Specifications
IV-5 Summary of Malleable Iron Specifications
IV-6 Iron Foundry Scrap Specifications
IV-7 Pig Iron and Ferroalloy Specifications
IV-8 Process Flow Diagram - Raw Material
Storage and Charge Makeup
IV-9 Process Flow Diagram - Melting Department
IV-10 Electric Arc Furnace - Heat and Material
Balance
A.T.KEARNEY 8e COMPANY, INC.
-------
- 2 -
Number Title
IV-11 Coreless Induction Furnace - Heat and
Material Balance
IV-12 Process Flow Diagram - Molding, Pouring
and Shakeout
IV-13 Process Flow Diagram - Cleaning and
Finishing
IV-14 Process Flow Diagram - Sand Conditioning
IV-15 Process Flow Diagram - Coremaking
IV-16 Illustration of Conventional Lined
Cupola
IV-17 Illustration of Water-Cooled Cupola
IV-18 Illustration of Cupola Reaction Area
IV-19 Illustration of Electric Arc Furnace
IV-20 Illustration of Channel Induction
Furnace
IV-21 Illustration of Coreless Induction
Furnace
IV-22 Illustration of Reverberatory Furnace
IV-23 Illustration of Magnesium Treatment
Methods for Producing Ductile Iron
IV-24 Illustration, of Pouring Station with
Horizontal Draft, Cantilevered Hood
IV-25 Illustration of Shakeout Station
IV-26 Illustration of Sand Muller
IV-27 Illustration of Blast Cleaning Unit
TT A O X' IT •*!• ft
-------
Number Title
VI-1 Ringelmann Scale for Grading Density of
Smoke
VI-2 Pertinent ASME Items Which Must Be
Conformed to by Parties Conducting a
Stack Sampling Test
VI-3 Design Features of the Cupola
VI-4 Design Features of the Electric Arc
VI-5 Design Features of the Induction
Furnace
VI-6 Classification of Lined and Unlined
Cupola Furnaces Found in Practice
VI-7 Chemical Composition of Cupola
Particulate Emissions
VI-8 Particle Size Distribution - Cupola
Emissions
VI-9 Parameters of Cupola Furnaces -
Linear Regression Analyses of Emissions
Affected by Furnace Design Factors
VI-10 Multiple Linear Regression Correlation
Matrices
VI-11 Linear Regression Analyses Observations
VI-12 Particulate Emissions vs Specific Blast
Rate for Acid Lined Cupolas
VI-13 Effect of Specific Blast Rate and Coke Rate on
Particulate Emissions from Unlined Cupolas
VI-14 Effect of Type of Scrap on Amount of
Iron Oxide Present
VI-15 Results of Size Distribution and
Chemical Analysis for Three Electric
Arc Installations
VI-16 Emissions Data from Electric Arc
Melting Furnaces
A.T.KEARNEY & COMPANY. INC.
-------
- 4 -
Number Title
VI-17 Relationship between Rate of Emissions
and Heat Cycle for Electric Arc Melting
VI-18 Treatment Agents for Producing Ductile
Iron
VI-19 Magnesium Treatment Systems Emissions
Report for Ductile Iron Production and
Gray Iron Desulfurization
VI-20 Molding Sand Gas Analyses
VI-21 Molding Sand Gas Evolution and Hot
Permeability
VI-22 Gas Volume Evolved as a Function of
Volatiles Contained in Molding Sand
VI-23 Effect of Baking Time on Gas Generated dur-
ing Pouring for Various Baking Temperatures
VI-24 Effect of Sand to Oil Ratio on Amount
of Core Gas Generated during Pouring
VII-1 Cyclone Collector
VII-2 High Efficiency Centrifugal Collector
VII-3 Dry Dynamic Precipitator Collector
VII-4 Wet Cap Collector
VII-5 Wet Dynamic Precipitator Collector
VII-6 Vane-Type Centrifugal Wet Collector
VII-7 Multiple Tube-Type Centrifugal Wet
Collector
VII-8 Orifice-Type Wet Collector
VII-9 Centrifugal Spray Wet Collector
VII-10 Marble Bed-Type Wet Collector
-------
- 5 -
Number Title
VII-11 Impingement Baffle Grid-Type Wet
Collector
VII-12 Venturi Collector
V1I-13 Wet Collector Particle Collection
Limitations and Design Capacities
VII-14 Cutaway View Showing Fabric Filter,
Flat or Screen-Type Bag
VII-15 Cutaway View Showing Fabric Filter
Tubular-Type Bag
VII-16 Intermittent Fabric Filter Collector
VII-17 Continuous Automatic Fabric Filter
Collector
VII-18 Reverse Jet Continuous Fabric Filter
Collector
VII-19 Wet-Type Electrostatic Precipitator
Effluent Cleaning System
VII-20 Dry-Type Electrostatic Precipitator
Effluent Cleaning System
VII-21 Collection Efficiency of Emission
Control Equipment Systems
VII-22 Grading of Test Dust
VII-23 Overall Collection Efficiency on Test
Dust
VII-24 Chemical Composition of Cupola Dust
by Weight
VII-25 Grade Efficiency Curve, Dry Electro-
static Precipitator, High Efficiency
Cyclone
VII-26 Calculation of Collector Efficiency
A.T.KEARNEY & COMPANY, INC.
-------
- 6 -
Number
VII-27
VII-28
VII-29
VII-30
Title
Grade Efficiency Curve for Fabric
Filter, Effect of Particle Size and
Length of Bag in Service on Fabric
Filter Efficiency
Relationship between Collection
Efficiency, Particle Size and Pres-
sure Drop for Venturi Scrubbers
Cupola Afterburner, Catalytic After-
burner Applied to Core Bake Oven
Process
Application of Emission Control Equip-
ment Systems to Foundry Processes
VIII-1
VIII-2
VIII-3
VIII-4
VIII-5
VIII-6
VIII-7
VIII-8
VIII-9
Conditions Affecting Installation Cost
of Control Devices
Investment Cost Equations for Equipment
Installed on Cupolas
Total Investment Cost vs Gas Volume
for Wet Scrubber on Cupolas
Total Investment Cost vs Gas Volume for
Fabric Filters on Cupolas
Total Investment Cost vs Gas Volume
for Mechanical Collectors on Cupolas
Approximate Melting Rates and Gas
Volumes for Lined Cupolas
Approximate Melting Rates and Gas
Volumes for Unlined Cupolas
Comparison of Gas Take-Off above
Charge Door and Below Charge Door.
Lined "Cupola, Coke Ratio 8/1
High Energy Wet Scrubber Total Invest-
ment Cost vs Melt Rate for Unlined Cupola
8/1 Coke Ratio
-------
Number
VIII-10
VIII-11
VIII-12
VIII-13
VIII-14
VIII-15
VIII-16
VIII-17
VIII-18
VIII-19
VIII-20
VIII-21
VIII-22
VIII-23
Title
High Energy Wet Scrubber Total Invest-
ment Cost vs Melt Rate for Lined Cupola,
8/1 Coke Ratio
Low Energy Wet Scrubber Total Investment
Cost vs Melt Rate for Unlined Cupola,
8/1 Coke Ratio
Low Energy Wet Scrubber Total Investment
Cost vs Melt Rate for Lined Cupola, 8/1
Coke Ratio
Fabric Filter Total Investment Cost vs
Melt Rate for Unlined Cupola, 8/1 Coke
Ratio
Fabric Filter Total Investment Cost vs
Melt Rate for Lined Cupola, 8/1 Coke
Ratio
Total Investment Costs for Wet Caps
Calculation of Wet Scrubber Efficiency
for Various Pressure Drops
Comparison of Cupola Outlet Dust Load-
ing and Pressure Drop for Wet Scrubbers
Approximate Exhaust Volumes for Electric
Arc
Installed Cost of Fabric Filter on
Electric Arc
Total Annual Costs for High Energy Wet
Scrubbers on Cupolas
Total Annual Costs for Low Energy Wet
Scrubbers on Cupolas
Relative Changes in Total Annual Costs
vs Pressure Drop for Wet Scrubbers
Total Annual Cost for Fabric Filters on
Cupolas
A.T.KEARNEY 8e COMPANY. INC.
-------
- 8 -
Number
VIII-24
VIII-25
VIII-26
VIII-27
VIII-28
VIII-29
VIII-30
VIII-31
VIII-32
VIII-33
Title
Total Annual Cost for Fabric Filters on
Electric Arc
Comparison of Cost per Ton of Melt for
High Energy Wet Scrubber on Unlined
Cupola at Different Levels of Operation,
5/1 Coke Ratio
Comparison of Cost per Ton of Melt for
High Energy Wet Scrubber on Lined Cupola
at Different Levels of Operation, 8/1
Coke Ratio
Comparison of Cost per Ton of Melt for
Low Energy Wet Scrubber on Unlined
Cupola at Different Levels of Operation,
5/1 Coke Ratio
Comparison of Cost per Ton of Melt for
Low Energy Wet Scrubber on Lined Cupola
at Different Levels of Operation, 8/1
Coke Ratio
Comparison of Cost per Ton of Melt for
Fabric Filter on Unlined Cupola at Dif-
ferent Levels of Operation, 5/1 Coke
Ratio
Comparison of Cost per Ton of Melt for
Fabric Filter on Lined Cupola at Different
Levels of Operation, 8/1 Coke Ratio
Summary of Capital Costs to Produce
Iron under Various Production and
Operating Conditions
Summary of Operating Costs for Produc-
ing Iron under Various Production and
Operating Conditions
Capital and Operating Costs per Ton
versus Operating Hours per Year for
Cold Blast Cupola with Fabric Filter
(Alternate No.,1)
-------
- 9 -
Number
VIII-34
VIII-35
VIII-36
Title
Capital and Operating Costs per Ton vs
Operating Hours per Year for Hot Blast
Cupola with Wet Scrubber (Alternate
No. 2)
Capital and Operating Costs per Ton vs
Operating Hours per Year for Electric
Arc Furnace with Fabric Filter (Alternate
No. 3)
Capital and Operating Costs per Ton vs
Operating Hours per Year for Coreless
Induction Furnace with Afterburner on
Preheater (Alternate No. 4)
IX-1
Modifications to Cupola Melting Prac-
tices to Reduce Emissions
XI-1
XI-2
XI-3
XII-
Inventory of Iron Foundry Emissions from
Melting Operations, 1969
Inventory of Iron Foundry Emissions from
Non-Melting Operations, 1969
Priority Rating Chart
Proposed Research and Development Projects
-------
IRON FOUNDRY PRODUCTION TRENDS
TOI «L »CTU»L man
CMIWt PHOOUCTIO*
(UMI j _.
-------
POPULATION TRENDS IN THE FOUNDRY INDUSTRY
-I ! -S
i i i '
—\
1
1
i
i
^
LM«_I
— T
MM raunmm
(UW 1
we
UN IRON
(US
FOUNDRIES
1
"1 "~
ami
6J 63 67 69
YEAR
-------
cXHtBTK-S
DISTRIBUTION OF IRON FOUNDRIES
1969
NUMBER OF RON FOUNDRES M EACH STATE
SOUICt, rfHTOM PUI1ISNINO CO.
-------
5,200
CO
g
u.
o
-I
IRON FOUNDRY CUPOLA TRENDS
JCUPOLAS (USA)
HOT BLAST CUPOLAS (USA B CANADA!
BATER COOLED HOT BLAST CUPOLAS
(USA a CANADA)
m
x
a
o>
49 51 53 55 57 59
SOURCE: PENTON PUBLISHING CO.
61
63 65 67 69
YEAR
71
73
75 77 . 79 81
-------
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF IRON FOUNDRIES
Gray I ron
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Ma ry 1 and
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total United States
1969
56
1
4
10
88
15
24
1
-
17
32
3
4
97
75
36
24
11
10
8
13
53
114
36
7
28
2
7
1
8
45
-
82
30
3
151
17
13
155
8
15
1
41
56
11
8
33
21
12
34
1967
56
_
3
11
86
17
23
2
.
19
29
4
4
104
81
37
22
15
10
8
12
56
122
35
7
30
2
8
1
5
44
1
88
33
2
162
14
16
183
9
16
2
45
63
9
8
34
21
12
82
1965
59
—
3
10
95
18
24
2
1
19
32
3
4
107
75
38
22
16
16
8
13
57
127
35
8
29
2
8
1
4
48
2
97
36
2
159
14
17
189
, 9
15
2
48
61
10
10
37
23
12
85
1963
65
4
10
102
20
29
2
1
20
35
3
4
113
84
43
23
16
13
9
14
67
133
38
8
33
4
8
1
8
56
1
103
41
2
163
17
16
198
10
17
3
52
68
10
10
37
23
13
87
Ductile Iron
1969
17
1
1
29
4
7
_
3
8
1
32
16
8
9
2
2
1
5
13
36
8
6
1
2
12
17
7
61
12
5
48
2
4
7
18
5
1
7
8
5
28
1967
16
~
I
23
3
6
~
3
6
1
31
12
6
6
1
2
3
9
32
5
5
.
1
10
16
5
52
6
7
43
1
5
8
17
4
_
5
7
4
25
1965
17
~
1
24
4
6
1
2
6
1
29
12
5
7
2
2
9
28
4
3
.
"
10
19
4
46
6
7
41
1
5
7
11
5
—
5
6
2
23
1963
12
~
1
23
3
5
1
2
7
1
28
11
5
7
1
2
7
28
3
4
_
~
9
17
6
46
5
6
34
2
2
5
8
5
3
5
2
22
Malleable
1969
2
1
4
9
4
1
1
2
9
16
16
1
1
1
10
1967
10
4
2
18
14
1
I
I
10
1,571
1.653
1.712
1.837
459
387
361
328
1965
11
4
1
1
1
10
16
13
1
1
1
11
95
4
1
5
11
5
2
18
1
14
1
2
1
1
1
11
104
to
M
H
Source: Foundry Magazine Census of Foundries.
