CRADLE-TO-GATE LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY: CANADIAN AND US …€¦ · Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle...

CRADLE-TO-GATE LIFE CYCLEINVENTORY: CANADIAN AND USSTEEL PRODUCTION BY MILL TYPE

Based on reports by:

MARKUS ENGINEERING SERVICES

Ottawa, CanadaMarch 2002

ACKNOWLEDGMENTThis report was made possible through the support of Natural ResourcesCanada and the federal Climate Change Action Fund under its TechnologyEarly Action Measures Program (TEAM).

DISCLAIMER

Although the ATHENATM Sustainable Materials Institute has done its best

to ensure accurate and reliable information in this report, the Institute doesnot warrant the accuracy thereof. If notified of any errors or omissions, theInstitute will take reasonable steps to correct such errors or omissions.

COPYRIGHT

No part of this report may be reproduced in any form or by any means,electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without the writtenpermission of the ATHENATM Sustainable Materials Institute.

Text © 2002 ATHENATM Sustainable Materials Institute

ATHENATM Sustainable Materials Institute28 St. John Street, P.O. Box 189Merrickville, Ontario Canada, K0G 1N0Tel: 613-269-3795Fax: 613-269-3796Email: [email protected]

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 REPORT STRUCTURE........................................................................................................................... 1

2 OVERVIEW OF THE CANADIAN AND US STEEL INDUSTRY................................................... 3

2.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................... 32.1.1 Product Categories.................................................................................................................. 32.1.2 Plant Types............................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 THE CANADIAN STEEL INDUSTRY...................................................................................................... 42.3 THE UNITED STATES STEEL INDUSTRY.............................................................................................. 62.4 TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS..................................................................................................... 8

2.4.1 Iron-Making.............................................................................................................................. 92.4.2 EAF Process Developments..................................................................................................... 92.4.3 Steel Casting Technology....................................................................................................... 102.4.4 Cold Rolling and Finishing.................................................................................................... 10

2.5 ENERGY CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL........................................................... 102.5.1 Energy Conservation.............................................................................................................. 102.5.2 Emissions to Air ..................................................................................................................... 112.5.3 Emissions to Water................................................................................................................. 112.5.4 Solid Wastes........................................................................................................................... 12

3 STUDY APPROACH .............................................................................................................................. 14

3.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................. 143.2 INTEGRATED CANADIAN PLANTS..................................................................................................... 14

3.2.1 The Reference Plant............................................................................................................... 153.2.2 Unit Processes........................................................................................................................ 153.2.3 Emission Factors.................................................................................................................... 253.2.4 Water Use and Emissions to Water....................................................................................... 26

3.3 CANADIAN MINI-MILLS ................................................................................................................... 293.3.1 Reference Plants..................................................................................................................... 293.3.2 Scrap Usage and Types.......................................................................................................... 353.3.3 Water Use and Emissions to Water....................................................................................... 39

3.4 COMBINED CANADIAN MILLS .......................................................................................................... 403.4.1 Energy Components............................................................................................................... 403.4.2 Process versus Combustion Emissions to Air ....................................................................... 42

3.5 COMBINED US MILLS....................................................................................................................... 43

4 LCI RESULTS BY PRODUCT.............................................................................................................. 44

4.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................. 444.2 LCI ESTIMATES................................................................................................................................ 44

4.2.1 The Effects of Processing Steps and Yield............................................................................ 45

5 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................... 82

5.1 INTEGRATED MILLS .......................................................................................................................... 825.2 MINI-MILLS ....................................................................................................................................... 87

Appendices

Appendix 1 Mass and Energy Balances - Exploration, Mining and Processing ofRaw Materials

Appendix 2 Mass and Energy Balances - Transportation of Raw MaterialsAppendix 3 Mass and Energy Balances - Primary ProcessesAppendix 4 Mass and Energy Balances - Finishing MillsAppendix 5 Mass and Energy Balances - Manufacturing of Finished ProductsAppendix 6 Flat Rolled Products: Energy and Emission DiagramsAppendix 7 Shapes Products: Energy and Emission Diagrams

List of Tables

Table 1 Characteristics of Major Canadian Steel Plants 5Table 2 Canadian Steel Production in 2000 by Product Plant Type 6Table 3 List of Major Steel Plants in USA 7Table 4 Estimated Production of Molten Steel in 2000 by Process Type 7Table 5 Shipments of Selected Products in 2000 by US Plant Type 8Table 6 Annual Reference Plant Steel Production 15Table 7 Major Raw Material/Energy Purchases and Credits - Reference Plant 16Table 8 Net Contaminate Discharge by Canadian Integrated Plants, 2000 29Table 9 Annual Steel Production: Reference Steel Plants 30Table 10 Annual Material Consumption: Flat Rolled Reference Plant 32Table 11 Annual Material Consumption: Shapes Products Reference Plant 34Table 12 Net Contaminate Discharge by Canadian Mini-Mills, 2000 40Table 13 LCI Estimates by Product: Canadian Integrated Mills 46Table 14 LCI Estimates by Product: Canadian Mini-Mills 56Table 15 LCI Estimates by Product: Combined Canadian Mills 62Table 16 LCI Estimates by Product: Combined US Mills 72

List of Figures

Figure 1 Sinter Plant Schematic 17Figure 2 Coke Ovens Schematic 18Figure 3 Blast Furnace Schematic 19Figure 4 BOF Steelmaking Schematic 20Figure 5 Reference Plant Flow Diagram 21Figure 6 Reference Plant Gas Distribution 24Figure 7 Energy and Mass Balances for Blast Furnace Stoves 24Figure 8 Annual Production of Flat Rolled Steel: Reference Plant 30Figure 9 Schematic of DRI/EAF Process Flow 31Figure 10 Annual Production of Shapes: Reference Plant 33Figure 11 Schematic of Shapes: EAF Process Flow 33Figure 12 Basic Scrap Types and Flows 36Figure 13 Estimated Scrap Recycle Quantities in 2000 37

Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle Inventory:Canadian and US Steel Production by Mill Type

1 INTRODUCTIONThis life cycle inventory (LCI) study of selected Canadian and US steel building productswas commissioned by the ATHENATM Sustainable Materials Institute1 to up-date ouroriginal studies of steel production.

The original work was done over two years (1993-94) by Stelco Technical ServicesLimited as two distinct studies, an assessment of production in fully integrate mills and inscrap-based mini-mills. The results from these two studies were then combined todevelop weighted average results by product, using the relative production levels of thetwo types of mills as the weights.

In view of the environmental advances made by the steel industry over the past decade, itbecame progressively more apparent that this work should be up-dated. The Institutetherefore retained Mr. Frank Marcus of Marcus Engineering Services, a central memberof the original study team, to complete the up-date following the basic approach of theoriginal study. We also decided this was an appropriate time to add data for U.S.production of steel building products.

The original studies were released as separate reports because of the sequential manner inwhich they were undertaken, and Marcus Engineering prepared the up-date by revisingeach of the reports separately. That naturally led to considerable duplication of basicexplanatory material and common elements of the analyses. To avoid perpetuation ofthat problem we decided to release this up-date as one integrated report. Given therelative complexity of this study in comparison to most of our other LCI studies, we alsodecided to develop a stand-alone version of the up-date rather than an up-date addendumas in some other reports. This report was therefore prepared from the MarcusEngineering reports by the Institute, and it supersedes the earlier Institute reports on bothintegrated and mini-mill steel production.

1.1 Report StructureThis report is organized as follows:

Section 2 provides an overview of the Canadian and US steel industry, including abackdrop description of basic plant types and product categories, anoverview of the industry structure and production levels in both countries, areview of technological development highlights, and a review of energyconservation and environmental control approaches with an emphasis on thegains made over the past decade.

1 ATHENA is a registered trademark of the ATHENA Sustainable Materials Institute.

ATHENA INSTITUTE: LCI OF CANADIAN AND US STEEL PRODUCTS 2

Section 3 describes the basic study approach for each type of plant in Canada and forthe development of comparable LCI estimates for the US, including unitprocess flow diagrams, energy and mass balance information, a discussion ofthe special approach to estimating emissions to water, and a discussion of thespecific components of energy including chemical energy.

Section 4 then presents the detailed life cycle inventory results by Canadian mill typeand product as well as for the combined Canadian and combined USproduction.

Section 5 is a complete bibliography.

Appendices 1 – 7 provide unit process flow diagrams with energy and mass balanceresults as well as emission factors.


2 Overview of the Canadian and US Steel Industry

2.1 IntroductionWorld steel production has grown at a relatively slow rate since the mid-1970s, a periodmarked by a steady shift from oxygen based steel making to production using electric arcfurnaces (EAF). However, the deployment of new process technology has been slowerthan expected because the older blast furnace and basic oxygen furnace (BOF) plants arestill efficient and the industry strategy is to maximize the profitability andcompetitiveness of existing plants. The developments in product technology (reduction ofweight and better recycling) and in process technology (increased quality) have assuredthat steel remains competitive with other materials. Improvements have been by means ofcost reduction, by producing steel of a higher quality, and by extending asset life, trendsthat have also had an impact on the availability of some scrap grades.

All of these developments are as applicable to Canadian and US steel production as toproduction in other parts of the world.

The several different process routes used in making steel are discussed in detail in sub-section 2.4. But it is useful to highlight the key features of the different plant types andproduct categories here, as a backdrop to the basic description of the industry make-up inCanada and the United States.

2.1.1 Product CategoriesSteel products can be broadly categorized into flat rolled and long products. Flat rolledproducts include plate, hot rolled sheet/strip, cold rolled sheet/strip, galvanized sheet, andtinplate and tin-free container plate. Plate and strip can be further processed into pipe andtubing, pre painted sheet and other such products.

Long products include wire rods, sections and shapes, and a wide range of bar products.A variety of wire, nail and fastener products are made from wire rods. Rails and heavystructural sections, while technically long products, are rolled in specially designed largermills and are generally categorized as separate classes of product.

2.1.2 Plant TypesIntegrated plants produce hot metal (pig iron) from iron ore and coke in a blast furnaceand then use the hot metal, in combination with small amounts of mainly internallygenerated scrap (own scrap), to produce steel in oxygen-blown vessel. Most flat rolledproducts are produced in the integrated plants. Long products are also made by some ofthe more diversified integrated companies.

Non-integrated plants — mini-mills, market-mills or specialty producers — melt scrapcharges, sometimes with the addition of small quantities of direct reduced iron (DRI) orcold iron, in electric arc furnaces to make steel. Mini-mills traditionally specializes inlong products but some of the companies, such as Ipsco in Canada and Nucor Corp. in theUnited States, produce ever-increasing volumes of flat rolled products.


DRI/EAF plants use a direct reduction process for solid-state production of iron from ironore. The DRI pellets or briquettes are charged, together with scrap, into an electric-arcfurnace to make steel. DRI/EAF plants make both flat rolled and long products, with themix dictated by specific market targets.

