1993•Unpublished venueOpen access

Bethlehem Steel Corporation Blast Furnace Granulated Coal Injection Demonstration Project

USDOE Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, Washington, DC (United States), USDOE, Washington, DC (United States)

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

Construction of the proposed BFGCI system is not expected to have significant impacts on air quality, noise, and land use at the Burns Harbor Plant area. Operation of the proposed BFGCI system is not expected to have significant impacts on the environment at the Burns Harbor Plant area. An increase of approximately 30 tons/yr for NO{sub x} and approximately 13 tons/yr for particulate matter (from the coal storage area) is expected. These emissions are within the currently permitted levels. Carbon dioxide emissions, which are unregulated, would increase by about 220,000 tons/yr at the Burns Harbor Plant. Water withdrawn and returned to Lake Michigan would increase by 1.3 million gal/d (0.4 percent of existing permitted discharge) for non-contact cooling water. No protected species, floodplains, wetlands, or cultural resources would be affected by operation of the proposed facility. Small economic benefits would occur from the creation of 5 or 6 permanent new jobs during the operation of the proposed demonstration project and subsequent commercial operation. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed project would not receive cost-shared funding support from DOE.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Construction of the proposed BFGCI system is not expected to have significant impacts on air quality, noise, and land use at the Burns Harbor Plant area. Operation of the proposed BFGCI system is not expected to have significant impacts on the environment at the Burns Harbor Plant area. An increase of approximately 30 tons/yr for NO{sub x} and approximately 13 tons/yr for particulate matter (from the coal storage area) is expected. These emissions are within the currently permitted levels. Carbon dioxide emissions, which are unregulated, would increase by about 220,000 tons/yr at the Burns Harbor Plant. Water withdrawn and returned to Lake Michigan would increase by 1.3 million gal/d (0.4 percent of existing permitted discharge) for non-contact cooling water. No protected species, floodplains, wetlands, or cultural resources would be affected by operation of the proposed facility. Small economic benefits would occur from the creation of 5 or 6 permanent new jobs during the operation of the proposed demonstration project and subsequent commercial operation. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed project would not receive cost-shared funding support from DOE.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Construction of the proposed BFGCI system is not expected to have significant impacts on air quality, noise, and land use at the Burns Harbor Plant area. Operation of the proposed BFGCI system is not expected to have significant impacts on the environment at the Burns Harbor Plant area. An increase of approximately 30 tons/yr for NO{sub x} and approximately 13 tons/yr for particulate matter (from the coal storage area) is expected. These emissions are within the currently permitted levels. Carbon dioxide emissions, which are unregulated, would increase by about 220,000 tons/yr at the Burns Harbor Plant. Water withdrawn and returned to Lake Michigan would increase by 1.3 million gal/d (0.4 percent of existing permitted discharge) for non-contact cooling water. No protected species, floodplains, wetlands, or cultural resources would be affected by operation of the proposed facility. Small economic benefits would occur from the creation of 5 or 6 permanent new jobs during the operation of the proposed demonstration project and subsequent commercial operation. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed project would not receive cost-shared funding support from DOE.

Key concepts: Blast furnace, Waste management, Blast furnace gas, Coke, Coal, Environmental science, Metallurgy, Ground granulated blast-furnace slag

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Bethlehem Steel Corporation Blast Furnace Granulated Coal Injection Demonstration Project — Research Paper | ScholarLens