-------
EXHIBIT m-6
Ul
ac
ui
CD
800
700
600
SOO
400
300
ZOO
100
0_
IRON FOUNDRY ELECTRIC FURNACE TRENDS
CHANNEL INDUCTION
CORELESS
INDUCT
ON
1957 59
61
SOURCE . DATA PROVIDED BY FURNACE MANUFACTURERS
-------
CHARACTERISTICS AND SOURCES OF EMISSIONS
IN VARIOUS FOUNDRY DEPARTMENTS
EXHIBIT III-7
Page 1 of 3
DEPARTMENT
RAW MATERIAL STORAGE
AND CHARGE MAKEUP
MELTING
MOLDING, POURING AND
SRAKEOUT
OPERATION
Score metal scrap, coke, limestone,
dolomite, fluorspar, silica sand
Centrifuge or heat metal borings
and turnings to remove cutting oil
Weigh charge materials
Cupola furnace melting
Electric furnace melting
Induction furnace melting
Reverberatory (Air) furnace
Furnace charge preheating or drying
Holding furnaces
Duplexing furnaces
Inoculation
Molding
EMISSIONS
TYPE
Dust: Coke,
limestone and sand.
Oi. vapors
Smo .e
Unbumed hydrocarbons
Coke dust
Limestone dust
Fly ash, dust
Coke breeze
Smoke
Metallic oxides
Sulfur compounds
Oil vapors
Carbon monoxide
Smoke
Metallic oxides
Oil vapors
Oil vapors, metallic
oxides
Smoke
Oil vapors
Metallic oxides
Fly ash, sulfur com-
pounds
Smoke, dust
Oil vapors
Metallic oxides
Metallic oxides
Iron oxide
Oil vapcr
Oil vapor
Metallic oxides
Metallic oxides
Dust, mist
Vapor
CONCENTRATION
3 to 5gr./cu.ft.
Moderate
Light
Light
Light
3 to 5gr./cu.ft.
Moderate
.2 to Sgr./cu.ft.
5gr./cu.ft. & up
Heavy
Moderate to heavy
Light
Light
Heavy
Heavy
Moderate
Heavy
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
.2 to Sgr./cu.ft.
Light to heavy
Light to heavy
1.24* /ton
.4 If /ton
Light
Light
Light
Light
Heavy
Light
PARTICLE
SIZE
(Microns)
Fine to coarse
30 to 1,000
.03 to 1
.01 Co .4
Fine to coarse
30 to 1,000
8 to 20
Fine to coarse
.01 to .4
To .7
.03 to 1
,01 to .4
To .7
.03 to 1
.01 to .4
.03 to 1
To .7
8 to 20
.01 to .4
.03 to 1
757.-S to 60 bottom fired
0 to 20 top fired
Fine to medium
.03 to 1
.03 to 1
To .7
To 0.7
Coarse
RELATIVE
CONTROL-
LABILITY
Moderate
to
Difficult
Moderate
to
Difficult
Moderate
Easy
Difficult
Easy
Easy to
moderate
Easy
Moderate
Easy
RELATIVE
COST
Medium
High
Medium
to high
Little
or none
High
Low
Low
None to
medium
Medium
Low
-------
CHARACTERISTICS AND SOURCES OF EMISSIONS
IN VARIOUS FOUNDRY DEPARTMENTS
EXHIBIT III-7
Page 2 of 3
DEPARTMENT
MOLDING, POURING AND
SHAKEOUT (Cont'd)
CLEANING AND FINISHING
SAND CONDITIONING
OPERATION
Pouring
Grav and ductile iron
Malleable
Shakeout
Abrasive cleaning
Grinding
Annealing and heat treating
Painting
Spray and dip
New sand storage
Sand handling system
Screening
Mixing
f : EMISSION; • 1
TYPE
Core gases
Facing fumes
Metallic oxides
Fluoride fumes
Magnesium oxide fumes
Synthetic binder
Smoke and fumes
Dust
Smoke
Steam
Dust
Metal dust
Sand dust
Abrasive dust
Wheel bond material
Vitrified resins
Oil vapors, gas products
of combustion
Solvent vapors
Paint spray carry-over
Water spray carry-over
Dust
Dust
Steam
Dust
Dust
Flour
Bentonites
Sea coal
Cellulose
Drying and reclamation Dv:.;-
) Core gi?^E
CONCENTRATION
Heavy
Heavy
Light
Heavy
Heavy
Moderate to
heavy
3 to Sgr./cu.ft.
Heavy
Heavy
3gr./cu.ft.& up
Sgr./cu.ft.& up
3 to Sgr./cu.ft.
.5 to 2gr./cu.ft
Light
Light
.5 to 2gr./cu.ft
3 to Sgr./cu.ft.
3 to 5gr./cu.ft.
3 to Sgr./cu.ft.
3 to Sgr./cu.ft.
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
1/2 co 2gr./cu.ft.
PARTICLE
SIZE
(Microns)
Fine to medium
.01 to .4
50%- 2 to 15
.01 to .4
50%-2 to 15
Above 7
Fine to medium
50%- 2 to 7
Fine
50%-2 to 15
.03 to 1
50%- 2 to 7
50%-2 to 15
50%- 2 to 15
50%-2 to 15
50%- 2 to 15
Fine to medium
Fine to medium
Fine to medium \
Fine to mediui-. :
RELATIVE1
CONTROL-
LABILITY
Moderate
Moderate
Easy
Medium
Moderate
Easy
Moderate
Moderate
Easy
Easy
RELATIVE
COST
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Low-
Low
High
Medium
Low
Medivrn
50?.- 7 to 15 ij Eagv Mediur
.03 tc 1
; I
) i
1
I
-------
EXHI tIT IV-26
ILLUSTRATION OF SAND MULLER
Source: Beardsley & Piper,
-------
EXHIBIT IV-25
ILLUSTRATION OF SHAKEOUT STATION
Source: Molding Methods and Materials;
Published by the American
Foundrymen's Society, 1962, p. 205.
-------
EXHIBIT IV-24
ILLUSTRATION OF POURING STATION WITH HORIZONTAL DRAFT,
CANTILEVERED HOOD
Source: Modern Casting, published by the American
Foundryraen's Society, Inc., November, 1970,
p. 83.
-------
EXHIBIT IV-2
ILLUSTRATION OF MAGNESIUM TREATMENT METHODS
FOR PRODUCING DUCTILE IRON
PRESSURE LADLE
PRESSURE CHAMBER
DETACHABLE BOTTOM LADLE
(MAC-COKE)
GAS
INJECTION
TRICKLING-IN (GA2AL)
PLUNGING
POUR-OVER
THROW-IN
PLUNGING
Source: "Comparing Processes for Making
Ductile Iron," E. Modi, FOUNDRY,
July, 1970, pp. 44-46.
-------
EXHIBIT IV-22
ABRASIVE
ELEVATOR
ABRASIVE
HOPPER
ABRASIVE SEPARATOR
AND HOPPER
ABRASIVE
FEED VALVE
WHEELABRATOR
APRON
CONVEYOR
Source: Eclipse Fuel Engineering Company.
-------
EXHIBIT IV-21
ILLUSTRATION OF CORELESS INDUCTION FURNACE
A. HYDRAULIC TILT CYLINDERS
B. SHUNTS
C. STANCHION
D. COVER
E COIL
f. LEADS
G. WORKING REFRACTORY
H. OPERATOR'S PLATFORM
I. STEEL SHELL
J. TIE RODS
K. CLAMPING BOLTS
I. COIL SUPPORT
M SPOUT
N. REFRACTORY BRICK
O. ACCESS PORT
P. LID HOIST MECHANISM
Source: "Electric Melting for Mass Production
in U.S. Iron Foundries,"
Modern Casting, July, 1968, p. 47.
-------
EXHIBIT IV-20
ILLUSTRATION OF CHANNEL INDUCTION FURNACE
I AQU KCTURN SPOUT
POUR SPOUTS
Source; "Electric Melting for Mass Production
in U.S. Iron Foundries "
Modern Casting, July, 1968, p. 47.
-------
ILLUSTRATION OF ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE
EXHLBIT IV-19
TRANSFORMER
ELECTRONIC
CONTROLS
MAINTAIN
PROPER ARC
CHARGING
MACHINE
CHARGES
THROUGH
THIS DOOR
CIRCUIT
BREAKER
FLOOR CUT AWAY
TO SHOW TILTING
MECHANISM
ELECTRODES
CONTROL
PANEL
TAPPING SPOUT
SLAG
Source: The Picture Story of Steel,
published by the American Iron
and Steel Institute, 1952,
p. 18.
-------
EXH BIT IV-18
ILLUSTRATION OF CUPOLA REACTION AREA
"^"^-••«••—«^^I^_^M —«M^HI^M
LUXxIZIS
METAL CHARGE
fTTTYYTTTl
Fig. 3.3. Cross-section of cupola showing reaction arex.
A — O2 + CO2 D — High CO: CO2 ratio
B — Area high in O2 E — High CO: CO2 ratio
C — CO + CO2
Source: The Cupola and Its Operation;
published by the American
Foundrymen's Society, Third
Edition, 1965, P-, .26.
-------
EXHLBITIV-17
ILLUSTRATION OF WATER-COOLED CUPOLA
Skip-hoist roil
(Iot2)
Brick lining
Cost iron lining
Charging door
Water outlet
Steel outer shell
Steel inner shell
Water inlet
Stock
Skip-hoisl roil
(Iof2)
Charging
deck
Bnck lining
Cast iron lining
Charging door
-Water flow between
nner and outer shell
Sohd
Slack
Prop
Prop
Water-cooled cupola (water-wall)
Water-cooled cupola (flood cooled)
Source: Metals Handbook, 8th Edition, Vol. 5,
Forging and Casting, American Society
for Metals, 1970, p. 337.
-------
EXHIBIT IV-16
ILLUSTRATION OF CONVENTIONAL LINED CUPOLA
Skip-hoist rail
(Iof2)
BricK lining —
Cost iron lining -
Charging door—'
Chorgin
deck
Wind bo«
Stock
• / Relroclory lining
Blast duct
Iron trough
Tophole for iron
(slag hole is 180°
opposite)
Sand bed
Door (I of 2)
Prop
Conventional cupola
Source: Metals Handbook, 8th Edition, Vol. 5,
Forging and Casting, American Society
for Metals, 1970, p. 337.
-------
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
CORE MAKING
EXHIBIT IV-15
RESIN
I
CORE SAND
I
CEREAL BINDER
ACCELERATORS
KEROSENE
ALCOHOL
SAND MIXER
CORE SAND
STORAGE
SHELL OR
HOT BOX
MACHINE
CORE
MOLDING
MACHINE
I
CLAY
WATER
CORE OIL
I
CORE
EXTRUDING
MACHINE
GASSING
STATION
I
I
CORE
OVEN
1
CORE
FINISHING
T
TO MOLDING AREA
OTHER
ADDITIVES
J
CORE
BENCH
J
-------
BO
M
H
-------
EXHIBIT IV-1 "
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
CLEANING & FINISHING
FROM SHAKEOHT.
COOL
SORT
• REMOVE
GATES ANT
RISER"
P
HEAT
TREAT
SURFACE
CLEAN
TRIM
INSPECT
STRF.SS
RELIEF
PRESS
STRAICHTEN
SURFACE
COAT
-------
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
MOLDING. POURING & SHAKEOUT
SAND FROM SAMP CONDITIONING
CORES FROM CORE DEPARTMENT
CORE
DRY SAMP
MOLDING SAND
1
HOLDING
MACHINE
1
BAKE
OVEN
1
COOL
1
ASSEMBLE
HOLD
SAND TO SAND CONDITION INT.. RECLAMATION OR REFUSE
• MISCELLANEOUS - PARTING COMPOUND. WASH, CIWH.ETS. ETC.
X
H
H
I
t->
NJ
-------
EXHIBIT IV-?2
ILLUSTRATION OF REVERBERATORY FURNACE
ECLIPSE CENTRIFUGAL
BLOWER CHARGING HOPPER
RECUPERATORS
REMOVARTF ARPH HIGH CAPACITY GAS
REMOVABLE ARCH OR OIL BURNER
ALLOYING AND
INSPECTION DOOR
POURING SPOUT
Source: The Wheelabrator Corporation.
-------
HEAT BALANCE BTU/TON PERCENT
(x 000)
INPUT HEAT
ELECTRICAL ENERGY 1,669 100.0
OUTPUT REAT
MELTING AND SUPER-
HEATING IRON 1,131 68.4
ELECTIRCAL LOSSES 325 19.1
TRANSMISSION LOSSES 81 4.7
HEAT LOSS 132 7.8
TOTAL 1.669
SOTE: ENERGY QUANTITIES INCLUDE
ONLY THEORETICAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR HEATING, MELTING. AND
SUPERHEATING TO 28006 T,
AND NORMAL ELECTRICAL,
TRANSMISSION AND HEAT LOSSES.
THE TOTAL IS LESS THAN THE
AVERAGE USED IN IDRMAL PRAC-
TICE SINCE IT DOES MOT INCLUDE
ALLOWANCES FOR HOLDING, OR
NORMAL OPERATING DELAYS.
MATERIAL BALANCE
INPUT MATERIALS
RETURNS
STEEL SCRAP
IRON CHIPS
FERROALLOYS
LINING
CARBO-COKE
TOTAL
OUTPUT MATERIALS
MOLTEN IRON
SLAG
EMISSIONS
GASEOUS
PARTICIPATE
TOTAL
POUNDS PERCENT
18.6
66.7
9.3
2.1
.3
3.0
100.0
2,000.0 98.7
10.0 .5
Charging
Opening
Tapping
Spout
Charge
Metal
Cables
CORELESS INDUCTION FURNACE - HEAT AMD MATERIAL BALANCE
-------
HEAT BALANCE
BTU/Ton
(xlOOO)
Percent
MATERIAL BALANCE
Input Material
Percent
Input Heat
Electrical
Energy
Output Heat
Melting and
Superheating
Iron
Heat Content
of Slag
Decomposition
of Water
Gases
Sensible Heat
Latent Heat
Heat, Electrical
and Cooling
Losses
Total
1,907
1,132
81
9
231
-138
592
1,407
100.0
59.3
4.3
.5
12.1
- 7.2
31.0
100.0
Returns
Steel Scrap
Ferroalloys
Carbo-Coke
Electrodes
Air
Moisture
Lining
Total
Output Material
Molten Iron
Slag
Particulate
Emissions
Gaseous
Emissions
Total
1,388
630
17
31
10
318
8
38
2,440
1,997
93
14
336
2,440
56.9
25.8
.7
1.3
.4
13.0
.3
1.6
100.0
81.8
3.8
.6
13.8
100.0
NOTE: Energy quantities Include
only theoretical requirements
for heating, melting, and
superheating to 2800° F,
and normal electrical, trans-
mission and heat losses. The
total is less than the average
used in normal practice since it
does not include allowances for
holding, or normal operating
delays.