Because of the large amount of energy required for blast furnace steel making, steel madein integrated plants from a high percentage of virgin materials is inherently more energy-intensive than steel made in mini-mills from all-scrap feedstock. The energy required tomake steel in a DRI-integrated plant could be somewhat more or somewhat less,depending on the DRI/scrap ratio, than the energy consumed in a fully integrated plant.Just where the balance between ore and scrap materials will be struck is debatable, butthe literature suggests that production will ultimately be 50 to 60 percent from integratedplants (ore) and 40 to 50 percent from non-integrated plants (scrap).

There are also a large number of specialty steel plants, producing steel for customforging, special casting and other such low volume applications. These plants are notincluded in this study.

2.2 The Canadian Steel IndustryThe Canadian Steel Industry comprises 42 plants located in all parts of the country exceptNewfoundland, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. Total installed capacity ofthe industry has been essentially constant over the past five years, at about 20 milliontonnes of semi-finished steel per year, with about 300,000 tonnes of additional capacitydedicated to foundry castings and forging plants. Foundries and forging plants arenumerous but small in size. They produce only a few thousand tonnes of steel per yearfor custom forging, special casting and other low volume applications and are notincluded in the current study.

Seventeen of the 42 plants, owned by 12 different companies, could each produce morethan 100,000 tonnes per year. Two separately owned plants have annual capacities ofthree-quarters to one million tonnes per year, and five plants, owned by four differentsteelmakers, can produce in excess of one million tonnes per year, each.

The steel-making center of Canada is southern Ontario, with four of the major plantsconcentrated near the eastern end of Lake Erie and the western end of Lake Ontario —Dofasco Inc. (Hamilton), Co-Steel Lasco (Whitby), and the Stelco Inc. Lake Erie(Nanticoke) and Hilton Works (Hamilton). The other large Canadian steel producers areAlgoma Steel Inc. (Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario), Sidbec-Dosco Inc. (Contrecoeur, Quebec)and Ipsco Inc. (Regina, Saskatchewan).

The capacities of these plants and their classification by steel-making process are shownin Table 1.


Table 1CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR CANADIAN STEEL PLANTS

(tonnes/year in 2000)

Company Capacity Classification Steel Furnace

Algoma Steel Inc. 3,195,000 Integrated Pneumatic

Dofasco Inc. 3,800,000* Integrated and EAF* Pneumatic + EAF

Ipsco Inc. 750,000 Non-integrated EAF

Co-Steel Lasco 950,000 Non-integrated EAF

Sidbec-Dosco Inc. 1,800,000 DRI-integrated EAF

Stelco (Hilton) 3,150,000 Integrated Pneumatic

Stelco (L. Erie) 2,400,000 Integrated Pneumatic

*Capacity of plant located in Canada

There are another 11 mini and specialty steel mills, with a combined semi-finished steelproduction capacity of approximately 5 million tonnes. Their names and locations are:

Courtice Steel Inc. Cambridge, OntarioIvaco Rolling Mills L’Orignal, OntarioManitoba Rolling Mills Selkirk, ManitobaSlater Steels Hamilton, OntarioStelco-McMaster Ltée Contrecoeur, QuébecAltaSteel Ltd. Edmonton, AlbertaSydney Steel Corp. Sydney, Nova ScotiaWestern Canada Steel Ltd (IPSCO) Calgary, AlbertaQIT - Fer et Titane Inc. Sorel, QuébecAtlas Specialty Steels Welland, OntarioAtlas Stainless Steels Tracy, Québec

The mini-mills belong to three distinctive groups:

Among the ten EAF-based plants, nine produce shapes (rod and bar) products only, whileone produces flat rolled semi-finished steel for the manufacture of pipes and tubes.Another EAF-based mini-mill steel plant (direct reduction/EAF) produces both flat rolledand shapes products.

One of these plants is unique; its main product is slag for the production of titaniumoxide, and iron is its by-product. This iron is refined in a pneumatic steelmaking vessel(Q-BOP) and then the steel is continuously cast to produce billets for shape products.

Two plants that produce stainless steel from which flat rolled and shapes products aremade are not included in this study.

Table 2 details shipments by plant type in 2000 of the selected products of interest in thisstudy. It is notable that Canadian steel plant utilization increased from about 65 % in


1990 to 92 percent in 2000. During this period, EAF production increased to 6.9 milliontonnes, representing 41.9 percent of total steel production.

Steel imports in Canada increased continuously in the second half of the 1990s, from 5.2million tonnes in 1996 to almost 10 million tonnes in 2000. Although the netimport/export balance affects the environmental profile of steel products in the marketplace, these effects are not included in this study.

Table 2CANADIAN STEEL PRODUCTION IN 2000

BY PRODUCT PLANT TYPE(tonnes)

Plant typeFlat Rolled Products Integrated DRI-EAF EAF Total

Galvanized Decking 17,518 5,590 0 23,208

Galvanized Sheet 2,458,807 0 100,000 2,558,807

Cold Rolled Sheet 1,200,875 219,750 200,000 1,620,625

Tubing 160,736 25,946 0 186,682

Hot Rolled Sheet 4,542,032 873,081 2,430,742 7,850,855

HSS 30,264 0 0 30,264

Long Products

Nails 18,458 10,000 28,277 56,735

Welded Wire Mesh and Ladder Wire 399,756 5,000 4,070 408,826

Screws, Nuts and Bolts 20,176 10,000 16,470 46,646

Open Web Joists 12,539 5,633 5,000 23,172

Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 252,264 0 2,579,976 2,827,240Heavy Trusses 360,250 0 430,000 790,250

Galvanized Studs 23,108 0 0 23,008Total of All Products 9,496,783 1,155,000 5,794,535 16,446,318

Note: This table presents the best estimates obtained using available data. For most products, they agree withthe AISI 2000 Annual Statistical Report.

2.3 The United States Steel IndustryRanked as the third largest steel producing country in the world, total installed capacityof the United Stated steel industry has been constant at about 130.5 million tonnes ofsemi-finished steel per year, over the past five years.

The large US steel producers (integrated and mini-mills) are listed in Table 3.

In 2000, the US steel industry produced 112,242,000 tonnes of raw steel, which itconverted into 100,49,000 tonnes of products. However, the industry imported relativelylarge volume of semi-products from other countries, and actually shipped 109,050,000tonnes of finished products. In addition, the US imported 29,401,000 tonnes of finishedproducts to meet the total domestic demand of 131,922,000 tonnes.


Table 3LIST OF MAJOR STEEL PLANTS IN USA

INTEGRATED MILLS MINIMILLS

ACME Steel Inc. Atlantic Steel CO.

ARMCO Steel Inc. Bayou Steel Corp.

Bethlehem Steel CORP. Birmingham Steel CORP.

Geneva Steel Inc Calumet Steel Co

Gulf States steel Inc. Cascade steel Roll. Mill Inc.

Inland steel Chaparral Steel CO

Lone Star steel Co

LTV Steel Co Inc.

McLouth Steel

National Steel Corp.

Oregon Steel Mills Inc.

Rouge Steel Corp.

Sharon Specialty Steel Inc

USS/KOBE steel Co.

US Steel Corp.

WCI Steel Inc.

Weirton Steel Corp.

CITISTEEL USA Inc

FIRSTMISS STEEL INC.

Florida Steel Corp.

Georgetown Steel Corp.

Marion Steel Co.

New Jersey Steel Corp.

North Star Steel CO

North West steel & wire Co.

Nucor Corp.

Nucor-Yamato Steel CO.

Raritan River Steel CO

Roanoke Electric Steel Corp

Sheffield Steel Corp

TAMCO Steel

The production of raw steel in US steel plants for 2000 is listed in Table 4.

Table 4ESTIMATED PRODUCTION OF MOLTEN STEEL IN 2000

BY PROCESS TYPE(tonnes/year)

ProcessFlat RolledProducts

Long ProductsTotals

CO/BF/BOF 47,640, 366 8,883,900 56,524,266EAF, DRI/EAF 27,430, 007 28,287,727 55,717,734

Totals 75,070, 373 37,171,627 112,242,000 Note: Estimated from various data; consistent with AISI 2000 Annual Statistical Report.


Table 5 shows the shipments of steel products relevant to this study from US plants in2000.

Table 5SHIPMENTS OF SELECTED PRODUCTS in 2000

BY US PLANT TYPE(tonnes)

Plant TypeFlat Rolled Products Integrated DRI-EAF EAF Total

Tin sheet products (Decking) 3,741,526 0 0 3,741,626

Galvanized Sheet 14,035,777 0 4,145,306 18,181,083

Cold Rolled Sheet 8,133,798 1,000,000 6,000,000 15,133,798

Tubing 5,235,062 150,000 0 5,385,062

Hot Rolled Sheet 6,834,525 2,500,000 11,000,000 20,334,525

HSS 5,000,000 0 0 5,000,000

Long Products

Nails 600,000 100,000 207,867 907,867

Welded Wire Mesh & Ladder Wire 2,250,000 50,000 11,271,699 13,571,699

Screws, Nuts and Bolts 2,000,000 600,000 1,871,191 4,471,191

Open Web Joists 200,000 100,000 1,254,657 1,554,657

Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 1,052,675 0 8,996,043 10,048,718Heavy Trusses 211,255 0 602,194 813,449

Galvanized Studs 1,247,325 100,000 0 1,347,325Totals 50,542,043 4,600,000 45,348,957 100,491,000

Note: Estimated from various data sources, with adjustments to take account of the large volume ofsemi-product net imports. The estimates generally agree with the AISI 2000 Annual StatisticalReport.

Steel imports to the US increased steadily over the decade 1990 – 2000, from 15.85million tonnes in 1991 to almost 38 million tonnes in 2000. The ratio of imports to totalproduction is now relatively high, but this factor is not taken into account in estimatingthe environmental effect associated with US steel products available in the market place.

2.4 Technological DevelopmentsA host of technological developments have been made over the past decade with respectto virtually all aspects of steel-making, developments resulting in cost reductions,improved quality control and extensions of asset lives. Of particular note in this study isthe extent to which these developments have resulted in reduced energy consumption andimproved performance. We cannot detail all of these developments here, but it is usefulto highlight the key trends and environmental performance improvements.


2.4.1 Iron-MakingWorld DRI production has increased markedly in the past decade in keeping with the risein global EAF steel making. The annual production of DRI stands at 37 million tonnes.Gas-based reduction processes produce the vast majority of this iron and therefore mostplants are located close to large reserves of natural gas.