Electrodes (3)
Electrode
Holder
Tapping
Spout
Furnace Roof
Charge
Metal
Lining
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE - HEAT AMD MATERIAL BALANCE
-------
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAH
KSLTING DEPARTMENT
FUEL
LADLE METALLICS
ADDITIONS CHARGE
FLUX
CHARGE
1 1
1 1
REVERBERATORY ELECTRIC
AIR INDUCTION
FURNACE FURNACE
1
1 1
HOLDING
FURNACE
FUEL
CHARGE
1 1
ELECTRIC
ARC
FURNACE
, INOCUL
CUPOLA
FURNACE
1 1
1
DUPLEXING
FURNACE
1
1
FOREHEARTH
1
LADLE
ANT
POUR
-------
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
RAW MATERIAL STORAGE AND
FURNACE CHARGE MUCE1IP
EXHIBIT IV-8
FROM FOUNDRY
RECEIVE
CHARGING
MECHANISM
FURNACE
r r i
COKE
SCREEN
WEIGH
;ARBONATE<
J
FLUORIDES CARBIDES
' ,
1
-------
PIG IRON AND FERROALLOY SPECIFICATIONS
Designation
Fl - Foundry, low Phosphorus
Fh - Foundry, high phosphorus
Fs - Foundry, Southern
S - Silvery
Ferromanganese
| Ferrophosphorus
Spiec-.eleisen
Ferrosilicon
i
Silicon
Percent
1.75 - 3.50
1.75 - 3.50
1.75 - 3.50
5.0 - 17.0
1.25 Max.
1.50 - 1.75
1.0 Max.
8.0 - 18.0
Sulfur
tex. Percent
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.04 - .06
Phosphorus
Percent
.30 - .50
.501 - .700
.70 - .90
.30 Max.
.10 - .35
Max.
17.0 - 25.0
Max .
.25 Max.
.05 - .15
Manganese
Percent
.50 - 1.25
.50 - 1.25
.40 - .75
1.0 - 2.00
Max.
.78 - .85
.07 - .50
L6.0 - 28.0
-
Carbon
Percent
-
-
-
-
Up to 7.50
1.1 - 2.0
6.5 Max.
.15 - 1.50
Source: The Modern Blast Furnace, Iron and Steel Engineers, April, 1946.
-------
IRON FOUNDRY SCRAP SPECIFICATIONS
Source
Agricultural and Stove Scrap
Soil Pipe
Automotive Blocks
Malleable Iron
Machinery Castings
Light
Medium
Heavy
Cast Iron Car Wheels
Ductile Iron
Carbon
Percent
3.25 - 3.60
3.25 - 3.60
3.10 - 3.45
2.25 - 2.65
3.35 - 3.55
3.25 - 3.45
3.15 - 3.30
3.40 - 3.60
3.35 - 3.55
Silicon
Percent
2.35 - 2.55
2.35 - 2.50
2.10 - 2.50
1.20 Max.
2.25 - 2.55
2.20 - 2.25
1.80 - 2.10
.60 - .80
2.25 - 2.55
Sulfur
Percent
.08 - .13
.12 Max.
.12 Max.
.05 Max.
.10 Max.
.12 Max.
.12 Max.
.09 - .15
.04 Max.
Phosphorus
Percent -
.50 - .70
.65 - .90
.15 - .30
.05 Max.
.20 Max.
.12 - .18
.12 - .20
.15 - .25
.08 Max.
Manganese
Percent
.50 - .70
.50 - .70
.50 - .70
.40 Max.
.55 - .70
.55 - .70
.65 - .75
.55 - .65
.50 Max.
Source: Adapted from "Maximum Limits for Specified Elements in Foundry Grade Scrap."
Data collected by American Foundrymen's Society.
-------
SUMMARY OF MALLEABLE IRON SPECIFICATIONS
TYPICAL COMPOSITION RANGES
Carbon Silicon Manganese Sulfur Phosphorus
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
Type Grade Min. MaxT Min. MaxT Min. Max. Min, MaxT Min. Max,
Ferritic Malleable 32510 2,30 2.65 .90 1.65 .25 .55 .05 .18 - .18
Iron
35018 2,00 2.45 .95 1.35 .25 .55 .05 .18 - .18
Pearlitic Malleable - 2.00 2.65 .90 1.65 .25 1.25 .05 .18 - .18
Iron
Source: American Society for Metals
Handbook, Vol. 1, 1961.
X
-------
SUMMARY OF DUCTILE IRON SPECIFICATIONS
Tensile
Class Strength
Specifying
Body and Number
American
Society
for
Testing
and
Materials
A439-62
American
Society
for
Testing
and
Materials
Use
Austenltic Ductile
Iron Castings
Ferrltic Ductile Iron
Castings for Valves,
Flanges, Pipe Flanges,
Pipe Fittings and
Other Piping
Components
or Minimum
Grade PS I
D-2
D-2B
D-2C
D-3
D-3A
D-4
D-5
D-5B
60-45-15
58,000
58,000
58 , 000
55, QUO
55,000
60,000
55,000
55,000
60,000
Yield
Strengtf
Minimum
PS I
30,000
30,000
28,000
30,000
30,000
-
30,000
30,000
45,000
Total
Carbon
Percent
Mln. Max.
3.00
3.00
2.90
2.60
2.60
2.60
2.40
2.40
3.00 -
Silicon
Percent
Min.
1.50
1.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
1.00
1.00
Max.
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.80
2.80
6.00
2.80
2.80
2.50
Manganese Phosphorus Nickel
Percent Percent Percent
Mln. Max. Min.
.70 1.25
.70 1.25 -
1.80 2.40
1.00 -
1.00
1.00 -
1.00
1.00 -
Max. Min. Max.
.08 18.00 22.00
.08 18.00 22.00
.08 21.00 24.00
.08 28.00 32.00
.08 28.00 32.00
.08 28.00 32.00
.08 34.00 36.00
.08 34.00 36.00
.08 -
Chromium
Percent
Min.
1.75
2.75
-
2.50
1.00
4.50
-
2.00
Max.
2.75
4.00
.50
3.50
1.50
5.50
.10
3.00
Brlnell
Hardness
Min.
139
148
121
139
131
202
131
139
149
Max.
202
211
171
202
193
273
185
193
201
A445-63T
Source: Gray and Ductile Iron Founders' Society, Inc.
-------
SUMMARY OF GRAY IRON SPECIFICATIONS
Specifying Specifying
"3ody Number
American
Society
for
Testing
and
Materials A159-62T
Society
of
Automotive
Engineers J431a
General
Services
Adtninistra- QQ- 1-653
tion
Tensile
Strength
Minimum
Brinell Total Silicon
Hardness Carbon Percent Percent
Class PSI Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum
G2000(110) 20,000
G3000(lll) 30,000
G3000a(113) 30,000
G4000b(114) 40,000
G3500c(115) 35,000
G3500(120) 35,000
G4000(121) 40,000
G4500(122) 45,000
G4000d(123A) 40,000
G4000e(123B) 40,000
G4000f(123C) 40,000
187 3.40 3.70 2.30 2.80
170 223 3.20 3.50 2.00 2.30
179 229 3.40 - 1.10 2,10
207 269 3.40 - 1.10 1.80
187 241 3.50 - 1.10 1.80
187 241 3.10 3.40 1.90 2.20
202 255 3.00 3.30 1.80 2.10
217 269 3.00 3.30 1.80 2.10
248 311 3.10 3.40 2.10 2.40
248 311 3.10 3.45 2.10 2.40
248 311 3.40 3.75 2.10 2.35
Source: Gray and Ductile Iron Founders' Society, Inc.
M
X
ac
w
H
t-t
-------
PROCESS Fl.ny DIAGRAM
CRAY. DUCTILE AND MALLEABLE IRON
EXHIBIT IV-2
CORE-
MAKINC
RAW MATERIAL STORAGE
AND FURNACE CHARGE
MAKEUP
HOLD
I
MELT
LADLE
ADDITIONS
MAGNESIUM
TREATMENT
DUCTILE IRON ONLY
SAND CONDITIONING
AND RECLAMATION
•
ANNEAL
HALLE
£ AND
LBLE
WLY
ABLE
IRON ONLY
\
MESS
STRAIGHTEN
SHAKEOUT
1
CLEAN
•
FINISH
sirai
CO/
\
t
ACE
T
SHIP
•
\ '
HEAT
TREAT
NOTE: ALL OPERATIONS APPLY TO CRAY, DUCTILE AND MALLEABLE IRON UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
-------
METALLICS
IRON FOUNDRY
PROCESS FLOW
SOURCES OF EMISSIONS
FINISHING
OUST
DUCTILE IRON
INNOCULATION
CASTING
SHAKEOUT
COOLING AND
CLEANING
SAND
PREPARATION
-------
CHARACTERISTICS AND SOURCES OF EMISSIONS
IN VARIOUS FOUNDRY DEPARTMENTS
EXHIBIT III-7
Page 3 of 3
DEPARTMENT
COREMAKING
OPERATION
Sand storage
Coremaking
Baking
EMISSIONS -
TYPE
Dust
Flour
Binders
Resin dust
Sand dust
Vapors, gases
Smoke
CONCENTRATION
Heavy
3 to 5gr./cu.£t.
Heavy
Light
_
PARTICLE
SIZE
(Microns)
Fine
50%- 7 to 15
Fine to medium
Fine to medium
-
RELATIVE
CONTROL-
LABILITY
Moderate
Moderate
Easy
RELATIVE
COST
High
Medium
Medium
-------
EXHIBIT Vl-2
Page 2 of 2
TEST METHODS
Method A. This method is based on the
determination of the average dust concentra-
tion at the inlet of the separator and at the
outlet of the separator. From these data the
efficiency can be computed in accordance with
the equations given in Section 5 of reference,
which are based on the assumption that no change
in the mass of gas flowing takes place between
the two sampling locations. It is not necessary
to know the gas flow rate or total quantity
passing through the separator for the duration
of each run, nor is it necessary to weigh or sam-
ple the dust caught by the separator.
Method B. This method is based on the
quantity of dust caught, the dust concentra-
tion at the outlet of the separator, and the
total quantity of gas passing through the
separator. Obviously, this method can be
applied only to those installations where the
dust can be removed from the hopper in the
dry state for the period of each test run. Also,
it is necessary to measure the total quantity of
gas passing through the separator with reason-
able accuracy in order to correlate the average
outlet dust concentration with the total quan-
tity of dust caught. For method of computation
see Section 5 of reference.
Method C. This method is based on the
quantity of dust caught, the dust concentra-
tion at the inlet of the separator, and the total
quantity of gas passing through the separator.
The other factors relative to measurement by this
method apply as in Method B. 4
-------
EXHIBIT VI-2
Page 1 of Z
PERTINENT ASME ITEMS WHICH MUST BE
CONFORMED TO BY PARTIES CONDUCTING
A STACK SAMPLING TEST
(a) The object or objects of the test.
(b) Time of making the test.
(c) That the dust separator is in a
satisfactory condition for
testing at the time selected.
(d) Whether the test is to be made by
Method A, Method B, or Method C.
(e) The number, type, and location
of dust samplers and other in-
struments to be employed where
alternatives are permitted.
(f) Method of maintaining constancy
of test conditions.
(g) Gas flow rates or boiler loads
at which runs are to be made.
(h) Method of determining gas flow
through separator, i.e., by Pitot
tube.
(i) Number and duration of runs.
(j) Duration of operation at each
test load before sampling is
commenced.
(k) Selection of laboratory for making
equipment calibrations, weighing,
size analysis and combustible content
determinations of the dust samples if
equipment and trained personnel for this
work are not available at the plant.
(1) Tolerances or margins, if any, to be
applied.
-------
EXHIBIT VI-1
RINGELMANN SCALE FOR GRADING
DENSITY OF SMOKE
0. EQUIVALENT TO 0% BLACK
1. EQUIVALENT TO 207, BLACK
2. EQUIVALENT TO 407, BLACK
3. EQUIVALENT TO 607. BLACK
4. EQUIVALENT TO 8070 BLACK
5. EQUIVALENT TO 10070 BLACK
Source: Control of Emissions from Metal Melting Operations, American
Foundrymen's Soc iety.
-------
EXHIBIT IV-27
ILLUSTRATION OF BLAST CLEANING UNIT
ABRASIVE
ELEVATOR
ABRASIVE
HOPPER
SCREEN
ABRASIVE SEPARATOR
AND HOPPER
ABRASIVE
FEED VALVE
WHEELABRATOR
APRON
CONVEYOR
Source: Eclipse Fuel Engineering Company.
-------
EXHIBIT VI-3
Page 1 or 3
pptcn rorcura of ifo. cot
UNUM.D
I WAAM
I KAST
1
HOT .« I
1
"rTB?-
HOT
BLAST
fTjp
KAST
riuo
•Mf
ffi
ACID
LIV1K
VAtH
BAST
r i
RCATIMC
C1TUMU.
H
B.
or
AST
•KUfUATIVC
ctTUML
FIUD
i
COD
MJIST
s.?sr
1
LIltED
ft*StC
LINING
BLAST
i i
MEAT IK
FtlFD
NJU
T
ttCUFQATIVl
COLD
•A5T
HO ILAST
KEATLHG
1
•CCVFUA
HUT I
xamu.
•AST OAST
1
nvt
•:
"•ID nmmi.
Ftm
iai TTTICAL LIKD 4 u»t«»
CtOSCD
1
ft-
-------
EXHIBIT VI-T
2 of 3
1 '
CHMCE
DOOR
OPFN
r- 1 1
CHARGE
DOOR
CLOSED
1
CHARGE
DOOR
OPEN
1
CHARGE
DOCK
CLOSED
1 1
CHARGE
DOOR
OPEN
CHARGE
DOOR
CLOSED
.!
| 1
CHARGE
DOOR
OPEN
CHARGE
DOOR
CLOSED
1 " 1 1 ' 1
1
CHARGE
DOOR
OPEN
1
CHARGE
DOOR
CLOSED
1
CHARGE
DOOR
OPEN
1
CHARGE
DOOR
CLOSED
-------
EXHIBIT VI-3
Page J ot .)
DESIGN FEATURE OF THE CUPOLA
FUEL INJECTION, OXYGEN ENRICHMENT
AND TUYERE DESIGN
CUPOLA
BLAST
FUEL
INJECTION
NO FUEL
INJECTION
OXYGEN
ENRICHMENT
NO OXYGEN
ENRICHMENT
IliM.ANCtD
.il.AST
OXYGEN
ENRICHMENT
NO OXYGEN
ENRICHMENT
STANDARD TL'YEKE
DESIGN
BALANCED
BLAST
STANDARD TUYERE
DESIGN
BALANCED
BLAST
STANDARD Tl'YF.RF.
DESIGN
BALANCED
BLAST
STANDARD TUYERE
DESIGN
ft
-------
OT.SIC.H nuniHE; or m EirrTBic
EXHIBIT
DIRECT
ARC
IHDI
AR
-------
EXHIBIT VI-5
DESIGN rEATUHES OF THE INDUCTION FUKMACE
CLOSED
CHANNEL
OPEN
CIUKHEL
TYPICAL CLOSED & OPEN
VERTICAL
TILT
STATIOHAFY
• TYPICAL FOR CORELESS & CHANNEL
HOT
XITAL
WITH
DRYER
!•««.
«,r»
NO IMuM
,.MM,-
i vxn >
7ir:.
NO I'.^fl
1 AT OH
|
,W,^,0,
-UT:.,.
-------
CUPOLA FURNACE
-------
EXHIBIT VI-6
IACES FOUND IN PRACTICE
&
-------
EXHIBIT VI-8
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION-CUPOLA EMISSIONS
Cumulative Percent by Weight
Foundry
9
14
18
26
32
67
67
146
151
A1
1
Bl
ci
i?
42
A2
B2
Sources:
Diameter in Microns
-1 -2 -5 -10
30% 50% 65%
64 82 9S
2 12
13 28 45
54 86
14 15
006 2 3
4 5.5
11 13
8 12
18 25
17 26
24 28
26 30
0 7 25 32
0 7 24 41
1. The Cupola and Its Operation,
Third Edition, 1965,
American Foundrymen's Society
p. 82.
-20
82%
99
34
55
98
15
19
8
7
32
17
38
36
23
32
34
47
>
-50
90%
92
60
99
21
25
99
99
13.7
53
28
62
53
42
44
41
32
-100 -200
99%
99 99%
99 99
99
99
99
99
75 80
75 94
69 89
56 61
69 81
2. Air Pollution Engineering Manual,
Public Health Service Publication,
No,999-AP-40, 1967
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
-------
CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF CUPOLA PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
oundry
66
85
90
113
116
146
150
Percent by Weight in Cupola Effluent
Iron Magnesium
Oxide Oxide
11.1%
14.7 1.37.
8.6
10.0 5.0
33.0
ll.ft 1.0
Manganese
Oxide
3.77o
10.0
1.0
5.5
Lead Aluminum Zinc Silicon
Oxide Oxide Oxide Dioxide
12.37o
1.4% 28.7
56.3
.05% 31.8
5.0 1.0% 10.0
5.0 38.0 20.0
20.0 1.4 14.7 30.1
Calcium
Oxide
42.07o
3.1
3.0
1.0
1.1
Combustibles
24.0%
0.9
27.0
5,0
Note: Quantities as reported. They do not add up to 100%.
to
M
H
M
I
-J
-------
EXHIBIT VII-15
CUTAWAY VIEW SHOWING
FABRIC FILTER TUBULAR-TYPE BAGS
. -
Source: Pangborri Division, Carborundum Company.
-------
EXHIBIT VII-14
CUTAWAY VIEW SHOWING
FABRIC FILTER, FLAT- OR
SCREEN-TYPE BAG
Source: Sly Manufacturing Company.
-------
EXHIBIT VII-13
WET COLLECTOR PARTICLE COLLECTION
LIMITATIONS AND DESIGN CAPACITIES
Control Relative Comparisc
Equipment of Smallest Partic
Type Collected (Micronj
Static Washer
Dynamic Precipitator
Centrifugal
Orifice
Centrifugal Spray
Flooded Bed
Venturi
10
2 to 3
2 to 5
2
2
2
0.5
Range of Capacities
>n Available
:!e in Cubic Feet/Minute
;) Low
500
1,000
575
400
300
1,000
5,000
High
100,000
50,000
108,000
50,000
50,000
500,000
50,000
Source: Dust Collectors, American Foundrymen's Society.
A.T.KEARNEY & COMPANY. INC.
-------
EXHIBIT VII-12
VENTIJRI COLLECTOR
Source: Chemical Construction Co.
-------
EXHIBIT VII-11
IMPINGEMENT BAFFLE GRID-TYPE
WET COLLECTOR
Source: Arco Ind.
-------
EXHIBIT VII-10
MARBLE BED-TYPE WET COLLECTOR
Source: National Dust Collector Corporation.
-------
EXHIBIT VII-9
CENTRIFUGAL SPRAY WET COLLECTOR
Source: Centri-Spray Corporation.
-------
EXHIBIT VII-8
ORIFICE-TYPE WET COLLECTOR
Source: The De Vilbiss Company.
-------
EXHIBIT VII-7
MULTIPLE TUBE-TYPE CENTRIFUGAL
WET COLLECTOR
NO MOVING
PARTS
SLUDGE
OUTLET
Source: American Air Flow Corporation.
-------
EXHIBIT VII-6
VANE-TYPE CENTRIFUGAL
WET COLLECTOR
Source: Dust Collectors, American Foundrymen's Society,
-------
EXHIBIT VII-5
WET DYNAMIC PRECIPITATOR COLLECTOR
Source: American Air Filter.
-------
WET CAP COLLECTOR
EXHIBIT VI1-
ENTRAINED MOISTUSJ
ELIMINATOR
CO GAS VEH|
DRAIN
Source: Modern Equipment Company.
-------
EXHIBIT VII-3
DRY DYNAMIC PRECIPITATOR COLLECTOR
Source: American Air Filter.
-------
EXHIBIT VII-2
HIGH EFFICIENCY CENTRIFUGAL COLLECTOR
Source: American Air Filter.
> -.
-------
EXHIBIT VII-1
CYCLONE COLLECTOR
CLEAN GAS OUTLET
DUST SHAVE-OFF
INLET FOR
DUST-LADEN
GASES
BYPASS
DUST CHANNEL
BYPASS
REENTRY
OPENING
DUST OUTLET
Source: Buell Engineering Company.
-------
EXHIBIT VI-24
20
EFFECT OF SAND TO OIL
RATIO ON AMOUNT OF
CORE GAS GENERATED
DURING POURING
88:1
72:1 56:1
SAND RATIO BY WEIGHT
40:1
24:1
Source: Foundry Core Practice, H. Dietert, 1966.
-------
EFFECT OF BAKING TIME ON
GAS GENERATED DURING POURING
FOR VARIOUS BAKING TEMPERATURES
EXHIBIT VI-23
QC
w
a.
.co 6
<
o
J 4-
CJ
o-
0
123
BAKING TIME IN HOURS
Note: Adapted from Foundry Core Practice by
H. Dietert, 1966, p. 172.
-------
EXHIBIT VI-22
130
GAS VOLUME EVOLVED AS A
FUNCTION OF VOLATILES
CONTAINED IN MOLDING SAND
ENDOTHERMIC VOLATILES (MOISTURE, VOLATILES IN BINDER & ADDITIVES)
LB. VOLATILES/FT.3 SAND
Note: Adapted from an article by F. Hoffman, "Property Changes
and Conditioning of Repeatedly Circulating Foundry
Sand Systems," Modern Casting. October, 1967.
-------
MOLDIN3 SAND
GAS EVOLUTION AND HOT PERMEABILITY
Bond Clay Added
57o Western Bentonite
4% Southern Bentonite
11% Ohio fireclay
1-10 Sea Coal (Vol.)
1-35 Pitch (Vol.)
1% Cereal Binder
1% Resin Binder
17. Special Binder A
1% Special Binder B
1% Dextrine
Washed and dried Ottawa
Western Michigan core sand
Michigan bank sand
Steel foundry-old sand
Steel foundry-facing sand
Malleable foundry-system sand
Malleable foundry-facing sand
Gray iron foundry-system sand
957, Washed and dried Ottawa
57o Western Bentonite
New Albany sand
New Ohio sand
Percent
Tempering
Water
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.0
2.9
3.4
3.4
3.5
2.0
3.5
Gas
CC Gas Evolved per Gram of Sand
from Dried Specimen Steam 0 Total Gas
1/2 Minute 3 Minutes 7 Minutes 212° F. 212° F.
.50
3.50
3.00
Silica
9.00
4.25
7.25
5.25
4.25
2.25
8.00
Washed and Dried Silica Sand plus Bond Clays
2.50 2.50 40.0 43.3
3.50 3.50 41.5 46.1
3.00 3.00 56.5 60.3
1,800° F.
145.2
154.9
203.0
Cubic Feet Gas
at 1,800° F.
per Cubic Foot
of Sand
233.8
247.8
824.8
Sand Bonded with 5 Percent Western Bentonite and Other Binders
19.50 19.75 49.8 76.2
7.50 7.50 48.2 58.2
9.50 9.50 56.5 69.0
7.00 7.00 56.5 65.4
7.00 7.00 58.0 67.3
3.75 3.75 33.2 87.7
8.75 8.75 58.0 69.6
Silica Sands Bonded with 5 Percent Western Bentonite and 1-10
8.0
2.9
2.8
2.0
3.1
3.7
3.8
3.8
2.5
4.8
7.8
9.00
5.00
10.25
4.50
12.25
9.75
18.25
11.25
.50
9.00
11.00
19.50 19.75 49.8 76.2
15.25 15.25 48.2 68.4
25.00 25.50 46.5 80.3
Gas Evolution from Sands in Actual Use
5.25 5.25 33.2 40.1
13.25 13.25 51.4 69.1
18.00 18.25 61.5 85.5
27.75 27.75 63.0 99.4
28.75 33.00 63.0 106.5
Synthetic Sand vs. Naturally Bonded Sand
2.50 2.50 40.0 43.3
11.00 11.00 78.0 93.3
15.25 15.25 124.8 145.0
256.0
195.5
231.8
219.7
220.0
126.7
234.0
Sea Coal Volume
256.0
229.8
270.0
134.7
232.0
288.0
334.0
358.0
145.2
314.0
480.5
409.6
312.8
370.9
351.5
381.6
202.7
74.4
409.6
367.7
432.0
215.5
371.2
460.8
534.4
572.8
232.3
502.4
778.3
Source: "Gas Developed in Molds," Dunbeck, Foundry, September, 1944.
-------
Molding Sand Gas Analyses
Sand
Composition
CO 2
02
CO
H2
Paraffins
N2
Percent 02
of Oo+No
CO/C02
Percent C
A
47o
Bentonite
Oven Dried
4.9
9.2
2.4
0.9
0
82.6
15.7
0.49
7.3
47, dreal
Sand 47, Bentonite
Composition
C02
02
CO
H2
Paraffins
N2
Percent 02
of 02+N2
CO/C02
Percent C
47, Water
2.5
3.0
30.5
46.0
4.6
13.2
63.0
12.2
33.0
B
4%
Bentonite
2.57o H20
3.3
6.2
6.3
33.0
1.2
49.7
20.2
1.91
9.6
4% Cereal
47o Bentonite
Dry
2.3
6.2
28.7
24.8
0.6
37.4
39.0
12.5
31.0
C
47.
Bentonite
57o Water
2.0
2.9
11.3
46.1
0
37.7
21.7
5.7
13.3
I
Oil
Drag
6.4
4.3
7.9
2.6
0.1
78.7
15.7
1.23
14.3
D
470
Bentonite
17o Cereal Dried
6.5
7.4
10.8
2.5
0.4
72.4
21.0
1.66
17.3
J
Oil
Check
6.4
5.5
11.1
7.5
0
69.5
17.4
1.73
17.5
E
47o
Bentonite
17o Cereal 3.4% H20
2.8
1.7
11.5
50.3
2.9
30.8
25.0
4.10
14.3
K
Oil
Cope
6.8
8.9
2.5
0.6
0
81.2
17o2
.37
9.3
F
1.57. Cereal
Core Oil 1.0%
Kerosene 1.070
Dried
5.0
5.2
30.4
25.6
2.2
31.6
44.5
6.08
35.4
Steel
Cavity
& Sprue
5.0
9.4
4.1
0.5
0.2
80.8
16.9
0.82
9.1
Source: "Nature of Mold Cavity Gases," Locke & Ashbrook, AFS Transactions, 1950.
-------
MAGNESIUM TREATMENT SYSTEMS EMISSIONS REPORT FOR
DUCTILE IRON PRODUCTION AND GRAY IRON DESULFURIZATION
Iron Treated - 30 Tons per Hour
Inoculant Added - 20-22 Pounds per Ton Iron
/Soda Ash
Inoculants Used - JMgFeSi-(10% Mg)
(75% Fe
Emissions Produced - 100 Pounds per Hour
3.3 Pounds per Ton Iron
Emissions Analysis - 32% MgO
18.7%
9.5% C02
4.2% Si02
2.5% S
1.1% C
0,6% CaO
Balance
Source: Foundry Visitations, Foundry Number 0150.
A.T.KEARNEY & COMPANY. Inc.
-------
TREATMENT AGENTS FOR PRODUCING DUCTILE IRON
15-20% Mg-Ni-Si
-Cu
-Fe
MASTER ALLOYS
Oxides
MgO
+ CaO
+ A14C3
Salts
Mg + Ca-1 Chlorides
+ Ce-fFluorides
5-35% Mg-Si-Fe-Ca
Ce
La
Metal
Pure
Vapor )
Coke with 43% Mg
Y,Th,Sc,
Ca
Reactive slags
Ca Si + Ca->chlorides
+ Mg-(Fluorides
T Ce-;
oz
Ca Si + 5% Ce
+ 3% Mg
Source: Modi, Comparing Processes for Making Ductile Iron, Foundry, July, 1970.
a
M
H
-------
EXHIBIT VI-17
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RATE OF EMISSIONS
AND HEAT CYCLE FOR ELECTRIC ARC MELTING
100
H
W
W
I
O
M
H
w
o
§
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
HEAT TIME-PERCENT
Source: Coulter, 1954, Los Angeles Air Pollution Manual.