The only commercially proven new smelting process is the COREX process, developedby VAI. Agglomerated ores are used as feedstock and the process has a current capacityof 700 000 t/y for a single C2000 unit, operating on a pellet burden. Larger units (C3000)are planned that will have a guaranteed capacity of 1.08 Mt/y. Processes in thedevelopment stage include the Hismelt, CCF and DIOS, or the Iron Dynamics process, inwhich fine ores are directly reduced in a rotary hearth. Their product is fed to asubmerged-arc furnace to produce a liquid metal for EAF refining.

2.4.2 EAF Process Developments.There has been remarkable progress in the EAF steel-making process in the US andCanada over the past decade. Plants were designed, developed and built with anincreasingly varied and innovative array of new technologies. Operating performanceshave underlined the considerable level of flexibility of the process and the potential forstill further reductions in operating costs and productivity improvements. Processflexibility is also becoming increasingly important, with the ability to operate using avariety of feedstocks regarded as the key to process choice. The feedstock can includescrap, DRI or hot metal, or a combination of these materials depending on the economicsof supply.

The increased use of hot metal (or pig iron) is a recent trend, with the benefit of usingvirgin iron ore for high productivity of arc-furnace products. This has led to furnacedesigns that are effectively a hybrid between EAF and BOF vessels in that they areequipped with both electrodes and a top oxygen lance. The viability of small-scaleoperation, and the ability to feed regional markets from a green field site, makes thistechnology the first choice for plant owners. An advantage is lower capital costs for aplant producing, say, 1 million tonnes of steel per year, compared with the conventionalBF/BOF process route.

The following are examples of process improvements in mini-mill operations:

• larger transformers, for faster and more efficient melting;• increased use of oxygen for faster melting and refining;• carbon injection, for better slag/arc control, and for better heat utilization;• post-combustion, for improved utilization of off-gases; and• high temperature scrap preheating, for faster heat times and better energy

utilization.

The use of primary fuels to replace a portion of the electricity needed for scrap preheatingand melting (oxy-fuel burners) also reduces the demand on less efficient powergenerating stations.


2.4.3 Steel Casting Technology.Developments of steel casting technology have aimed at reducing the number of stepsinvolved in producing the final product. There has been widespread adoption ofcontinuous casting for the direct production of slabs, blooms and billets. Continuouscasting of molten steel eliminates a series of processing steps carried out previously -teeming of ingots and subsequent rolling of the ingots to slabs, blooms, or billets.

With thin-slab casting, the number of stages is reduced and the length of the line isshortened to about 250 meters. There have been 30 installations since the first thin-slabcasting plant was built in 1989. It is now a proven technology and the majority of newflat-product casting plants use thin or medium thickness casting machines.

This technology has the advantage over conventional casters of being economicallyviable at annual capacities as low as 1 million tonnes, with the benefit of providing agood fit with the EAF steel-making route. Adding a second casting plant and a re-heatingfurnace, which can normally double the plant capacity, is a relatively low cost option.Another development is the direct-strip caster for producing much thinner gauges. Thin-slab casting of stainless steel grades has also been developing, with installationsunderway worldwide.

2.4.4 Cold Rolling and Finishing.Many flat product mini-mills, based on EAF technology, are adding value to theirproduct by installing a cold rolling mill and galvanizing facilities. Steel Dynamics in theUSA has been producing strip for non-exposed parts in the automotive industry for sometime, and is confident that in the future it will be able to make strip for exposedapplications as well.

2.5 Energy conservation and Environmental ControlThe steel industry has devoted considerable effort to improving its performance in theareas of energy use, emissions to air and water, and the management of secondarymaterials.

2.5.1 Energy ConservationAs indicated in the preceding discussion, steel producers have developed or adapted anumber of key methods for conserving energy in both the oxygen and electric arc furnacesteel-making processes and in subsequent processes for rolling and finishing of steel.

Energy reduction in the production of BOF slabs, coupled with a shift to the less energy-intensive production of EAF slabs, were major contributors to energy reduction. Inaddition, natural gas use has increased, with a resulting decline of about 6.5 percent intotal C02 emissions and in C02 per shipped weight over the last ten years.

Primary manufacturing plants account for roughly 85% of energy consumption, and theseplants have therefore been a primary focus for energy reduction initiatives. Thecompanies employ increasingly sophisticated tools to define and track energyperformance, identify areas of potential improvement, set specific goals and implement


energy saving projects. In the case of Canadian plants, for example, an analysis of datafrom the AISI year 2000 report (Table 42), listing the annual production of steel inCanada, indicates the following gains in energy consumption.

• The specific energy consumption for integrated (BOF) plants was reduced from20.0 to 19.0 GJ/ton of raw steel.

• The specific energy consumption for all mini-mill (EAF) plants was reduced from9.05 to 8.05 GJ/ton of raw steel.

• There was a decrease in the specific energy consumption for all Canadian steelplants, over the whole 1990 – 2000 decade, of about 1.0 GJ/ton of raw steel.

2.5.2 Emissions to AirIn the case of emissions to air, regulations and the industry’s emission control effortshave focused on particulate and specific gaseous emissions.

The control of particulate emissions has resulted in virtually zero visible emissions froman industry that was once noted for its colorful smoke stacks. Zero visible emissionswere achieved by the installation of emission control devices such as electrostaticprecipitators, gas washers and scrubbers, and fabric filters on all process waste gasstreams that contain particulate. Dust and fumes, resulting from material handling andfrom operations such as tapping and casting, are captured by large systems of hoods andducts and are removed by dust cleaning devices.

The operation of particulate emission control devices requires a large amount of electricalenergy. The generation of this electricity in fossil fuel-fired generating plants createsemissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), which have been identifiedas pollutants of concern.

The control of gaseous emissions has focussed on the elimination of benzene emissionsfrom the coke making process. This achievement was made possible by modifying theprocesses so that liquid streams containing benzene never contact the air.

Other actions to improve air emissions include:

• berming, fencing and green belting;

• participation in programs such as the Ontario Anti-Smog Action Plan, which aimsto reduce emissions of NOx, volatile organic compounds (VOC), Sulphur dioxide(S02), PM10 and PM2.5 (fine particulates); and

• road paving using recycled steel slag in the asphalt.

2.5.3 Emissions to WaterWater is required in large quantities by many of the steel manufacturing processes.Water that comes into direct contact with a process, and may therefore pick upcontaminants, is referred to as process water. Examples include the water sprayed on hotrolling mills for cooling and scale removal, and the water used to scrub particulates out ofblast furnace gas.


The degree to which process water is re-circulated, reused, and treated before dischargevaries greatly from plant to plant. In a plant with the best available technology, processwater is treated, cooled and re-circulated to the maximum extent possible, with a plantcontaining state-of-the-art technology to treat the small fraction of water that must beremoved from the system for inventory control. At the other extreme are steel plantswhere only some process water is recirculated and large quantities of treated water aredischarged into a watercourse. These plants typically have systems to maximizerecirculation of contaminated process water, including blast furnace gas cleaning andcooling water, and coke oven gas cooling and cleaning water. Wastewater from otherprocesses, such as hot rolling, is typically treated via settling ponds, skimmers and filtersto reduce the levels of oil and suspended solids before being discharged.

Overall, the industry has increased the use of water in the “closed loop” recirculationsystems, which reduce substantially the amount of water drawn from outside sources. Anexample of the gains that have been made is the reduction of particulate loading toHamilton Harbour by more than 99% since 1990. Other examples of efforts in variousplants to reduce emissions to water include:

• the construction of a 2200-m2 large storm water pond to reduce potential effluentloading from the storm water drainage;

• the use of special infiltration equipment and a variety of plants in the pond (e.g.,cattails and bulrushes) to treat the run-off water; and

• water management studies for wastewater treatment from coke makingoperations.

2.5.4 Solid WastesThe steel industry continues to pursue new opportunities for the management ofsecondary materials in order to reduce waste and increase economic benefits. Many of thesolid waste materials from the production of steel products can be recycled or sold as by-products: for example, scrap steel from cropping, product sizing and off-specificationproduct is recycled to the steel-making process where it is re-melted and directed onceagain toward a final product.

Other solid wastes recovered by emission control equipment and effluent treatment plantscontain iron or carbon units and can be recycled as feedstock. The dusts and other finesmay be sintered together with iron ore to form a material suitable for charging into theblast furnace for reduction to iron.

Blast furnace slag is an inert solid material that contains sulfur and other impuritiesremoved from the charge during the steel-making process. The slag is sold for furtherprocessing into construction materials such as aggregate for roads and concrete products,and mineral wool for thermal insulation and ceiling tile.

Steel-making slag, which contains various impurities (primarily as oxides) from the steel-making operation, may be land filled. In recent years, however, predetermined amountsof this slag have been charged to the blast furnace to make second-time use of its fluxing


characteristics. Processes to remove the metals for recycling are also in use. Somesuitably processed steel-making slag is used as aggregate in asphalt concrete mixes.

Steel-making precipitator dust, which is made up primarily of iron oxides plus othermetallic oxides, is another solid waste that was land filled historically or stockpiled forreuse. Efforts to recover the iron units and non-ferrous metals contained in the dust haveaccelerated in the past few years, for both economic and environmental reasons.

Used refractory material is another solid material that has traditionally gone to landfill.The present trend is to segregate the various refractory materials. Those that containdolomite can be charged into the blast furnace as a flux. Others are returned to refractorymanufacturers to be recycled into new material.


3 Study Approach

3.1 Introduction

As discussed in Section 2, there are major differences in the types of steel plants operatedin Canada and the US. Integrated, DRI/EAF and EAF steel makers can all produce highquality products - with certain preferences or specialties - but they go about it inmarkedly different ways. Similarly, within each category of steel plant, there areconsiderable variations in facilities and operating practices, as well as in the specificproducts made. This section describes the basic approach used to develop the LCIestimates for the different plant types, first with reference to Canadian plants and thenwith reference to US plants. This two-step approach reflects the fact that the USestimates have been developed by adapting and adjusting the Canadian estimates.

3.2 Integrated Canadian PlantsAll of the steel made in Canada's integrated steel plants is produced by the BOFprocessing route. Although the different plants use the same basic production processes,marked differences have developed in their operating mode. End products differ fromplant to plant and require various processing steps that exhibit different levels of energyconsumption. Some plants produce a certain tonnage of semi-finished steel in onelocation and process it into finished products at a different location.

Practices also vary within similar operating units. For instance, one plant injects naturalgas into the blast furnace as a substitute for some of the coke requirement. Anotherinjects oil, and a third replaces a portion of the coke by injecting both natural gas and tar.Two plants operate with high-energy hot metal (high hot metal silicon content) toincrease the scrap melting capability in the steel-making shop, while other plants use low-energy hot metal to increase blast furnace productivity.

Steel-making shops exhibit differences in that they may use bottom stirring with inert gasor with oxygen, or there may be no bottom stirring at all. Different ratios exist betweenthe plants in applying continuous casting. Similarly, reheat furnaces and rolling practicesdiffer from plant to plant. All of the differences have an effect on the energyconsumption and environmental disturbances associated with a given product.