-------
EMISSIONS DATA FROM
ELECTRIC ARC MELTING FURNACES
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Furnace
Shell
Diameter
Feet
11.0
12.0
8.0
12.0
7.0
12.0
8.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
9.0
9.0
11.0
9.0
9.0
8.0
11.0
12.0
Furnace1
Charge
Tons
15
20
5
20
3
25
5
3
2
2
3
6
6
18
6
6
4
14
19
Furnace
Cycle
Hours
1.15
1.5
1.0
2.5
1.75
4.0
1.0
1.75
2.0
1.3
2.0
2.3
2.0
3.0
1.2
1.75
2.0
1.75
1.7
Emissions
Produced
Lb/Ton Charge
12.0(Est.)
6.0
20.0
18.3
10.0
4.0
40.0
12.7
10.7
13.4
5.3
15.3
12.8
6,1
29.4
12,7
11.0
7.5
15.0
Emissions Control System
Per Furnace
Capacity-CFM
50,000
65,000
17,000
32,000
26,000
63,000
20,000
10,000
19,000
13,000
19,000
42,000
Gas
Temp- °F
250
120
120
250
225
200
150
220
130
190
170
Sources: 1- 4 Foundry Visits
5- 9 AFS Foundry Air Pollution Manual
10-19 Los Angeles Air Pollution Manual
-------
EXHIBIT Vl-13
Page 2 of 2
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF ELECTRIC ARC EMISSIONS
Oxides Foundry A Foundry B Foundry C
Iron 75%-8570 75%-85% 75%-857o
Silicon 10 10 10
Magnesium 2 0.8 1
Manganese 222
Lead 1 2 0,5
Aluminum 0.5 1 0.5
Calcium 0.3 0.2 0.8
Zinc 0.2 2. 0.3
Copper 0.04 0.03 0.01
Lithium 0.03 0.03 0.03
Tin 0.03 0.3 0.02
Nickel 0.02 0.03 0.01
Chromium 0.02 0.07 0.02
Barium 0.02 0.07 0.01
Loss on Ignition 8.87 3.1 0
Ash 91.93 96.9 100
A.T.KEARNEY & COMPANY. INC.
-------
SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR THREE ELECTRIC
ARC INSTALLATIONS
Particle Size
Distribution, Microns Foundry A* Foundry B Foundry C
Less than
Less than
Less than
Less than
Less than
Less than
Less than
1
2
5
10
15
20
50
5%
15
28
41
55
68
98
8%
54
80
89
93
96
99
18%
61
84
91
94
96
99
Note: *Foundry A provided an agglomerated sample and is,
therefore, less representative.
A. T. KEAR'Jl- V fie C OMP.-N Y. IN c.
-------
EXHIBIT VI-1A
EFFECT OF TYPE OF SCRAP
ON AMOUNT OF IRON OXIDE PRESENT
1,000,000
9
8
7
6
•z
o
H
Oi
U
On
CO
u
0
as
u
a:
<
Cf
in
<
w
u*
100,000
9
8
7
6
5
10,000
BORINGS & TURNINGS
PLATE & STRUCTURAL STEEL
10
100
OXIDE ON SURFACE - POUNDS PER TON
-------
EFFECT OF SPECIFIC BLAST RATE AND COKE
RATE ON PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM UNLINED CUPOLAS
60
50
40
PQ
_1
I
CO
S3
o
w 30
to
20
u
l-l
H
10
0
SPECIFIC BLAST RATE
COKE RATIO
PI
I
(— '
u:
-------
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
VS. SPECIFIC BLAST RATE
FOR ACID LINED CUPOLAS
40
8
CO
PQ
CO
2;
O
30
10
0
E=.05 + .07B
MULT. R.= 0.6530
F RATIO = 4.46
M
W
100 200 300 400
SPECIFIC BLAST RATE - SCFM/SQUARE FEET
500
-------
EXHIBIT VI-11
Foundry
Number
Acid Lined
12
5
37
26
7
150
9
9
Cupola
Classifi-
cation
Cupolas
27
14
14
14
18
24
23
14
Particulate
Emissions
Lb./Ton
9.5
11.4
17.4
18.3
19.9
22.9
36.0
37.0
Specific
Melt Rate
T/Hr./S.F.
0.56
.73
.64
.63
.71
.78
.57
.57
Specific
Blast Rate
SCFM/S.F.
269
364
317
274
194
231
462
462
Metal to
Coke Ratio
11.5
8
6
8
9
10.5
10
10
Temperature
Op
1,100
70
70
70
700
750
750
Basic Lined Cupola
18 3D"
Unlined Cupolas
~
45
35
125
160
84
29
67
67
10
4
9
2
9
4
9
9
48.5
7.5
20
40
40
40
45.7
46.6
66.3
50.0
0.48
0.50
.52
.76
.55
.36
.60
.31
.63
.70
357
248
238
324
244
317
238
252
352
352
9
9
8
10
8
7
6
6
7
70
1,000
1,400
600
1,000
1,000
1,000
750
1,200
1,400
-------
EXHIBIT Vi-iu
MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION CORRELATION MATRICES
CORRELATION MATRIX FOR ACID LINED CUPOLAS
Particulate
Emissions
Lb./Ton
1.000
-0.330
0.653
0.223
0.294
Specific
Melt Rate
T/Hr./S.F.
-0.330
1.000
-0.561
-0.215
-0.473
Specific
Blast Rate
SCFM/S.F.
0.653
-0.561
1.000
0.026
0.268
Metal to
Coke Ratio
0.223
-0.215
0.026
1.000
0.874
Blast
Temperature
°F
0.294
-0.473
0.268
0.874
1.000
CORRELATION MATRIX FOR UNLINED CUPOLAS
Particulate Specific
Emissions Melt Rate
Lb./Ton T/Hr./S.F.
Specific
Blast Rate
SCFM/S,F.
Metal to
Coke Ratio
Blast
Tempgrature
1.000
0.226
0.600
-0.703
-0.008
0.226
1.000
0.448
0.022
0.130
0.600
0.448
1.000
-0.450
0.131
-0.703
0.022
-0.454
1.000
0.060
-0.008
0.130
Ool31
0.060
1.000
A.T.KEARNEY & COMPANY. I*r c.
-------
PARAMETERS OF CUPOLA FURNACES - LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSES
OF EMISSIONS AFFECTED BY FURNACE DESIGN FACTORS
Foundry
Number
151
12
5
146
12
50
37
26
152
7
45
-69
134
150
9
9
35
125
160
-71
84
29
18
67
69
Furnace
Classifi-
cation
10
27
14
17
32
16
14
14
16
18
10
29
6
24
23
14
4
9
2
11
9
4
30
9
13
Cupola Furnace
Lining
Type
4
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
4
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
1
Blast
Design
1
1
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
1
3
1
1
2
3
1
3
Blast
Heating
3
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
3
1
3
3
1
3
3
3
1
3
1
Top Open
or Closed
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
Charging
Top or Side
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Parameters
Gas
Takeoff
1
8
1
1
8
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
8
1
8
After-
burner
0
0
2
0
0
-1
2
2
-1
2
0
0
-1
1
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
6
-1
1
0
Charging
Door Open
or Closed
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fuel
Injection
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oxygen
Enrich-
ment
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Emissions
Lb./Ton Melt
7.5
9.6
11.4
12.1
12.4
15.1
17.4
18.3
19.5
19.9
20.4
20.6
20.8
22.9
36.0
37.6
40.4
40.4
40.5
44.7
45.7
46.6
48.5
50.0
53.4
67
66.3
Note: See Appendix B, Exhibit 2 for description of cupola furnace parameter codes.
-------
12
10
8
0
COMPARISON OF COST PER TON OF MELT FOR FABRIC FILTER
ON LINED CUPOLA AT DIFFERENT LEVELS
OF OPERATION 8/1 COKE RATIO
ABOVE CHARGE DOOR
GAS TAKE-OFF
BELOW CHARGE DOOR
GAS TAKE-OFF
1,000-HOUR YEAR
2,000-HOUR YEAR
4,000-HOUR YEAR
1,000-HOUR YEAR
— , —2,000-HOUR YEAR
4,000-HOUR YEAR
30 40 50 60
ANNUAL .PRODUCTION,.TONS x 1,000
w
%
M
W
M
H
I
u>
o
-------
COMPARISON OF COST PER TON OF MELT
FOR FABRIC FILTER ON UNLINED CUPOLA
AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF OPERATION
5/1 COKE RATIO
10
8 --
1,000-HOUR YEAR
•ABOVE CHARGE DOOR TAKE-OFF
•BELOW CHARGE DOOR TAKE-OFF
o
H
W
Pu
to
O
CJ
0
2,000-HOUR YEAR
1,000-HOUR YEAR
4,000
'-HOUR YEAR
,^-T 2,000-HOUR YEAR I
• —4,000-HOUR YEAR
0
25
50 75 100 125 150
ANNUAL PRODUCTION, TONS x 1,000
175
200
-------
COMPARISON OF COST PER TON OF MELT
FOR LOW ENERGY WET SCRUBBER ON LINED
CUPOLA AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF
OPERATION. 8/1 COKE RATIO
5.0
ABOVE CHARGE DOOR GAS TAKE-OFF
BELOW CHARGE DOOR GAS TAKE-OFF
1,000-HOUR YEAR
2,000-HOUR YEAR
\ >HOUR YEAR
4,000-HOUR YEAR
^ •^ 2,000- HOUR YEAR
"" * •• o /. nn
4,000-HOUR YEAR
0
tn
0
50 75 100 125
ANNUAL.PRODUCTION, TONS x 1,000
150
175
200
ro
oo
-------
COMPARISON OF COST PER TON OF MELT FOR LOW ENERGY
WET SCRUBBER ON UNLINED CUPOLA AT DIFFERENT
LEVELS OF OPERATION 5/1 COKE RATIO
I
£ 2 —
CO
O
0
ABOVE CHARGE DOOR GAS TAKE-OF
BELOW CHARGE DOOR GAS TAKE-
OFF
1,000-HOUR YEAR
2,000-HOI
OOOrHOUR YEAR
4,000-HOUR YEAR
^.^ 2,000-HOUR YEAR
——— 4,000-HOUR YEAR
75 100 125 150
ANNUAL PRODUCTION, IONS, ,x ,1^000
175
200
N;
-------
COMPARISON OF COST PER TON OF
MELT FOR HIGH ENERGY WET
SCRUBBER ON LINED CUPOLA
AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF
OPERATION. 8/1 COKE RATIO
10
O
H
W
CU
H
CO
O
1,000-HOUR YEAR
ABOVE CHARGE DOOR GAS TAKE-OFF
BELOW CHARGE DOOR GAS TAKE-OFF
2,000-HOUR YEAR
4.000-HOUR YEAR
2,000-HOUR YEAR
4 .000-HOUR YEAR
M
0
75 100 125 150
ANNUAL PRODUCTION, TONS x 1,000
175
200
I
N>
-------
COMPARISON OF COST PER TON OF MELT
FOR HIGH ENERGY WET SCRUBBER ON
UNLINED CUPOLA AT DIFFERENT LEVELS
OF OPERATION 5/1 COKE RATIO
O
H 4
w
PL,
H
CO
O
0
1,000-HOUR YEAR
ABOVE CHARGE DOOR GAS TAKE-OFF
BELOW CHARGE DOOR GAS TAKE-OFF
2.OOP-HOUR YEAR
*x 1,000-HOUR YEAR
'^•Sh> :
-. 4,000-HOUR YEAR
W"~~"""'2,000-HOUR YEAR
"""*"—-—-—----!.,
4,000-HOUR YEAR
0
25
50 75 100 125
ANNUAL PRODUCTION, TONS x 1,000
150
175
200
-------
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
FOR FABRIC FILTERS ON
ELECTRIC ARC
4,000-HOUR YEAR
150
125
o
o
o
100
O
u
i
o
H
75
50
25
2,000-HOUR V;VA
1,000-HOUR YEAR
4.000-HOUR YEAR
I
„_ 2,000-HOUR YEAR
1,000-HOUR YEAR
14
12-18
10,000
FCE DIA, FT
MELT RATE, TPH
KVA
M
g
M
W
M
H
I
to
-------
TOTAL ANNUAL COST FOR
FABRIC FILTERS ON CUPOLAS
(Air Cooling of Gas)
280
240
o
o
o
O
o
200
160
120
80
40
1,000-HOUR YEAR
4 ,000-HOUR
YEAR
2,000- HOUR
YEAR
20 40 60 80
GAS VOLUME, ACFM x 1,000
100
-------
EXHIBIT VIII-22
RELATIVE CHANGE IN TOTAL
ANNUAL COSTS VS. PRESSURE
DROP FOR WET SCRUBBERS
1.3
1.2
H
en
O
I
H
1.1
W
O
2
1.0
2,000-HOUR
YEAR
4,000-HOUR
YEAR
1,000-HOUR
YEAR
40 50
PRESSURE DROP, IN.
-------
EXHIBIT
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
FOR LOW
ENERGY WET SCRUBBERS
ON CUPOLAS
200
o
o
o
C/5
H
C/D
o
160
120
£ 80
H 60
0
4,000-HOUR
YF.AR
2,000-HOUR
• YEAR
1,000-HOUR
20
40 60 80
GAS VOLUME, ACFM x 1,000
100
-------
EXHIBIT VIII-20
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
FOR HIGH
ENERGY WET SCRUBBERS
ON CUPOLAS
320
280
0
1,000-HOUR YEAR
4,000-HOUR
YEAR
2,000-HOUR
YEAR
0
40 60 80
GAS VOLUME, ACFM x 1,000
100
-------
INSTALLED COST OF
FABRIC FILTER ON
ELECTRIC ARC
250
o
o
o
H
CO
o
p
a
H
CO
W
H
<
s
M
X
o
PS
(X
ex,
200
CANOPY HOOD
150
100
50
0
14
12-18
10000
FCE DIA., FT.
MELT RATE, TPH
KVA
M
H
M
M
M
H-»
vO
-------
150
Q
O
O
PH
O
I
s
u
125
100
75
50
0
APPROXIMATE
EXHAUST VOLUMES
FOR ELECTRIC ARC
LOCAL HOOD
W
oo
8 10
ROOF DIAMETER, FT.
-------
COMPARISON OF CUPOLA OUTLET
DUST LOADING AND PRESSURE
DROP FOR WET SGRUBBERS
EXHIBIT VIII-17
7.0
6.0
5.0
§
H
CO
CQ
O
55
t—I
o
S
,0
,0
2.0
1.0
0
20 40 60 80
PRESSURE DROP (AP), IN. H0
100
-------
CALCULATION OF WET SCRUBBER EFFICIENCY
FOR VARIOUS PRESSURE DROPS
Size of
Particles,
Microns
Over 200
100- 200
50-100
20-50
10-20
5-10
2-5
0-2
Total
Percent of
Particles (1)
Cold
Blast
15%
10
15
15
20
5
5
15
100%
Hot
Blast
5%
15
20
20
5
5
10
20
100%
Efficiency at Mean Size
of Particles, Percent (2)
5"
100%
100
99.9
99.9
99.5
97.5
95
82
10"
100%
100
100
99.9
99.9
99.4
98.5
93
20"
100%
100
100
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.7
98.3
30"
100%
100
100
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.4
40"
100%
100
100
100
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.7
60"
100%
100
100
100
100
100
99.9
99.9
Overall Collection Efficiency, Percent
Cold Blast
5"
15%
10
14.9
14.9
19.9
4.8
4.7
12.3
96.5%
10"
15%
10
15
14.9
19.9
4.9
4.9
13.9
98.5%
20"
15%
10
15
14.9
19.9
4.9
4.9
14.7
99.3%
30"
15%
10
15
14.9
19.9
4.9
4.9
14.9
99.5%
40"
15%
10
15
15
19.9
4.9
4.9
14.9
99.6%
60"
15% .
10
15
15
20
5
4.9
14.9
99.8%
Hot Blast
5"
5%
15
19.9
19.9
4.9
4.8
9.5
16.4
95.4%
10"
5%
15
20
19.9
4.9
4.9
9.8
18.6
98.1%
20"
5%
15
20
19.9
4.9
4.9
9.9
19.6
99.2%
30"
5%
15
20
19.9
4.9
4.9
9.9
19.8
99.4%
40"
5%
15
20
20
4.9
4.9
9.9
19.8
99.5%
60"
5%
15
20
20
5
5
9.9
19.9
99.8%
Notes: (1) Engels & Weber, "Cupola Emission Control"
(2) From Exhibit VII-28.
w
M
H
-------
TOTAL INVESTMENT COSTS
FOR WET CAPS
100
0
DO
I— I
p-3
I-C
CUPOLA SIZE & DIAMETER, IN,
-------
LOW ENERGY WET SCRUBBER
TOTAL INVESTMENT COST
VS. MELT RATE FOR UNLINED
CUPOLA 8/1 COKE RATIO
200
ABOVE CHARGF DOOR TAKE-OFF
BELOW CHARGE DOOR TAKF-OFF
15 20 25
MELT RATE, TPH
-------
LOW ENERGY WET SCRUBBER
TOTAL INVESTMENT COST
VS. MELT RATE FOR LINED
CUPOLA 8/1 COKE RATIO
200
o
o
o
X
o
CJ
H
CD
w
H
O
ABOVF CHARGE DOOR TAKE-OFF
150
100
BELOW CHARGE DOOR TAKF-OFF
0
15 20
MELT RATE, TPH
25
30
35
40
Ni
-------
500
o
o
o
: AOO
H
to
g 300
200
100
0
BOVE CHARGE
DOOR TAKE-OFF
HIGH ENERGY WET SCRUBBER
TOTAL INVESTMENT COST
VS. MELT RATE FOR
LINED CUPOLA 8/1 COKE RATIO
-SELOW CHARGF DOOR TAKF-OFF
15 20
MELT RATE, TPH
25
30
35
40
w
M
H
M
M
1-4
t->
O
-------
500
HIGH ENERGY WET SCRUBBER
TOTAL INVESTMENT COST
VS. MELT RATE F R UNLINED
CUPOLA 8/1 COKi: RATIO
ABOVE CHARGE DOOR TAKE-OFF
BELOW CHARGE DOOR
20 25
MELT RATE, TPH
-------
COMPARISON OF GAS TAKE-OFF
ABOVE CHARGE DOOR AND BELOW
CHARGE DOOR.LINED CUPOLA
COKE RATIO 8/1
o
o
o
X
s
I
O
w
H
X
O
OS
20
0
ABOVE CHARGE DOOR
BELOW CHARGE DOOR
10
15 20
MELT RATE, TPH
X
33
t-i
i
oo
25
30
35
-------
EXHIBT' YII..LJ
TOTAL INVESTMENT COST
VS. GAS VOLUME FOR
MECHANICAL COLLECTORS
ON CUPOLAS
40 50 60
GAS VOLUME, ACFM x 1,000
100
-------
EXHIBIT VIII- 4
600i
50.
500
TOTAL INVESTMENT COST
VS. GAS VOLUME FOR
FABRIC FILTERS ON CUPOLAS
10
20 30 40 50
GAS VOLUME, ACFM x 1,000
60
70
80
-------
EXHIBIT VIII-3
Page 2 of 2
50
o 200
o
o
X
50
100
TOTAL INVESTMENT COST
VS. GAS VOLUME
FOR LOW ENERGY WET
SCRUBBER ON CUPOLAS
10
20 30 40 50
GAS VOLUME, ACFM x 1,000
60
70
80
-------
EXHIBIT VIII-3
Page \ ot 2
600
o
o
o
X
i
u
tfl
S
H
500
400
300
TOTAL INVESTMENT COST
VS. GAS VOLUME
FOR HIGH ENERGY WET
SCRUBBER ON CUPOLAS
200
50
100
50
0
20 30 40 50
GAS VOLUME, ACFM x 1,000
-------
INVESTMENT COST EQUATIONS FOR
EQUIPMENT INSTALLED ON CUPOLAS
EQUIPMENT
TYPE
High Energy
Wet Scrubber
Low Energy
Wet Scrubber
Fabric I'ilter
r-Iechanical
Collector
INVESTMENT COST EQUATION
I- 49,519 + 2. £4 x Gas Vol.
I- -43,519 + 8.97 x Gas Vol.
1= 38,744 + 2.05 x Gas Vol.
1= -55,000 + 8.95 x Gas Vol.
1= 20,192 + 4.07 x Gas Vol.
LIMITS OF OBSERVATION
6,'AO^ Gas Vo?.. ^ 20.0GC
20, 000 < Gas Vol. < 92,000
4,500< Gas Vol. < 67,000
10, 800 < Gas Vol. < 100,000
24,000 < Gas Vol. •< 104,000
CORREL.
COEF.
.82
.99
.84
.98
.87
REGRESSION PARAMETERS
F RATIO
2'j
139
55
321
16
STD. ERROR
16.0CO
29,000
22,000
48,000
70,000
DATA
POINTS
25
34
19
15
to
l-l
-J
-------
"EXHTBTTVm-1
Page 2 of z
CONDITIONS AFFECTING INSTALLATION COST OF CONTROL DEVICES
Cost Category
Utilities
Collected waste
material handling
Labor
Low Cost
Electricity, water
waste disposal
facilities readily
available.
No special treatment
facilities or han-
dling required
Low wages in geo-
graphical area
High Cost
Electrical and waste
treatment facilities must
be expanded, water supply
must be developed or
expanded
Special treatment
facilities and/or
handling required
Overtime and/or high
wages in geographical
area
Source: U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National
Air Pollution Control Administration, Control Techniques for
Particulate Air Pollutants. Washington, D. C.t 1969.
-------
EXHIBIT VIII-1
Page 1 of 2
CONDITIONS AFFECTING INSTALLATION COST OF CONTROL DEVICES
Cost Category
Equipment Transportation
Plant Age
Available space
Corrosiveness of gas
Complexity of start-up
Instrumentation
Guarantee on
performance
Degree of assembly
Degree of engineering
Low Cost
Minimum distance;
simple loading and
unloading procedure
Hardware designed
as an integral part
of new plant
Vacant area for
location of
control system
Noncorrosive gas
Simple start-up
no extensive
adjustment requir-
ed.
Little required
None needed
Control hardware
shipped complete-
ly assembled
Autonomous "pack-
age" control
system
High Cost
Long distance; complex
procedure for loading
and unloading
Hardware installed int:>'>
confines of old plant
requiring structural
or process modification.
or alternation
Little vacant space
requires extensive stee1.
support construction an-
site preparation
Acidic emissions requir-
ing high alloy accessory
equipment using special
handling and construction
techniques
Requires extensive
adjustment; testing
considerable downtime
Complex instrumentation
required to assure
reliability of control
or constant monitoring
of gas stream
Required to assure
designed control effi-
ciency
Control hardware to be
assembled and erected
in the field
Control System requiring
extensive integration
into process, insulation
to correct temperature
problem and noise abatement
-------
EXHIBIT VII-29
Page 2 of 2
CATALYTIC AFTERBURNER APPLIED
TO CORE BAKE OVEN PROCESS
Source: Air Pollution Engineering Manual, U.S. Department
of Health, Education and Welfare, #999-AP-40.
-------
EXHIBIT VII-29
Page 1 of 2
CUPOLA AFTERBURNER
Source: Foundry Air Pollution Control Manual, AFS.
-------
EXHIBIT VII-28
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COLLECTION EFFICIENCY,
PARTICLE SIZE AND PRESSURE DROP FOR VENTURI SCRUBBERS
PQ
W
W
P-
w
u
I
s
99.9
99.5
99
98
97
95
90
80
70
60
50
I I I I I
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 2 34568
PARTICLE SIZE - MICRONS
10
Source: Air Pollution Manual, American Industrial
Hygiene Association.
-------
EXHIBIT VIT
Page 2 oc. '2
EFFECT OF PARTICLE SIZE AND LENGTH OF
BAG IN SERVICE ON FABRIC FILTER EFFICIENCY
99.99
w
CJ
C£
W
U
2
W
M
u
I— I
En
fn
w
$
o
AFTER 1U SHAKES
10
0.05
0.1 0.5 1.0
PARTICLE SIZE - MICRONS
5.0
Source: Torit, Dust Collectors, January, 1966.
-------
w
fa
fa
«
GRADE EFFICIENCY CURVE
FOR FABRIC FILTER
EXHIBIT VII-2
Page 1 of 2
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
Source: Design and Performance of Modern Gas Cleaning
Equipment, Journal of the Institute of Fuel,
February, 1956.
-------
CALCULATION OF COLLECTOR EFFICIENCY
Cyclone
Size of
Grade,
Microns
104-150
75-104
60-75
40-60
30-40
20-30
15-20
10-15
7%-10
5-7%
0-2
Percent in
Grade
at Inlet
3%
7
10
15
10
10
7
8
4
6
8
12
Efficiency
at Mean
Size of
Grade,
Percent
100.0%
99.1
98.5
97.3
96.0
94.3
92.0
89.3
84.2
76.7
64.5
33.5
Total
Overall
Collection,
Percent
3.0%
6.9
9.9
14.6
9.6
9.4
6.4
7.1
3.4
4.6
5.2
4.0
84.4%
Electrostatic Precipitator
Size of
Grade,
Microns
104-150
75-104
60-75
40-60
30-40
20-30
15-20
10-15
7%-10
'5-7%
2%-S,
0-2%
Percent in
Grade
at Inlet
0.6%
0.6
2.5
2.5
3.8
3.8
5.7
3.8
8.8
17.6
50.3
Efficiency
at Mean
Size of
Grade,
Percent
99.2%
98.7
97.7
96.8
96.5
96.0
95.5
95
94
90.5
77.0
Total
Overall
Collection.
Percent
0.6%
0.6
2.4
2.4
3.7
3.7
5.4
3.6
8.3
16.0
38.7
Source: Design and Performance of Modern Gas Cleaning Equipment, Journal of the Institute of
Fuel, February, 195^.
S
H
H
H
V
(S3
cr
-------
EXHIBIT VII-25
Page 2 of 2
GRADE EFFICIENCY CURVE
HIGH
EFFICIENCY
CYCLONE
100
Source:
60
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
80
100
Design and Performance of Modern Gas Cleaning
Equipment, Journal of the Institute of Fuel,
February, 1956.
-------
EXHIBIT VII-25
Page 1 of 2
GRADE EFFICIENCY CURVE
DRY
ELECTROSTATIC
PRECIPITATOR
100
CJ
5 10 15
PARTICLE SIZE, MICRONS
Source: Design and Performance of Modern Gas Cleaning
Equipment, Journal of the Institute of Fuel,
February, 1956.
-------
EXHIBIT VII-24
CHEMIpAL COMPOSITION OF CUPOLA DUST BY WEIGHT
Mean Ran^e Scatter. Values
Si02 20%-40% 10%-45%
CaO 3-6 2-18
A1203 2-4 0.5-25
MgO 1-3 0.5-5
FeO (Fe2p3, Fe) 12-16 5-26
Mno 1-2 0.5-9
Ignition Loss
(C, S, C02) 20-50 10-64
Source: Cupola Emission Control, Gray & Quctilp Iron
Founders' Society, Inc.
-------
EXHIBIT VII-23
OVERALL COLLECTION EFFICIENCY ON TEST DUST
Apparatus
Medium efficiency
cyclone
High efficiency
cyclone
Fabric filter
Spray tower
Wet impingement
scrubber
Self -induced
spray deduster
Venturi scrubber
Electrostatic pre-
c\pitator
Overall
Efficiency
Percent
65.3%
84.2
99.9
96.3
97.9
93.5
99.7
94.1
Efficiency
at 5 Microns
Percent
27%
73
>99.9
94
97
93
99.6
92
Efficiency
at 2 Microns
Percent
147.