Each company has developed strategies to meet the challenge by other steel companies toreduce costs, and these strategies have energy and environmental impacts. Clearly, nosingle plant represents the typical average Canadian integrated steel mill that producesthe semi-finished steel needed to make the building products of interest.

Pooling the results of various operations from different companies would be possible butwould make little sense. For instance, the heat content of the top gas produced in a blastfurnace depends on the type of injected material and operating mode. This heat content,in turn, affects the amount of purchased energy needed for reheat (prior to rolling)applications. Shop productivity and vessel operating mode affect the quantity of hot


metal required to produce steel and, thus, affect the energy consumption. Some plantsrequire significantly larger scrap quantities than do others to balance the heatrequirements in the steel-making furnaces.

In light of the confusion and misrepresentations that so many operating differences canengender, the original Institute study involved the "construction" of a reference steel plantthat simulated, to the maximum extent possible, the average conditions existing in theCanadian integrated steel industry, a method used by the industry in the past to examinethe influence of practices on energy consumption. This steel plant "produced" the semi-finished steel needed for the products under study. The productivity of the primaryproduction units and the processing mills represented conditions as they were generallyfound in Canada. We have maintained the original reference plant, with someadjustments, for this update.

3.2.1 The Reference PlantThe reference steel plant produces a total of 2,855,600 tonnes of steel products per year(see flow sheet in Section 3.2.2). Actual steel production, excluding the coating weightson galvanized sheets and tin products, is 2,820,000 tonnes a year. The annual productionof steel products in the reference plant is shown in Table 6.

Table 6ANNUAL REFERENCE PLANT STEEL PRODUCTION

Product Tonnes

Galvanized sheet 735,000

Tinplate 300,600

Hot band 300,000

Plate 600,000

Wire Rods 220,000

Bars 250,000

Light sections 100,000

Heavy & Medium 350,000

The reference plant requires the major input raw materials and energy carriers shown inTable 7.

3.2.2 Unit ProcessesAfter the reference steel plant had been fully defined, raw material requirements, process-

operating parameters, yield factors, etc. were established for the complete resourceextraction and manufacturing stages. It was then possible to develop process-by-process

energy and materials balances, starting with activities at the mine site, through thevarious ironmaking, steel-making, rolling and coating steps and, finally, to the finishing

of the various products.


Table 7MAJOR RAW MATERIAL/ENERGY PURCHASES AND CREDITS - REFERENCE PLANT

Purchases t/y GJ/year t/y GJ/year %

Coking Coal (Dry)Blast Furnace Nat.GasFuel OilTarPellets*Oxygen*Purchased Scrap*ElectricityReheat Natural Gas

Subtotal

1,852,052

30,396101,417

2,9233,733,065

267,339373,311

58,504,836

1,151,4004,232,146

108,0644,685,7441,800,862

242,65210,071,292

7,558,141

88,355,136

71.61

1.415.180.135.742.200.30

12.339.25

108.14

Credits t/y GJ/year t/y GJ/year %

Coke BreezeTar SalesBenzole Sales

Subtotal

122,23853,97224,077

3,648,1161,995,5741,010,592

6,654,282

4.472.441.24

8.1

Total 81,700,854 100.00

* Energy involved in processing and transportation

The energy and materials balances for each of the unit processes also enabled emissionsto be established in proportion to the inputs of ore, coal, natural gas, diesel fuel, etc. forthe particular step. Each unit process was analyzed as a separate entity, both forconvenience (steel plants are very complex) and as a guide for those not familiar with thetechnology. With such an approach, it is relatively easy for the uninitiated to make theirway through the various extraction and manufacturing steps and see the energy andenvironmental effects of each step.

However, the determination of water quality and associated effluent levels required asomewhat different approach because of the convergent nature of water flow in a steelplant, as discussed subsequently.

Data for the energy and material balances came from the literature and industry sources.Some emissions data was from industry sources and the literature, other emissionsestimates were calculated based on an intimate knowledge of the processes and therespective energy and material inputs, and some estimates were derived from thefollowing secondary sources:

"Emission Factors for the Iron and Steel Industry in Ontario." SCC,90; SCC,91; P-40; AP- 42,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986-91.

"Emission Factors for Greenhouse and other Gases by Fuel Type: an Inventory." Ad HocCommittee on Emission Factors, Energy, Mines and Resources Canada, 1990.


"Production of Primary Iron in Canada: Managing the Air Quality Challenges." Coal and FerrousDivision, Mineral Policy Sector, Energy, Mines and Resources Canada, 1992.

"Criteria Pollutant Emission Factors for 1985 NAPAP Emissions Inventory." U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 1987.

“Criteria Pollutant Emission Factors for 1986 NAPAP Emissions Inventory." U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, (Reformatted 1/95).

The major raw materials considered in this study, are iron ore, coal and limestone. Thesematerials are mined or quarried, upgraded or cleaned where possible or necessary, andtransported to the integrated steel plants by train and ship. The material streams for thevarious steel-making processes are highlighted below.

3.2.2.1 Sinter Plant

The sinter plant's (Figure 1) main purpose is to process the secondary resource materialsgenerated in the course of the steel mill's operation - materials such as iron oxide scale,pellet fines, blast furnace dust and slag fines generated in the steel-making slag recoveryunits. Materials are fused at high temperatures on a travelling grate. The sinter is used atthe blast furnaces to provide iron units and improve permeability of the burden, whichimproves the gas-to-solid contact in the furnaces. Dolomite or lime fines are added toincrease the basicity of the sinter mix so that it can be a self-fluxing blast furnace feed.The capacity of the sinter plant is 500,000 tonnes a year.

The sinter plant features one strand with an area of 60 m2 and a bed depth of 350 mm.

Figure 1SINTER PLANT SCHEMATIC


3.2.2.2 Coke Ovens

The coke ovens (Figure 2) make coke by heating coal at high temperatures in the absenceof air and, at the same time, produce by-products such as coke oven gas, tar, andammonia and light oil. The coke, which is used as a reducing agent in the blast furnaces,is basically solid carbon with some contained ash and sulfur. Coke oven gas is made upprimarily of hydrogen, methane, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and smallamounts of hydrogen sulfide.

Figure 2COKE OVENS SCHEMATIC

The reference plant coke oven facility consists of two batteries, each comprising 75 ovenswith a coal-to-coke cycle of 18 hours. The coal, containing eight percent ash and 27percent volatile, is wet-charged. Coke is water-quenched to a moisture level of eightpercent. About 40 percent of the coke oven gas, generated when the coal is heated, isused for under-firing the ovens. The remainder is used in the blast furnace stoves toenrich the top gas, in the boiler shop, and in the plant's reheat furnaces. The blastfurnaces consume 438 kilograms of coke for each ton of hot metal produced.

3.2.2.3 Blast Furnaces

At the blast furnaces (Figure 3), the descending iron-containing burden materials, cokeand limestone (primary or secondary) come in contact with ascending hot air, which


helps the coke to burn with great intensity. This reaction provides the hot gases forreducing iron oxides to iron, which accumulates at the furnace bottom. Blast furnacegases, primarily nitrogen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and hydrogen, are containedat the top of the furnace and piped to a gas cleaning plant before being distributed as aby-product fuel.

Figure 3BLAST FURNACE SCHEMATIC

Two blast furnaces, each with a working volume of 2,050 m3, produce a total of 8,000tonnes of hot metal a day. Each furnace uses injected oil, natural gas and tar at a rate thatis the average for the quantities reported in 1999 by the three Canadian steel companiesthat operate blast furnaces.

In addition to iron ore pellets, sinter and large-sized, screened steel-making slag arecharged to the furnaces. The quantity of steel-making slag charged is that fraction notused in the sinter plant. This practice has been discontinued in one of the Canadian steelplants, but it still is very common in North America.

Some of the blast furnace top gas is used to heat the furnace wind to the required hot blasttemperature (1056°C in the model). The remainder is sent to the boiler station for theproduction of steam. Excess steam in the boiler station produces about five percent of thesteel plant's electricity requirement.

All of the hot metal is de-sulphurised in torpedo ladles using calcium carbide as thedesulphurizing reagent. This process is used in three of the four Canadian steel plants.

3.2.2.4 Steel-making Shop

The molten iron (hot metal) is refined at the steel-making shop (Figure 4), with oxygeninjected to preferentially oxidize impurities. In addition to the molten iron, the furnace


charge consists of scrap, lime, and fluorspar. Impurities such as carbon, silicon,manganese and phosphorus (and, unavoidably, some iron), are oxidized during the courseof the oxygen blow. The furnace off-gas is cleaned by passing it through a scrubber andthen flared. The hot steel is then transported in ladles to a continuous casting machinewhere it is cast into slabs or blooms. A small percentage is teemed into ingots.

Figure 4BOF STEELMAKING SCHEMATIC

The steel-making shop operates both of its 250 tonne BOF converters. About 55 Nm3 ofoxygen are consumed for each tonne of liquid steel produced.

The BOF off-gas, after being cleaned of the contained dust in a wet scrubber, is flared tothe atmosphere. The intermittent nature of the BOF gas production cycle would requirethe installation of a reasonably large gasholder to utilize the off-gas in, for example,reheat furnaces. None of the Canadian steel companies collects BOF off-gas, while mostEuropean, Japanese and Korean steel plants have adopted this energy conservationmethod.

One technique, however, is in use in the Canadian steel industry to capture most of theenergy contained in the BOF gas. This is a method whereby the energy released duringsecondary combustion in the hood above the vessel is used to generate steam. This "freeenergy" steam is fed into the plant steam system. (This technique is not incorporated intothe reference steel plant.)


3.2.2.5 Finishing Processes

The cast steel is processed at the various rolling mills of the reference plant. Dependingon the final product, the steel can be processed via one of two streams (Figure 5).Blooms and ingots are converted into billets at the Universal Mill and end up at the Rod,Bar or Section Mills. Slabs are rolled at the Hot Strip Mill or Plate Mill. The strip fromthe Hot Strip Mill may be further processed at the Cold Mill Complex, including coldrolling followed by galvanizing or tinning.

Figure 5REFERENCE PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM

“3 Million tonnes/year”

Casting and Teeming Facilities

Of the total amount of crude or semi-finished steel produced in the steel-making shop,about 2.67 million tonnes are continuously cast into slabs or blooms. Ladles to transferthe steel are preheated using coke oven gas. Covers are employed during casting tomaintain some of the heat contained in the ladle refractory to minimize ladle preheatingbetween heats. Tundishes, used to control the flow of steel from ladle to continuouscasting mould, are preheated with natural gas.


The two twin-strand casters of the reference plant produce 2.1 million tonnes of slabswith an average dimension of 1600 mm x 240 mm and 570,000 tonnes of bloomsmeasuring 340 mm x 600 mm.

Hot Rolling Facilities

Universal Mill

Continuously cast blooms pass through the Universal Mill, which produces billets for therod/bar and section mills. Capacity of the mill is 980,000 tonnes a year. The soaking pitsare fired with natural gas.

Hot Strip Mill

A conventional Hot Strip Mill, equipped with an energy-saving Coilbox, produces about1.4 million tonnes of strip a year. The mill consists of a vertical edger/reversing rougherand six finishing stands. Slabs are reheated in two pusher-type reheat furnaces using amixture of natural gas and coke oven gas. Water-cooled skids recover some of the wasteheat in the form of steam, which is fed into the plant steam system.

A "Skin Pass" Mill prepares 300,000 tonnes of hot band for sale without any furtherprocessing.

Plate Mill

Two roughing and two finishing stands process 600,000 tonnes of plate annually. Slabsare reheated in two pusher-type furnaces fired with natural gas. Some of the energy inthe flue gas is recovered in the form of steam.

Section Mill

One pusher furnace, top- and bottom-fired with natural gas and equipped withevaporative skid cooling, feeds a medium Section Mill. The annual production rate is350,000 tonnes.

Rod/Bar/Light Section Mill

This two-strand mill produces a total of 570,000 tonnes of bars, rods and light sections.Billets, shipped from the Universal Mill, are reheated in a walking beam furnace firedwith coke oven gas.

Cold Rolling Facilities

Pickling Lines

The Pickling Lines use hydrochloric acid with steam heating to remove iron oxide scalefrom hot rolled strip. Annual throughput in the reference plant is one million tonnes. TheHCl is regenerated and reused.

Cold Reduction Mill

This mill consists of four stands; each equipped with two work rolls and two backuprolls. The mill has hydraulic gauge control on the first stand and operates with speed and


tension regulation. It produces 1.04 million tonnes, operating at a speed of up to 1000m/min.

Batch Anneal

Batch annealing furnaces, used to stress relieve and/or soften certain grades of cold rolledsteel, are fired with coke oven gas. The furnaces have a capacity of about 300,000 tonnesa year.

Temper Mill

The Temper Mill rolls annealed steel strip to modify surface and hardness of the steelprior to shipment or the production of tinplate.

Galvanizing Mill

Three continuous hot-dip galvanizing lines, each with a capacity of 250,000 tonnesannually, produce 735,000 tonnes of galvanized sheets.

Tin Mill

Two electrolytic tinning lines, each with a capacity of 175,000 tonnes a year, process300,600 tonnes of tinplate a year. Although there are no tinplate products underconsideration in the current building materials study, a Tin Mill was included in thereference plant to "flesh out" the typical Canadian integrated steel plant configuration.

3.2.2.6 Gas Distribution

Distribution of the coke oven and blast furnace gases in the reference plant is shown inFigure 6. Normally all of the coke oven gas and blast furnace gas produced by therespective processes is used in the plant. Additional energy requirements and therespective users are as shown. The reheat furnaces at the Plate Mill, Section Mill andUniversal Mill all use natural gas. The Hot Strip, Rod and Bar mills all use natural gas aswell as coke oven gas.

3.2.2.7 Energy and Mass Balances

An energy balance was performed on processes to ensure that all inputs and outputs wereaccounted for and to quantify the emissions, which are directly related to the amount ofenergy used. For example, Figure 7 shows an energy balance for the stoves, whichsupply hot air to the blast furnaces. The energy supplied by the input fuel equals the heatin the hot air blast (called wind) plus the waste heat contained in the stack gas and heat,which escapes through the stove lining. A mass balance was performed for each processto ensure consistency of matter and, where possible, to quantify the mass and materialcomposition of waste streams and emissions.


Figure 6REFERENCE PLANT GAS DISTRIBUTION

(GJ)

Figure 7ENERGY AND MASS BALANCES FOR BLAST FURNACE STOVES


3.2.3 Emission FactorsPerforming chemical analyses of the gases and measuring all emissions could accuratelydetermine emissions factors, but this procedure would be very costly because of the timeinvolved and the instrumentation required. Therefore, a statistical method has been usedto establish the factors, with emissions from a small sample of sources determined bymeasurement, and the measurements then normalized to produce usable emission factors.

The factors are usually expressed in the form of tonnes of emissions per GigaJoule of fuelenergy expended or per tonne of product produced. These factors can then be applied toprocesses of a similar nature to establish the amount of emissions being generated.

Regulatory bodies such as the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy and the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency have established factors for emissions such asparticulate, organic compounds and gases, including SO2, CO, NOx, and CH4.

Computer models of the sinter plant, coke ovens, blast furnaces, stoves, boilers and BOFsteel-making shop were developed in the original study to calculate the emissions, andperform mass and energy balances. The resulting emissions and balances for allmechanical and chemical processes (from mining through to the manufacturing offinished products) are tabulated in Appendices 1 to 5. It should be noted that CO2

emission calculations were based on mass balances and SO2 emission figures were basedon fuel analyses. Emissions for the finishing processes were based on fuel consumptionand published emission factors.

The emissions and energy associated with the production of one tonne of the variousfinished products were subsequently calculated based on the yield of each process.Following are key points with regard to results shown in the appendices.

Exploration, Mining and Processing of Raw MaterialsEmissions and the amount of energy consumed for extracting limestone, iron ore and coalwere determined on the basis of the energy content of various fuels and related emissionfactors, with the type and amount of fuels consumed for each extraction process obtainedfrom operations that supply the raw materials.

Transportation of Raw MaterialsDiesel fuel was assumed for all modes of transportation, and the appropriate energycontent and emission factors were used for the calculations. The carriers involvedsupplied the amount of fuel used and distances covered by ship and rail (Appendix 2,Figures 1 A2 to 4 A2). The emissions and energy consumed in transporting limestone bytruck are shown in Figure 5 A2.

Primary ProcessesResults of computer analyses of the primary processes are shown in Appendix 3. Massbalances yielded emission factors for CO2 and, in some cases, for SO2. Other emissioncalculations were based on appropriate emission factors. Figures 1 A3 to 8 A3 show theemissions and the amount of energy consumed for the following processes:


• Sinter plant• Coke ovens• Blast furnaces• Stoves• BOF steel-making shop• Boilers

The emissions generated and electricity consumed at the boilers for steam supply to thecoke ovens, blast furnaces and steel-making shop were added to the respective processes.

Emissions and energy consumed for all processes were then aggregated and divided bythe annual steel production of the plant to establish specific energy and emissionsestimates for the primary processes.

Finishing MillsEmissions at each finishing mill in the reference plant were calculated based on the cokeoven gas, blast furnace gas and natural gas distributed and used throughout the plant(Figure 6, above). For all three-fuel gases, the particulate and CO emission factors werecalculated based on gas analyses; the CO2 emissions were derived from combustionanalyses and mass balances. Appropriate factors were used for emissions such as SO2,NOx and VOCs.

Figures 1 A4 to 13 A4, Appendix 4, show the emissions calculated and the energyrequired for each process. They also show the emissions generated and the electricityused for boiler house steam usage at each process.

Manufacturing of Finished ProductsElectricity is the main energy source required for the manufacture of finished productsfrom rolled steel. In addition, some processes require natural gas for process heat.Figures 1 A5 to 10 A5, Appendix 5, show the emissions and amount of energy consumedin the manufacture of the various finished products.

Emissions associated with the combustion of natural gas were calculated usingappropriate emission factors. The CO2 emissions were verified by mass balance; the NOx

and SO2 factors were verified by data from the natural gas supply company.

3.2.4 Water Use and Emissions to WaterIdeally, we would like to define the steel plants so that the product flow and the waterflow streams would be parallel. The production rate and an associated level ofcontaminated water discharge from each product mill would be exactly defined. Thewater streams would not be interconnected in these plants and the water quantity andquality would be traceable to each product of interest. In this idealized situation, thewater quality could more readily be evaluated and the emission estimates would berepresentative of each product.

However, water streams discharged in actual plants from various processes cascade tomany other streams. And these streams are partially treated and re-circulated within amodule and to many other different processes. Unfortunately, there is no reliable data


which enables an engineer to follow the course of a particular litre of water through acertain process, on to another process, etc.

However, there are several water discharge streams that are monitored and for whichpublished results are available. To produce results usable in the current study, theassumption was made that all of these streams are ultimately combined into one large"comprehensive" discharge stream. Also, it was assumed that all steel production at thecasters is combined into one production stream so that all contaminants can be related tothe amount of semi-finished steel produced in the reference plant.

Since the product yield (quantity of semi-finished steel required to produce one tonne ofproduct) is determined from the material flow part of the study, the water usage for eachtonne of product is different. However, the concentrations are the same for all of theproducts because of the one-final-stream analytical method.

Water quality figures for mining and material transportation were not available. Also,water quality from small finishing plants was not taken into consideration because theseplants discharge water into out-falls that lead to municipal sewage treatment plants.Mining, transportation and finishing plant factors are not considered to be significant tothe study, however, because of the predominant effect of primary iron and steel-makingoperations on water contaminant concentrations.

This overall product mix approach has limitations. For example, consider three plantswith suspended solid discharges of: A - 8 mg/L; B - 17 mg/L; C - 28 mg/L. If the steelproduction rates from each plant were such that the combined suspended solids dischargefrom all three plants is, say, 15 mg/L, this would be the concentration determined by thecalculation method used. But if all of the galvanized sheet were produced by plant A, thesuspended solids figure would be overestimated by a factor of two (15 mg/L vs. an actual8 mg/L). On the other hand, if all of the galvanized sheet were made by plant C, ourfigure would be underestimated by a factor of two. While the product mix approach issubject to this kind of error, it is not likely to result in the extreme variation of the aboveexample, and the results can be considered to reasonably represent reality despite thelimitations.

3.2.4.1 Data Sources and Conventions

The following documents were used as the primary data sources for developing theemissions to water for the reference steel plant:

"Status Report on Effluent Monitoring Data for the Iron and Steel Sector for the Period November1, 1989 to October 31, 1990." MISA, Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy, 1991.

“Data base on Effluent Monitoring Data for the Iron and Steel Sector for the Period January 1,1995 to December 31, 2000." MISA, Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy, provided onOctober 3, 2001.

“World Steel Life Cycle Inventory”, by the International Iron and Steel Institute (IISI), released inFebruary 2000, and provided to us in May 2001.

“Environment and Energy” as a part of National pollutant release inventory Report toEnvironment Canada, by DOFASCO, in year 2000.


The following are conventional notations and units for the water quality data provided bythe MISA reports.

mg/L is milligrams per litre (10-6 times smaller than a kg of water);

µg/L is micrograms per litre (10-9 times smaller than a kg of water);

m3/h is cubic metres, or, 1000 litre per hour; and

106 t/y is million tonnes of semi-finished steel, or other products reported in section 5, producedper year.