46
99.9
87
92
75
99
85
Efficiency
at 1 Micron
Percent:
8%
27
99
55
80
40
97
70
Source: Design & Performance of Modern Gas Cleaning Equipment, Journal
of the Institute of Fuel, February, 1956.
-------
.EXHIBIT VII-22
GRADING OF TEST DUST
Size of
Grade,
Microns
104-150
75-104
60-75
40-60
30-40
20-30
15-20
10-15
7^-10
5-7*
2%-5
Under 2%
Total
Percentage
by Weight
in Grade
3%
7
10
15
10
10
7
8
4
6
8
12
100%
Percentage by Weight
Smaller Than Top
Size of Grade
100
97
90
80
65
55
45
38
30
26
20
12
Source: Design & Performance of Modern Gas Cleaning
Equipment, Journal of the Institute of Fuel,
February, 1956.
-------
COLLECTION EFFICIENCY OF EMISSION CONTROL EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS -
Foundry
Application
Melting
Gray Iron Cupola
Electric Arc
Screens and Transfer Points
Dry Sand Reclaimer
Particle
Size
Coarse to Fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse to Fine
Sand Cooler Me d turn
Abrasive Cleaning Fine to Coarse
Grinding Coarse to Medium
Shakeout Fine to Medium
Note: Particle Size
Coarse +20 Microns
Medium 2-20 Microns
Fine -2 Microns
X » Not applicable or rarely used.
Underlined outlet loading is lowest for
Sources: Foundry Air Pollution Control Manual
Air Pollution Engineering Manual, U.
Typical
Inlet
Loading Wet
Gr/SCF Cap
1/2-10 0.4
1/2-2 X
1/2-3 X
10-40 X
1-20 X
1/2-5 X
1/2-2 X
1/2-1 X
Typical Outlet Loading Gr/SCF
Low
Wet Scrubber Efficiency Fabric Electrostati
6"-30" 30"-70" Cyclone Filter Precipitator
0.3 0.05 0.4 nTOT 0.036
0.2 0.02 X 0.01 X
0.005-0.01 X X 0.01 X
01 0 02 0 OS X 0 01 X
0.01-0.05 X XX X
0.01-0.05 X X 0.01 X
0.01 X 0.1 0.01 X
0.01 X X X X
that application.
, American Foundrymen's Society;
S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, #999-AP-40.
EXHIBIT VII- 21
-------
EXHIBIT VIT-2n
DRY-TYPE ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
EFFLUENT CLEANING SYSTEM
GAS OUTLET DRIVE FOR
DISCHARGE FRAME RAPPING
RAPPING DEVICE \
COLLECTING ELECTRODE \
f DISCHARGE ELECTRODE
MMMl t
\ N
_
JSESCWS=Clfc V
— -
GAS INLET
SUPPORTING
FRAME
—t \\~ GAS DISTRIBUTION
CRID
FOR
COLLECTING
ELECTRODE
RAPPING DEVICE
CELL WHEEL
Source: Cupola Emission Control, Gray & Ductile Iron Society.
-------
EXHIBIT VII-19
WET-TYPE ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
EFFLUENT CLEANING SYSTEM
Source: Cupola Emission Control, Gray & Ductile Iron
Society.
-------
EXHIBIT VII-18
REVERSE JET CONTINUOUS FABRIC FILTER COLLECTOR
Reverse-Jet supply blower
External blow-ring carriage drive
Blow-ring carriage counterweights
Felt filter tubes
Heavy-duty, non-lubricated drive chains
Blow-ring carriage
Prefabricated steel frame and panel housing
Welded steel dust hopper
Dust
collected
in hopper
Source: Buffalo Forge Company.
-------
EXHIBIT VII-17
CONTINUOUS AUTOMATIC FABRIC FILTER COLLECTOR
CLEAN AIR
TO FAN
INCOMING
DUST-LADEN
AIR
CLEAN AIR
r- TO FAN
INCOMING
DUST-LADEN
AIR
Source: Fuller Coronary.
-------
EXHIBIT VII-16
INTERMITTENT FABRIC FILTER COLLECTOR
COLLECTION
HOPPER
Source: Burlington Glass Fabrics.
-------
EXHIBIT VII-JO
APPLICATION OF EMISSION CONTROL EQUIPMENT SYSTFHS TO FOUNDRY
Uet Scrubber
Sou Material Handling
and Preparation
Electric Arc
Electric Induction
Inoculation
Mold Pouring & Cooling
Shake put
Enclosed Hood
Side Hood
Sand Preparation (, HandllrtK
Shakeout Holding Sand
New Sand
Cere Sand
<="•""-«
Pneumatic
Bake Oven
Grinding
Casting Cleaning
Allies* Abrasive
Blast Rooca
Tu-bllng Kills
Sprue
Grinding
Snaggtn*
Swing F."»M
Portable
Seller Flv Ash
Chain Crate
Pulverizer
Paint fve-5
J:i^rst"
"etal
Dry Hec
Lou Pressure
Loss
Ho
Rare
No
No
No
No
Raru
No
Rare
Rare
Rare
No
No
Rare
No
No
No
No
Frequent Iv
Rare
Rare
So
No
No
No
Frequeit l\
hanlcal
Medium
Preaaure
Rare
No
No
No
No
Occasional ly
Rare
Occasionally
Occasionally
Occasionally
No
So
Occasionally
R*re
Rare
Rare
Occasionallv
Frequently
Frequently
Freqrently
Occasionallv
Usual
Usual
No
Rnrc
Loss
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Ho
No
No
No
No
No
No
So
No
No
No
No
No
No
So
Medium
Loaa
Rare
Ho
No
Rare
Rare
Usual
Usual
Usual
Usual
Usual
Rare
No
Frequentlv
FrequentU
Usual
Usual
Usual
Frequent lv
Frequently
I'sual
No
No
So
No
Rare
Rare
Intermediate
"9 -70"
No
Rare
Ho
Rare
No
Occasionally
Occasionally
Rare
Rare
Rare
So
No
No
No
•
?
No
No
No
So
No
No
No
HfRh
Loss
"21-80"
No
Occasionally
No
Ram
No
No
No
So
No
So
So
So
No
No
No
Sw
No
No
No
No
No
So
No
So
No
Cotton or
Rare
tin
Rare
No
Occasionally
No
Occasionally
Occasionally
Rare
Occasionally
Occasionally
Usua""
No
Frequently
Usual
Usual
Usual
Usual
Frequently
Frequently
Usual
No
No
Bo
No
Occfitlonal 1 v
<>rc as lonallv
Fabric Filter
nrlon or
No No
Usual Rare
No No
Rare Rare
Ho No
No Mo
No No
No No
No No
No No
No No
No No
No No
Ho Ho
No No
No No
No No
Ho No
No So
No No
No So
No No
No NO
So ,< tatnr
*«*
No
No
No
•Jo
Vo
So
So
No
No
No
No
No
No
N«
ft.
In
No
\'c
Vo
No
No
"0
No
\ .
Cacalyc ic
No
No
Ho
No
No
Ho
No
Ho
No
Ho
No
No
Frequently
No
No
So
No
Ho
Ho
No
No
No
No
[Jo
Frequently
Frequent ly
No
No
Society, 1967.
-------
KXIirBFT VI11-6
APPROXIMATE MELTING RATES AND GAS VOLUMES
FOR LINED CUPOLAS
FCE
Lined
DU.
18
23
27
32
37
42
45
48
54
60
66
72
78
84
Melt Rate TPH
Metal to Coke Ratio
6/1
3/4
1
1-3/4
2-1/2
3-1/4
4
4-1/2
5-1/2
7
9
10-1/2
12-1/4
15
17
8/1
1
1-1/2
2-1/4
3-1/4
4-1/4
5-1/2
6-1/4
7-1/4
9-1/4
11-1/4
13-3/4
16-1/4
19
22-1/4
10/1
-
-
-
4
5-1/4
7
g
9
11-1/2
14
17
20-1/4
23-3/4
27-3/4
12/1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10-3/4
13-3/4
17
20-1/2
24-1/2
28-3/4
33-1/4
Blase
Air
(SCFM)
570
940
1,290
1,810
2,420
3,100
3,600
4,100
5,200
6,400
7,700
9,200
10,700
12,500
Av.
Chg . Door
(Sq. Ft.)
10
10
10
11-1/4
16-1/2
22
45
50
50
52
52
60
63
Indraft
(CFM)
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,380
4,950
6,600
13,500
15,000
15,000
15,600
15,600
18,000
18.900
Above -
Door Total
(SCFM)
3,940
4,290
4,810
5,800
8,050
10,200
17,600
20,200
21,400
23,300
24,800
28,700
31,400
Below-
Door Total
(SCFM)
650
1,050
1,450
2,000
2,700
3,500
4,000
4,600
5,800
7,100
8,500
10,500
12,000
14 , 000
Above
Door
(ACFM)
7,700
8,500
10,800
13,100
18,100
23,000
34 , 500
39,500
42,500
51,000
56.000
65,000
71,000
Be low
Door @ 850° F
CACFM)
2,000
3,000
4,000
5.000
7,000
9,000
12,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
23,000
28,000
32,000
37,000
Adapted from Useful Infonnation for Foundrymen published by Whiting Corporation.
Assumptions:
nNo door closure
2. No oxygen enrichment
3. No fuel injection
4. Indraft at 300 FPM
-------
APPROXIMATE MELTING RATES AND
CAS VOLUMES FOR UNLINED CUPOLAS
FCE
DIa.
36
42
48
54
60
66
72
78
84
90
96
102
108
Melt Rate TPH
Metal to Coke Ratio (1000U F H.it Blast)
5/1
4-1/2
6-1/4
8
10
12-1/2
15
17-3/4
20-3/4
24-1/4
27-3/4
31-3/4
36
40
0/1
4-3/4
6-1/2
8-1/4
10-1/2
13
15-1/2
18-1/2
21-3/4
25-1/4
29
33
37-1/4
41-1/2
7/1
5
6-3/4
9
11-1/2
13-1/2
17
20
23-1/4
27-1/4
31-1/2
34-1/2
40-1/2
45
8/1
5-1/2
7-1/4
9-3/4
12-1/4
15-1/4
18-1/4
22
25-1/2
29-1/4
34-1/4
39
44
49
9/1
5-3/4
7-3/4
10-1/2
13-1/4
16-1/4
19-3/4
23-1/4
27-1/4
32
36-1/4
41-1/2
47
52-1/2
10/1
6-1/4
8-1/4
11-1/4
14-1/4
17-1/4
20-3/4
25
29
34
39
44
50
56
Blast
Air
(SCFM)
2,300
3,100
4,100
5,200
6,400
7,700
9,200
10,700
12,500
14,300
16,300
18,400
20,600
Av. Chg.
Door
(Sq. Ft.)
12
16-1/2
45
50
50
52
60
60
63
95
110
120
128
Indraft
fCFM)
3,600
4,950
13,500
15,000
15,000
15,600
18,000
18,000
18,900
28,500
33,000
36,000
38,400
Above -
Door Total
(SCFM)
5,900
8,050
17,600
20,200
21,400
23,300
27,200
28,700
31,400
42,800
49,300
54,400
59,000
Below-
Door Total
(SCFM)
2,600
3,500
4,600
5,800
7,100
8,500
10,500
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
21,000
23,000
Above
Door
(ACFM)
13,300
18,100
34,500
39 , 500
41,500
51,000
59,200
65,000
71,000
93,000
105,000
115,000
128,000
Below
Door 9 850° F
(ACFM)
7,000
9,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
23,000
28,000
32,000
37,000
42,000
48,000
56,000
62 ,000
Adapted from Useful Information for Foundrymen published by Whiting Corporation.
Assumptions:
1. No door closure
2. No oxygen enrichment
3. Ho fuel injection
4. Indraft at 300 FPM
-------
EXHIBIT VTfl-Tl
SU?IMARY OF CAPITAL COSTS TO PRODUCE IRON UNDER VARIOUS PRODUCTION AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
Meit RJtu Tonj/Hour
Operal ini; Hours/YciFr
Cupola- Lined Cold Blast
No Holding. Furnace
Buildings and Mulling De-partp^nt Equipment
Emission Control Equiiumfnt (Fabric Filu-r>
Total
Er.ission Control as Percent of To to 1 Cost
Cupola-Hot Blast-Induce ion
Holding Furnace
Buildinc.s oivj Mtrltlnc Dopa rtmenc Equipment
Emission Control Equipment (Wet Scrubber')
Emission Control As Percent of Total Cost
Electric Arc- Induct ion
Holding Furnace _
Buildings and Melting Department Equipment
Enlss ion Control Equipnent (Fabric Fi Iter)
Er.ission Control as Percent ot" Total Cost
Corelcss Induction-No
Ho 1 d i ng_Furaa_cc _
3uildiiizs ant1 Mtltine Deportment Equipment
£-i;s ion Control Equiprif nt (Afterburner)
Total
Erissior. Control as Percent of Total Cost
J95.000 S 395.000 S
000 60.001
^ASA^QOO S _j-5A.O-SS
13.27. 13.27,
97.000
.000
A-A99
11.67.
S 507.000 5 507,000
5,_177_JJOO 5_..577_JOO
12.17. 12.1V,
S1.J12.000 SI.221.000 SI,221.000 I 52,099.000
ZIP.OOP 220.OOP 220.000 | iiO.OOO
5 I U2 2.2, OOP S U.4_4_U.QQU S .1,44 1.000 j 3.2^539.0.00
17.27.
I
• 7. y/.
51.329.000 51.329.000 ,52.159.0
'.OOP 190.000 ; 390.
826.000 5 826.000 $ 826.000
946^000 S 94&.OQO S__946..00Q
12.77, 12.77. 12.77.
313.000 S 813.000 S 613.000
5 .POO
S_ 618 .000 S_J.18.000
0.67. 0.67, 0.67.
15.3"/,
52,352,000 52.352,000 S2.352,OnO I 53.765.000
163.000 163.000 163.000
52.099.000
17.3T.
S2. 5^9. OOP
15.37.
52.869.000 52.869.000
5WyL£QP
19.47.
1.670.000 31.670.000 51,670.000
10.000 10.000 10.000
S'J.963.00.-;
53.244.000 53.244.000
$1.17^000 S3,
16.37,
16. 37, !