The output concentrations of emissions have been calculated from a very large amount ofindividual samples taken from more that 20 real discharge streams at the four Canadianintegrated plants during the period 1995 - 2000. The Ontario Ministry of theEnvironment, under the Freedom of Information Act, supplied this large database to us inearly October 2001.

3.2.4.2 Comparative Intake and Discharge Water Quality

A comparison of the data for this study with the data used in the original study shows anevident improvement in the typical makeup of water supplied to all of the Canadianintegrated plants. There has also been a very marked improvement in the performance ofthe plants as reflected in the quality of discharge water.

The water pumped into the plants carries with it a significant level of contaminants, andthis input contaminant level must be taken into account when calculating the netenvironmental impact of making steel products. In fact, we made the followingobservations when comparing the intake and discharge water qualities:

• most of the contaminants are present in the supply water, in concentrationssomewhat less than the discharge water concentrations;

• some contaminant levels are almost the same in the supply and discharge waters;and

• certain contaminants, such as poly-nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and non-halogenated organics, are more concentrated in the supply water than in thedischarge water.

It is also notable that the water intake rate at all plants is approximately equal to the wateroutflow rate. Water is not "consumed" in making steel, and the relatively small quantityof water that is not returned is primarily the result of evaporation losses during cooling.

About half of the water from common technology plants (as opposed to a best technologyplant, which uses about one tenth the amount of water) is discharged from operations thatclean the produced steel or the gases from the various processing steps. This is referredto as process water. There is also a small input of water associated with the moisturecontent of raw materials. A more significant amount of water discharged into receivingwater bodies, and included in our estimates, is from the rain and snow falling on the plantproperties. This water rate is highly variable over certain periods, but it averages over theparticular year to a very constant and calculable rate for each plant, and therefore for allintegrated plants.


Non-contact cooling (NCC) water is discharged directly into an adjacent watercourse,and accounts for about 50 percent of the total discharge.

The net amount of contaminants discharged from the integrated plants is shown in Table8. These numbers represent the difference between gross discharge water quality andwater intake quality, with the negative numbers indicating areas where the water isreturned at a higher quality.

Table 8NET CONTAMINATE DISCHARGE BY CANADIAN

INTEGRATED PLANTS, 2000 (mg/L)

Suspended Solids 0.4805pH factor 8.049Benzene -7.068E-04Chem. Oxygen Demand 2.683E-02Oil & Grease 0.2425Sulphides 2.544E-02Zinc -8.763E-04Lead 1.845E-03Chromium -2.283E-05Nickel 2.007E-05Iron 3.058E-03Cyanide 8.657E-03Phenolics 8.794E-05Phosphates -1.169E-04Phosphorus 1.905E-04Ammonia & Ammonium -0.1668Benzo-pyrene 7. 529E-05Naphtalene -5.776E-04Chlorides 9.050E-02Fluorides 2.557E-03Nitrogen Total 9.434E-03

3.3 Canadian Mini-Mills

3.3.1 Reference PlantsA reference plant is required for the analysis of mini-mill steel for essentially the samereasons as in the case of integrated mills. In this case, however, two reference steelplants are required, one using both scrap and iron ore to produce 621,000 tonnes/year ofslabs, and the second plant using scrap as the sole source of iron units to produce 350,000tonnes/year of billets.

The annual production of steel products in these reference steel plants is shown in Table9.


Table 9ANNUAL STEEL PRODUCTIONREFERENCE STEEL PLANTS

ProductProduction

(tonnes/year)Cold Rolled Sheet 220, 000Hot Band 356, 000Rods 83, 500Bars 202, 000Light Sections 52, 200

3.3.1.1 Flat Rolled Products - DRI/EAF Reference Plant

The annual production of liquid steel in the two Canadian electric furnace steel plants thatmake flat rolled products is 3.03 million tonnes, which is about five times the referencesteel plant’s production of 621,000 tonnes a year. In the reference steel plant, the quantityof direct-reduced iron used is applied in the same relative ratio. In actual practice, onesteel plant uses all of the available direct-reduced iron, while the second plant uses verylittle, or no, direct-reduced iron.

The annual material demand and output at each processing stage in the DRI/EAFreference steel plant is shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8ANNUAL PRODUCTION OF FLAT ROLLED STEEL: REFERENCE PLANT

(tonnes/year)


Rail and ship deliver iron ore pellets to the storage yard of the steel plant. They areprocessed in a Midrex direct-reduction unit into direct-reduced pellets, which are cooledand charged continuously into the 130-tonne electric-arc furnace (Figure 9).

Figure 9SCHEMATIC OF DRI/EAF PROCESS FLOW

The ultrahigh-power (UHP) EAF is equipped with water-cooled sidewalls and roof. Scrapis charged to the furnace in one or two equally sized batches. Fluxes are added asrequired. Melting is assisted with oxy-fuel burners and carbon is fed via a surface lance togenerate a foamy slag. The foamy slag protects the furnace sidewalls, allows a longer arcoperation and improves the efficiency of the heat transfer. Some ferroalloys are added tothe ladle during tapping of the EAF. The final ladle chemistry and temperature of thesteel are adjusted in the ladle metallurgy furnace (LMF). Additional ferroalloys are usedfor this purpose. Electrical energy is used to precisely adjust the steel temperature.

The steel is cast on a single-strand slab-casting machine. Both ladle and tundish areequipped with a shroud to protect the liquid steel from re-oxidation. A suitable mouldpowder provides additional protection from oxidation and, upon its melting, reduces thefriction between the slab and the water-cooled, copper mould. Secondary cooling withwater sprays below the mould is carefully controlled to ensure that rapid chilling andpotential recalescence during strand withdrawal is avoided. After the cooled slab isinspected and surface cracks removed, the slab is transported to the reversing hot stripmill, reheated in the re-heating furnace and rolled into hot band. A portion of the hot band


produced is treated on a skin mill and sold. The remainder of the hot band is pickled, coldrolled on a Sendzimir mill, annealed and prepared in a finishing mill.

In the case of the mini-mills, cold rolled material is not galvanized on site but shipped toa processing unit outside the plant. Galvanizing plant energy and emissions are includedin our calculations.

Annual production at the reference plant is 356,000 tonnes of hot band and 220,000tonnes of cold rolled sheets. A four percent increase in weight would have to be added tothe product weight if all the cold rolled production were processed to galvanized sheets(i.e. four percent if zinc is used).

Table 10 shows the annual material consumption for the flat rolled reference plant.

Table 10ANNUAL MATERIAL CONSUMPTIONFLAT ROLLED REFERENCE PLANT

Material Units ConsumptionPurchased Scrap Tonnes 325,565Iron Ore Tonnes 683,228Fluxes Tonnes 31,408Refractories Tonnes 11,171Ferroalloys Tonnes 5,000Electrodes Tonnes 1,357Coke Tonnes 4,100Nitrogen Nm3 5,164,000Argon Nm3 144,000Oxygen Nm3 8,200,000Water M3 2,136,000Electricity MWh 507,000Natural Gas Nm3 174,500,000

3.3.1.2 Shapes Products — EAF Reference Plant

The annual raw steel production in Canadian mini-mills for shape products was3,303,803 tonnes in 2000. The reference steel plant’s production represents about one-tenth of this amount. The annual production of the shapes reference steel plant is shownin Figure 10.

The process flow diagram for the shapes reference plant is shown in Figure 11. Scrap,delivered by truck to the plant scrap yard, is charged to the electric-arc furnace in two orthree similarly sized batches. The scrap charge is comprised of a mix of many differentquality categories to provide the expected melt-in composition and also to produce thesteel at the lowest possible cost. The scrap can be selected and intermixed to provideresiduals that are close to the desired steel composition. In some cases, a significantsaving of expensive alloys can be realized through proper scrap selection. Two typicalscrap mixtures are given in Table 11.


Figure 10ANNUAL PRODUCTION OF SHAPES: REFERENCE PLANT

(tonnes/year)

Figure 11SCHEMATIC OF SHAPES: EAF PROCESS FLOW


In the shapes reference plant, one electric-arc furnace, with 90 tonnes of raw steelproduction capacity, produces about 16 heats a day. The operation is similar to theoperation of the larger EAFs producing steel for flat rolled products described previously.Because the charge is 100 percent scrap, there is a smaller amount of steel-making slagproduced per ton of steel.

Only a few of the Canadian mini-mills have installed ladle metallurgy furnaces, but all ofthem are treating the steel in the ladle with gas stirring for molten steel chemistryhomogenization and steel temperature adjustment. Gas stirring is practiced with toplances or porous stirring plugs in the ladle bottom.

The steel is cast into a 4-strand billet caster, producing billets 125 mm square. Moulddesign and mould oscillation have improved in recent years, significantly improvingcaster reliability and product quality. Billets are cut to length with oxygen torches,shipped to an outside storage yard and then to the rod and bar rolling mill. Billets areinspected and charged cold to the re-heating furnace. Great improvements have beenmade in recent years in the efficiency of re-heating furnaces, considerably decreasing therequired reheat energy.

The annual charge material consumption for the shapes reference steel plant is given inTable 11.

Table 11ANNUAL MATERIAL CONSUMPTION

SHAPES PRODUCTS REFERENCE PLANTMaterial Units Consumption

Purchased Scrap Tonnes 327,210Fluxes Tonnes 21,283Refractories Tonnes 6,300Ferro-alloys Tonnes 3,000Coke Tonnes 2,300Electrodes Tonnes 1,600Argon Nm3 81,000Oxygen Nm3 4,600,000Water m3 880,000Electricity MWh 248,000Natural Gas Nm3 30,000,000

3.3.1.3 Estimation of Combined Reference Plant Inventories

The process operating parameters, yield factors and other necessary calculation factorswere established for complete resource material preparation and manufacturing stages forthe two reference plants described in the previous sub-sections. It was then necessary toprepare energy and material balances for each process step, starting with activities at thescrap processor and the iron ore mine site, and continuing through direct reduction, steelmaking and rolling. The sheet coating processes were assumed to be located outside the


plant. The energy and mass balances are shown in a series of flow diagrams inAppendices 6 and 7.

The material and energy balances also provided the basis for emissions to be calculated inproportion to the production rate and reflective of the particular technology used at thereference plants. Water quality and effluent characteristics dictated a somewhat differentapproach because of the multi-step use of industrial water in steel plants before finaltreatment or discharge, as discussed in sub-section 3.3.3, below.

Input data for the energy and material balances were developed from industrial andliterature sources. Most of the emission numbers were calculated using our detailedknowledge of the processes. Other input data were derived using the following sources:

• “Emission Factors for the Iron and Steel Industry in Ontario.” SCC, 90; SCC, 91; AP-40; AP-42, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986-91;

• “Emission Factors for Greenhouse and other Gases by Fuel Type: an Inventory.” AdHoc Committee on Emission Factors, Energy, Mines and Resources Canada, 1990;

• “Production of Primary Iron in Canada: Managing the Air Quality Challenges.” Coaland Ferrous Division, Mineral Policy Sector, Energy, Mines and Resources Canada,1992; and

• “Criteria Pollutant Emission Factors for 1985 NAPAP Emissions Inventory.” U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 1987.

• “Criteria Pollutant Emission Factors for 1986 NAPAP Emissions Inventory.” U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 1986 (Reformatted in 1/95).

3.3.2 Scrap Usage and TypesScrap, the main source of EAF iron units in Canada, consists of three basic types: home,prompt and obsolete scrap. Unrecovered scrap is referred to as dormant scrap. Scrap isalso classified as purchased, processed, returned, imported and exported. Further detailsabout scrap classification and recirculation can be found in the Angus Environmental Ltd.report (Reference No. 11).

Home scrap, such as rolling mill crops and trimmings, is collected at each of the steelplant production units for re-melting in the steel-making furnaces. Off-specification semi-products are also re-melted as home scrap. The time lag between home scrap generationand its return to the steel-making furnaces is generally not more than two weeks.

Prompt scrap is steel trimmings and crops generated at metal product manufacturingcompanies, such as car companies, home appliance manufacturers, and other similarcompanies. Off-specification products are also returned as prompt scrap. Many steelcompanies have contracts with their customers to return this scrap to the originating steel-making facility. The larger portion of prompt scrap is sent directly to steel companies,while scrap processors handle the smaller portion. Prompt scrap is returned to the steel-making furnaces within about six-months. Some energy is required for prompt scrapprocessing and transportation. The home scrap and the prompt scrap that return directlyto the steel company are called return scrap.


Obsolete scrap is derived from wrecked and discarded cars, buildings or any othermanufactured products. The life cycle of the manufactured product is generally long,more than six months, and probably averaging about 15 years. For instance, cars have alife span, on average, approaching 12 years; manufactured products, such as plantequipment, last at least 20 years; most buildings last more than 50 years. The quality ofobsolete scrap varies considerably, depending on how the steel was manufactured in thepast. Often the quality of many small pieces cannot be economically determined.Obsolete scrap, which is handled by scrap processors, requires more energy than promptscrap to process and transport. In our study, we assume that 0.65 GJ/tonne is used forscrap processing.

The prompt scrap and the obsolete scrap returned via the scrap processors are referred toas purchased scrap. Scrap brokers handle purchased scrap, imported scrap and exportedscrap. Generally, the scrap processors are located within 60 km of a steel plant, butcollection distances can be as much as 600 km for smaller quantities. Large scrap pieces,such as automotive stamping scrap or compacted lightweight scrap, reduce the scrapvolume for easier transport and charging to an electric-arc furnace.

Dormant scrap is that portion of iron units which is not, as yet, recycled back into thesteel-making process. It is made up of two distinct categories:

• oxides (dust, sludge, slag, etc.) that go into special landfills, usually on or near thesteel plant site; and

• metallic parts that are a no longer useful product but which cannot be econ-omically recovered as obsolete scrap.

These basic scrap types and flows are illustrated in Figure 12.

Figure 12BASIC SCRAP TYPES AND FLOWS

Source: “Impacts of Developments in Scrap Reclamation and Preparation in the World SteelIndustry” United Nations, Geneva, 1993.


The total scrap quantities (tonnes) recycled in Canada in 2000, shown in Figure 13, havebeen estimated using our model fitted into combined plant demands.

Figure 13ESTIMATED SCRAP RECYCLE QUANTITIES IN 2000


Because scrap is sourced from many different products, its preparation requires manydifferent processes. For example, home scrap is dense and bulky and may require somecutting using oxygen burners that have local hoods to collect most of the emissions.Emissions from these burners are not included in the present study. Prompt scrap is to alarge degree derived from flat products, is very light, and must be compacted byhydraulic press. It usually contains substantial amounts of oil, which contributes to theemissions at the arc furnaces. These emissions are included in the study calculations.

Obsolete scrap requires two entirely different scrap preparation processes, shredders forold automobiles and appliances and oxygen burners for dense and bulky pieces. Theshredders generate plastics and non-ferrous scrap, as well as large amounts of dustemissions, which must be controlled. Since no data on these emissions are available, theyhave not been included in the study.

Each steel plant produces three process output categories: semifinished steel products,home scrap and a smaller portion of dormant (not yet used) scrap. This segment ofdormant scrap can also be called “losses”, but these losses are not necessarily what thename implies. They comprise iron units contained mostly in slag, sludges, mill scaleand/or dust. They may be stored on steel plant properties, land filled or used as additivesto other products. Cement plants are using certain amounts of both dust and mill scale asadditives. Steel-making slag finds application as road ballast and road asphalt aggregate.Some iron units, stored on plant properties, may be recovered at a later date once theirrecovery has become economically viable using, for example, a sintering process.

Steel products eventually become obsolete scrap and, in a larger amount, dormant scrap.It is evident from Figure 13 that the amount of dormant scrap increases as long as ironunits from ore (blast furnaces and direct-reduction plants) are added to the steel makingprocesses in Canada. In fact, the annual addition to the dormant scrap total is almostequal to the new annual charge of iron units originating from iron ore.

3.3.2.1 Allocation to Scrap

Decisions about whether and how to attribute energy and other environmental effects tothe various categories of recycled steel are central to the approach and results developedin this up-date as in the original study. The results presented here are based on theapproach to allocation described in the Institute’s Research Guidelines and applied in theoriginal study, namely:

• no allocation of embodied effects to home scrap;

• a full allocation of the embodied effects associated with the original production ofprompt scrap, as well as any transportation and processing required for itsrecycling, but excluding any effects associated with transportation to secondarymanufacturers that produce the scrap or with the secondary manufacturingactivities; and

• no allocation of embodied effects to obsolete scrap other than transportation andprocessing required for its recycling.


As explained in the research guidelines, this approach reflects a pragmatic response to adifficult problem where there is generally inadequate data to pursue more rigorousapproaches, let alone time and resource constraints that preclude more exhaustiveinvestigations. However, this study did include sensitivity analyses using computermodels to investigate the potential effects of different approaches. In terms of embodiedenergy, the full allocation to prompt scrap has only a marginal effect on the finalembodied energy results for integrated mill production, but could result in a substantialincrease for mini-mill production compared to a case where prompt scrap is treated thesame a home scrap. Aggregated across the full range of process routes, the inclusion of afully allocated burden to prompt scrap results in about a 24% increase in embodiedenergy compared to a case with no allocation of embodied effects.

3.3.3 Water Use and Emissions to WaterAs in the case of integrated plants, accurate assessment of the effluent loading resultingfrom the processes needed to make products in the mini-mill would require knowledge ofa “dedicated water stream” for each product. In addition, there would have to be asufficient number of monitoring points to measure the quality and quantity of waterentering and leaving the systems. No such situation exists in the real world. Waterstreams discharged from various processes cascade to other streams, and the streams arepartially or fully treated and partially or fully re-circulated. And there are no reliable dataavailable to follow a specific stream of water through a specific process and evaluate theeffluent loading attributable to the process.

The quality of the discharge water and the associated effluent loading per unit of productis the combined reflection of the manufacturing processes used, the water treatment andre-circulation practices specific to the plant, as well as existing local conditions. Becauseof these limitations, a blended approach was used for the mini-mill sector as describedpreviously for the integrated plants (Section 3.2.4). However, steel making in mini-millsis much less complex than in integrated mills and, with few exceptions, the mini-millprocesses do not produce water streams with “dirty effluents” that require eitherexpensive and specialized water treatment processes or large amounts of water forprocess cooling before discharge. The nature of the processes used in mini-mills alsoallows for much higher water re-circulation with only a relatively small blow-down, aswell as much simpler in-plant treatment of the effluent.

The data sources and conventions for estimating water contaminant levels for the mini-mills are essentially the same as described in Section 3.2.4.

3.3.3.1 Comparative Intake and Discharge Water Quality

The key contaminant parameters for effluent loading from mini-mills are suspendedsolids, the pH factor, oil and grease, iron, and non-ferrous metals. It should be noted thatthe supply water for a typical mini-mill has a concentration of key contaminants lowerthan that of water supplied to the integrated steel plant. The main reason is the higher useof pretreated water relative to overall volumes needed.


Because of the different flow and production rates for the flat product and shapes productmills, two separate reference plant water supply and discharge streams were prorated todevelop estimates of the supply and discharge streams for mini-mills as a group.Prorating to develop year 2000 estimates was based on liquid steel production rates formini-mills of 3,303,803 tonnes for flat rolled products, and 4,289,000 tonnes for shapesproducts. Note that some galvanizing of products from mini-mills may be done outsidethe mills proper, with the water discharged from these small plants to city sewer systems.No data are available to evaluate zinc, grease, solvents and acids from these externalplants.

The estimated net contaminated discharge by all Canadian mini-mills is shown in Table12. As for integrated mills, negative numbers indicates areas where discharge water is ofhigher quality than the intake water.

Table 12NET CONTAMINATE DISCHARGEBY CANADIAN MINI-MILLS, 2000

(mg/L)

Suspended Solids 1.400 pH (Factor) 8.05Chemical Oxygen Demand 2.038E-2Oil and Grease 1.152E-2Sulphides 2.865E-3Zinc 1.471E-2Lead 4.703E-3Chromium 6.271E-6Nickel 3.098E-5Iron 1.151E-3Cyanide (Total) 1.963E-6Phenolics 3.417E-6Phosphates 5.801E-3Phosphorus 3.442E-2Ammonia and Ammonium 5.209E-4Chlorides 4.234E-2Fluorides 6.351E-3Nitrogen (Total) -1.037E-3

3.4 Combined Canadian MillsThe data provided in Table 2 on shipments of the products of interest by the different milltypes were used to combine the separately developed inventory results for the Canadianintegrated and mini-mills. The separate and combined results are described in moredetail in Section 4.

3.4.1 Energy ComponentsCertain material inputs, particularly fuels such as coal, and oil, constitute energy as wellas mass inputs, which can be calculated based on calorific value for the separate andcombined mill estimates. The calculated energy indicators have been based on net (low)calorific values and include the following:


Total energy is the sum of all energy sources, which are supplied from outside the plant,such as natural gas, oil, coal, and electricity. Thus, that proportion of the coke and blastfurnace injectants, such as natural gas, coal and oil, which are used as reducing agent areincluded in total energy. The total primary energy contains further categories: fuel energyand chemical energy. These are described below:

Fuel energy is that part of total energy input which is used for all activities not coveredby chemical energy. The definition of fuel energy within our LCI Study covers all energyused to generate heat or converted to mechanical energy.