55,174.000 55.174.000
326.000 326.
PP-^°S SS^OO-JSO. '
5 . n i . 97,
52.963.000 Si.039.000 Si.039.000
0.55.
NJ:O: I"he as«-u^pt irjns -ncu in the dcve Loprrent 01 these figures are ir.c luded in the text discussion.
-------
amnrr
Y OF OPERATING COSTS FOR FRODUCgC ItSM MTOER VARIOUS PttOOUCTIOM ARP OPERATING COHOITIOHS
Alternate Melt Rate Tons/Hour
Number Operatina Hour* /Year
1 Cold Blast, Lined Cupola
Without Holding Furnace
Using Fabric Filter
Co.llec,tor
Qosts Per. Toil
Direct Material
Conversion Cost
Subtotal
Emission Control
Total
2 Hoc Blast, Water-Cooled. Un lined
Cupola with Channel Induction Holding
Furnace Ualnft HI ah Enemy Wet Scrubber,
Qo.ats Pet Ton,
Direct Material
Conversion Cost
Subtotal
Emission Control
Total
3 Electric Arc Furnace with Channel
Induction Holding Furnace Using
Coftts Per T.PJI
Direct Material
Conversion Coat
Subtotal
Emission Control
Total
t, Co re leas Induction Furnace with Charge
Prehtater, Without Holding Furnace,
Without Emission Control Except on
Pjpeheqter
Croats Per TOJI
Direct Material
Conversion Cost
Subtotal
Emission Control
Total
5
500 1.000 ^.OOQ 4.000
$ 51.09 $ 51.09 $ 51.09
65!$A 44.90 35.47
Siii^ll S 95.99 $ 86.56
10.00 6.00 3.50
$126.93 $101.99 3 90.06
7.91 5.91 3.91
$ 47.14 $ 47.14
38J04 29.48
S 85.18 S 76.62
3.50 2.50
S 88.68 S 79.12
$ 44.69 $ 44.69 $ 44.69
143.72 84.95 55.09
$168.41 $129.64 8 99.78
22.40 12.40 6. SO
SUP. 81 $142.04 $106. |8
10.61 8.71 ' 6. IX
$ 47.06 $ 47.06 $ 47.06
134.14 80.47 53. ?7
$181.20 $127.53 S100.!)3
9181.66 $127.80 9101.00
15
1.000 2.000 4.000
$ 51.09 $ 51.09 $ 51.09
33.22 25.70 19.56
S 84.31 S 76.79 $ 70.65
4.00 2.33 1.33
$ 88.31 $ 79.12 $ 71.98
4.5* 2.9* 1.9*
$ 47.14 $ 47.14
26.51 19.22
$ 73.65 S 66.36
2.00 1.25
$ 75.65 $ 67.61
$ 44.69 $ 44.69 $ 44.69
74! 78 47.94 33.33
$119.47 $ 92.63 S 78.02
5.47 3.27 2.13
$124.94 $ 95.90 $ 80.15
4.4% 3.41 2.71
$ 47.06 $ 47.06 $ 47.06
51.01 35.12 26.52
S 98. p? $ 62.18 S 73.58
.20 .14 .11
$ »8.27 $ 82.32 $ 73.69
30
$ 51.09 $ 51.09
21.92 16.40
S 73.01 $ 67.49
2.33 1.33
$ 75.34 $ 68.82
3.11 l.n
$ 47.14 $ 47.14
21.71 16.05
$ 68.85 $ 63.19
1.83 1.17
$ 70.68 $ 65.36
$ 44.69 $ 44.69
41.44 . 29.47
$ 86.13 $ 74.16
2.45 l.tO
$ 88.58 $ 75.76
2.8t 2.11
$ 47.06 $ 47.06
33.05 24.12
$ 80.11 S 71.18
.12 .10
$ BO. 23 S 71.28
.2% .n
50
2.000 4.000
$ 51.09 $ 51.09
18.55 14! 16
S 69.6* S 65.25
1.80 1.00
$ 71.44 8 66.25
2.51 1.51
$ 47.14 $ 47.14
18.83 14.00
$ 65.97 $ 61.14
l.H JS
$ 67.62 $ 62'. 12
$ 44.69 $ 44.69
3?! 14 26.79
S 81.83 $ 71.48
1.96 1.28
$ 63.79 S 72.76
2.31 1.81
S 47.06 $ 47.06
26.81 21.62
S 75.87 S 68.68
.11 .09
$ 75.98 $ 68.77
.11 .11
[Jot*; The assumptive taade in the develonaent ?C :..as-_ figures a:c inci-ded in tho text dl»
-------
MODIFICATIONS TO CUPOLA MELTING
PRACTICES TO REDUCE EMISSIONS
Savings
7.
Modification
Decrease Stack Gas Volume
1. Decrease area of charging door
and use vibrating feeder or
chute.
2. Locate gas take-off below top
of charge
3. Locate gas take-off at charging
door
Decrease Coke Charge
4. Hot blast
5. Oxygen enrichment
6. Natural gas injection
Preparation of Charge Materials
Screen coke and limestone
8. Shot blast foundry returns
Effect of Modification
Decrease air infiltration up
to 857..
Decrease 'volume of gas to be
cleaned up to 60%.
Decrease tocal gas to be
cleaned up to 74%
Decrease total gas volume 45%
Reduce coke requirement by
heating blast air using
na t ura 1 ga s fue 1.
Add 02 to blast air to in-
crease 02 content "of blast
from 21% to 25% permitting
coke reduction.
Inject natural gas and air in
stolchiometrlc ratio co re-
place up to 407, of coke
Remove coke breeze and lime-
stone dust from charge
Removes embedded molding and
core sand
9. Incineration or detergent wash- Remove oil, grease and other
ing broken motor blocks or combustibles
shredded automotive steel scrap
10. Remove nonferrous contaminants
Reduces nonferrous metallic
oxides in cupola emissions
Decrease in Emissions
None
None
None
Moderate - Estimated to be -4%
for constant melting rate.
Moderate - Estimated to be 57.
to 10% for constant melting
rate
Moderate . 15%
Depends upon degradation of
coke and limestone.
Estimated range of decrease
5%-20% consisting principally.
of +44 micron particles.
Depends upon amount of sand on
returns. Estimated range of
decrease 21-87..
Depends upon amount of combus-
tibles in scrap.
Estimated range of decrease
2%-2 57.
Depends upon amount of non-
ferrous material in scrap.
Estimated range of decrease
Equipment
Percent
7%
30%
Operation
Total Annual
Percent
33%
40%
43%
Cost of
Modification/Ton
Metal Melted
$1.00 per million BTU
$1.25/ton of metal
melted
$1.22/ton for 30%
coke replacement
$2.01/ton for 40%
coke replacement
Nominal
cost
Nominal
Savings
$2.00-$2.50/ton
$3.50 - $4.00 _
f
-------
EXHIBIT VIII-36
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS PER TON VS. OPERATING
HOURS PER YEAR FOR CORELESS INDUCTION FURNACE
WITH AFTERBURNER ON PREHEATER (ALTERNATE NO. 4)
480
420
360
300
o
H
on
w
240
180
120
60
0
I
OPERATING COSTS PER TON OF PRODUCTION
— = CAPITAL COSTS PER TON OF CAPACITY
TONS/HR
TONS/HR
15 TONS/HR.
30 TONS/HR.
50 TONS/HR.
15 TONS/HR.
.-=30 TONS/HR.
50 TONS/lHR.
1,000 2,000 3,000
^TING HOU^S /YEAR
4,000
-------
EXHIBIT VIII-35
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS PER TON VS. OPERATING
HOURS PER YEAR FOR ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE WITH
FABRIC FILTER (ALTERNATE NO. 3)
$360
320
280
I
orf
w
240
200
160
120
80
OPERATING COSTS PER TON OF PRODUCTION
— — — — = CAPITAL COSTS PER TON OF CAPACITY
" 15 TONS/-HR
-130 TONS/HR
50 TONS/HR
15 TONS/HR.
30 TONS/HR.
50 TONS/HR.
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
OPERATING HOURS/YEAR
-------
EXHIBIT VIII-34
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS PER TON VS. OPERATING
HOURS PER YEAR FOR HOT BLAST CUPOLA WITH
WET SCRUBBER (ALTERNATE NO. 2)
$90
80
70
60
§
H
w
Hi
H
§
50
40
30
10
15 TONS/HR.
30 TONS/HR.
50 TONS/HR.
OPERATING COSTS PER TON OF PRODUCTION
— = CAPITAL COSTS PER TON OF CAPACITY
h 1 1 1 1
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
OPERATING HOURS/YEAR
-------
EXHIBIT VIII-3
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS PER TON VS. OPERATING
HOURS PER YEAR FOR COLD BLAST CUPOLA WITH
FABRIC FILTER (ALTERNATE NO. 1)
$180
160
140
120
z
o
H
orf
W
On
100
80
60
20
I
OPERATING COSTS PER TON OF PRODUCTION
= CAPITAL COSTS PER TON OF CAPACITY
5 TONS/HR.
15 TONS/HR
30 TONS/HR
50 TONS/HR
5 TONS/HR.
15 TONS/HR
;30 TONS/HR
'50 TONS/HR
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
OPERATING HOURS/YEAR
-------
INVENTORY OF IRON FOUNDRY EMISSIONS
FROM MELTIHC OPERATIONS. 1969
Total
Castings
Production
Res ion fona (1)
New England 235.000
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Middle Atlantic 3,501,000
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
East N. Central 6.225.000
Ohio
Indiana
Illinois
Michigan
Wisconsin
West N. Central 607,000
Minnesota
Iowa
Missouri
Nebraska
Kansas
N. Dakota
S. Dakota
South Atlantic 473, OCO
Delaware
Maryland
Virginia
W. Virginia
N. Carolina
S. Carolina
Georgia
Florida
East S. Central 2.300.000
Kentucky
Mississippi
Alabama
Tennessee
West S. Central 531.000
Arkansas
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Texas
Mountain 243,000
Montana
Colorado
Arizona
Nevada -(2)
Idaho
New Mexico (2)
Wyoming (2)
Pacific 499,000
Washington
Oregon
California
Hawaii
Alaska
Partlculate Carbon Partlculate Carbon
Molten Iron Emissions Monoxide Emissions Monoxide
Production Generated, Generated, Emitted, Emitted.
Tom (1) Tons (1) Tons (3) Tons (i) Tons (5)
362,000 3,800 49,000 2,800 24,500
5,143,000 51,000 594,000 38,000 297,000
12,613,000 126,000 1.541,000 94,500 770,500
881,000 9.100 115.000 6.800 57,500
662,000 6,800 88,000 5,100 44,000
2,887,000 27,700 304,000 20,800 152,000
748,000 7,700 100.000 5.800 50,000
332,000 3,300 38,000 2,500 19,000
739,000 7,600 95,000 5,700 47.500
Total
16.614.000 24.367.000
243.000 2.924.000
Notes: (1) Castings and molten iron production quantities from cupolas and electric
arc furnaces only.
(2) No iron foundries are located In Nevada, New Mexico, and Wyoming.
(3) Partlculate emissions and carbon monoxide generated are the estimated
maximum produced.
(4) Partlculate emissions emitted are estimated at 75Z of
with an average 25* being collected.
produced,
(5) Carbon monoxide emitted is estimated at 501 being burned and SOX re-
leased to the atmosphere.
-------
RATING COM!
IRON FOUNDRY MISSION CONTROL
CLASSIFICATION
Amount ol; Emission^
Comparison of mission
rates from all sources.
Particle g^e,
Based on particle size
distribution. Maximum
diameter of finest 20%
by weight.
Difficulty of, Caoture
Based on degree of
confinement of emissions
at source.
Difficulty of Separation
Comparison of particle
size distribution and
other characteristics, of
emissions affecting
difficulty of separation.
Cost of Control Systems
Relative cost of
separation equipment
only, as affected by
type of system and
treasure drop.
2ost of Auxiliary
Eauiotnent
Based on complexity
of ductwork, cost of
motors , blowers and
other auxiliary equipment
Availability of Control
Equipment
Based on whether
equipment is standard
and mass-produced.
requires detailed
engineering, or complete
design engineering.
Capability of Control
Equipment
Ability of existing
control devices to
perform satisfactorily.
Priority RatinR-
Priority
' RATING NUMBER
1-5
Low
Coarse
Easy
Easy
Low
Low
Readily Available
Very Capable
1
6-10
Moderate
Medium
Moderate
Moderate
Madlum
Medium
Available
Moderately
Capable
7-80 81
Low M<
11-15
High
Fine
Difficult
Difficult
High
High
Difficult to Find
Capable
3-110 110
edium H
16-20
Very High
Very Fine
Extremely
Difficult
Extreme ly
Difficult
Extremely High
Extremely High
Experimental or
Pilot Plant
Systems Only
Not Capable
i
-160
igh
-------
INVENTORY OF IRON FOUNDRY EMISSIONS
FROM NON-SMELTING OPERATIONS. 1969
Region
New England
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Middle Atlantic
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
East North Central
Ohio
Indiana
Illinois
Michigan
Wisconsin
West North Central
Minnesota
Iowa
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
South Atlantic
Delaware
. Maryland
Virginia
West Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Castings
Production
Tons
239,000
3,643,000
677,000
485,000
Total
Particulate Particulate
Molten Iron Emissions Emissions
Production Generated Emitted
Tom Tons Tons
368,000
5,603,000
8,453,000 13,001,000
1,041,000
746,000
21,000
319,400
741,100
59,300
42,500
1,100
16,200
37,700
3,000
2,200
East South Central
Kentucky
Mississippi
Alabama
Tennessee
West South Central
Arkansas
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Texas
Mounta in
Montana
Colorado
Arizona
Nevada (*•)
Idaho
New Mexico(1)
Wyoming(1)
Pacific
Washington
Oregon
California
Hawaii
Alaska
2,327,000
551,000
249,000
531,000
17.155.000
3,579,000
847,000
383,000
817,000
204,000
48,300
21,800
46,600
10,400
2,500
1,100
2,400
(1) No iron foundries are
Wyoming.
26.385.000 1.504.000 76.600
located in Nevada, New Mexico, and
------- |