Chemical energy is that part of the total energy used in the system that is consumedand/or is available inside of each process for the purpose of driving reactions of iron (orother chemical elements) and that cause ore reduction or oxidation. This category alsoincludes the energy spent in ovens to decompose certain materials such as coal andlimestone. In the case of steel making, this includes the energy used in various stages of aprocess to enable endothermic or exothermic chemical reactions to take place.

3.4.1.1 Processes where chemical energy could be identifiedCoke Ovens and Sinter Plants:The extent of chemical energy in the Coke Ovens and Sinter Plants is derived from thedata on coal carbonization and sinter fusion. It is set here at + 0.7000 GJ/ton of moltensteel.

Blast Furnaces:There are two categories of chemical energy considered for the Blast Furnaces:

a.) Reduction of Iron oxide Fe2O3 + 2.1 C 2 Fe +0.85 CO +1.15 CO2 + 67.0 kcal/159 grams of Fe2O3.

This translates to: + 1.9357 GJ/ton of molten steel.

b.) Decomposition of other materials such as carbonates (limestone) creates asmall amount of chemical energy demand.

This translates to: + 0.1898 GJ/ton of molten steel.

BOF and EAF Furnaces:There are three categories of Chemical energy considered for the BOF and four in theEAF furnaces. The first three below are common to both and the last applied only toEAF.

a.) Oxidation of Iron Fe + 0.5 O2 FeO - 65.0 kcal/71 grams of FeO.

When the iron oxides in the Slag and Dust are summed, this calculation translates to:

- 0.1150 GJ/ton of molten steel.

b.) Decomposition of other materials such as carbonates (limestone) createschemical energy demand, but it is relatively low in BOF and EAF, because oxides,such as CaO (Lime), are used to form the slag.


This translates to: 0.0400 GJ/ton of molten steel.

c.) Reduction: The Scrap is partially rusted and the rust requiresreduction of Iron oxide Fe2O3 + 2.1 C 2 Fe + 0.85 CO+1.15CO2+ 67.0 kcal/159 grams of Fe2O3.

Because there is only about 10% of obsolete (rusty) scrap in the BOF furnace, and thereis only about 2% of iron oxide in this scrap, this translates to: 0.0040 GJ/ton of moltensteel.

In the case of the EAF furnace, there is about 80% of obsolete (rusty) scrap, and there isonly about 2% of iron oxide in this scrap, which translates to: 0.0320 GJ/ton of moltensteel.

d.) Oxidation of other metals such as Mn to MnO, Si to SiO2.

This translates (energy in BF and BOF is summed) to - 0.1000 GJ/ton of molten steel.

Reheating Furnaces:There is Chemical energy created in the Reheating Furnaces where on the average 3 % ofthe steel surface is burned to form scale:

a.) Oxidation of Iron: 1.8 Fe + 1.275 O2 0.25 FeO +.05 Fe3O4 + 0.70 Fe2O3 - 54.72 kcal/55.5 grams of Fe

This calculation translates to -0.1053 GJ/ton of molten steel.

The above figures are summed to derive the following estimates:

Integrated Mills 2.6492 GJ/ton of molten steel

DRI/EAF Mills 0.8460 GJ/ton of molten steel

EAF Mills -0.2483 GJ/ton of molten steel

These figures are applied to the tables showing the final calculation results. The sum offuel and chemical energy always equates to the total energy. The fuel energy is the totalenergy minus the chemical energy in the inventory results for each product category.

3.4.2 Process versus combustion emissions to airThe separation of emission streams based on energy categories can be done only for thegaseous species listed in the tables in Section 4. The user can calculate the “gaseousprocess emissions” using the ratio of the chemical energy to total energy and multiplythis ratio with the “gaseous total emissions” appearing in the tables for each productcategory. Other “non-gaseous process emissions” cannot be separated by this method,because there is no rational method for measurements and confirmation of their actualvalues.


3.5 Combined US MillsLCI estimates have been developed for the combined US mills (integrated + mini-mills)by adjusting the Canadian steel production data to take account of differences in selectedaspects of US production such as recycling rates, emissions to water and the ratio ofproducts from different process routes. For example, data on emissions to water forOntario steel mills, obtained from the Ministry of Environment, was adjusted to reflectdata from the AISI Annual Report of Steel Production and Consumption for year 2000,and the IISI: ”World Steel Life Cycle Inventory”. Similarly, data describing scraprecycling, energy consumption, and other environmental factors were obtained from avariety of sources and used to either modify or confirm the applicability of the Canadiandata. Emissions of particulate matter and water sludge are two instances where theCanadian data has been applied without any modification.


4 LCI RESULTS BY PRODUCT

4.1 IntroductionHaving established the energy and materials balances and the associated environmentaleffects for each process step from mine to finished products for each type of mill, it waspossible to total the LCI estimates that could be assigned to each product under study bymill types and then for the combined total all Canadian mills as per the approachdescribed in the previous section. Moving through the various process modules (andallowing for process yield), the cumulative amounts of energy used, the different types ofemissions and solid wastes generated, and the raw materials required were summed. Thecombined US mill results were then derived by adjusting the Canadian results as noted inSection 3.5.

As noted in Section 3, discharge water quality was evaluated on the basis of "onecomprehensive stream" for each mill type because of the nature of through-plant flow insteel mills. Measured contaminants in process and non-contact cooling watercomponents were pro-rated on the basis of steel production in the "common" technologyand “best available technology” plants so that overall final discharge water quality couldbe established.

4.2 LCI EstimatesThe final LCI results (major and accountable raw material and energy inputs andemissions to air, land and water) are shown by product at the end of the section in a seriesof tables as follows:

Table 13 — Canadian integrated mills

Table 14 — Canadian mini-mills

Table 15 — Combined Canadian mills

Table 16 — Combined US mills.

As noted previously the combined Canadian mill and US mill results were obtained byaggregating the results by product for the different types of plants, using weights derivedfrom Tables 2 and 5. In other words, the combined results for each country representtypical ‘market baskets’ of applicable technologies by product. It should be noted that inall cases the results are as measured or calculated at the plant boundaries, and takeaccount of upstream mining, transportation, scrap processing and related activities. Forexample, emissions to air are after gases have been passed through treatment/collectionequipment, and emissions to water are after process/cooling water has been passedthrough treatment plants.

With reference to the solid wastes shown in the tables, blast furnace slag is notconsidered by the industry to be a ‘waste’ product in the conventional sense. This slag isnormally sold to companies that process it into various materials used in a range ofbuilding and construction products. Efforts to recycle precipitator dust, the red dust that


is collected from steel making off-gases, are proceeding on a variety of fronts. This dustcontains high concentrations of iron oxide and certain non-ferrous metal oxides that canbe recovered. Handling, logistic and metal recovery problems have impeded progress inrecycling the dust, but these problems are gradually being resolved. Other usefulconversion products, not directly considered in the current study, include anhydrousammonia, light oil, coke breeze, iron chlorides, iron oxides, steel making slag, and othersimilar materials.

Note that the estimates in the tables for emissions to water and land reflect plantprocessing operations only. Water used in exploration and transportation is negligiblecompared to that required in steel processing, as is solid waste. Water emissions data formining was not available.

4.2.1 The effects of processing steps and yieldA comprehensive examination of the tables will indicate the way in which the number(and complexity) of processing steps and associated yields affect the LCI results. Forexample, hot rolled sheet, made by rolling continuously cast slabs on a Hot Strip Mill,has the lowest associated elementary flows. If this hot rolled sheet is further processedby, say, cold rolling and galvanizing and subjected to finishing operations, the resultinggalvanized decking and galvanized studs have associated effects as much as 13 percentgreater.

Processing route also has a major effect on the results. The results shown for rebar, rodand light sections, for example, are significantly higher than those for hot rolled sheet.Most of the difference can be attributed to the rolling of ingots that produce significantlyless usable product than the rolling of the same tonnage of continuously cast blooms orbillets — the reason that continuous casting has been widely adopted by the steel industrythroughout the world. In general, reduced material and energy use means moreeconomical, more competitive products and, coincidentally, reduced disturbances of theenvironment.


Table 13LCI ESTIMATES BY PRODUCT:CANADIAN INTEGRATED MILLS

(per tonne of product)Welded Wire Screws

Mesh, NutsUNITS Nails Ladder Wire Bolts

INPUTSLime (kg) 81.29 81.12 87.79Limestone (kg) 67.51 67.38 72.92Iron ore (pellets) (kg) 1506.42 1505.35 1590.37Prompt Scrap (kg) 36.66 36.58 39.59Obsolete Scrap (kg) 90.47 90.28 97.71Scrap Prompt and Obsolete (kg) 127.13 126.87 137.30Coal Total (kg) 664.67 663.31 700.78

ENERGYChemical Heat MJ 3577.18 3569.87 3863.54Embodied Energy - Prompt Scrap MJ 840.96 839.24 908.28Energy from Coal MJ 19946.03 19905.17 21029.58Energy to pellets MJ 0.00 0.00 0.00Electricity MJ 8821.82 9661.58 7737.07Natural gas MJ 8111.39 10367.07 10014.62Bunker Oil MJ 588.70 587.50 620.70Oxygen MJ 460.45 459.51 497.31Diesel Fuel MJ 124.46 125.14 88.21Light Fuel oil MJ 292.40 291.80 308.30Coke MJ 0.00 0.00 0.00Gasoline MJ 3.80 3.80 4.00

EMISSIONS TO AIRCarbon Dioxide (kg) 2305.11 2416.69 2502.87Carbon Monoxide (kg) 26.78 26.85 28.30Sulfur Oxides (kg) 6.68 6.69 7.05Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 3.04 3.18 3.27Methane (kg) 0.11 0.11 0.11Particulate (kg) 1.60 1.60 1.69Organic Compounds (kg) 3.77 3.78 3.98SOLID WASTESSlag calculated (kg) 230.73 231.32 243.81BOF dust (kg) 17.86 17.90 18.87

1/Yield Ratio 1.350 1.348 1.458

Tonnes sold 18458 399756 20176


Table 13 Continued

Welded Wire ScrewsMesh, Nuts

UNITS Nails Ladder Wire Bolts

EMISSIONS TO WATERWater rate (Liters) 93659.3 93351.1 101113.5Benzene (kg) -6.616E-02 -6.595E-02 -7.143E-02Cyanide (kg) 0.810 0.808 0.875Ammonium (kg) -15.584 -15.532 -16.824Lead (kg) 0.172 0.172 0.186Phenolics MISA (kg) 8.345E-03 8.318E-03 9.009E-03Benzo-pyrene (kg) 7.079E-03 7.055E-03 7.642E-03Naphtalene (kg) -5.406E-02 -5.388E-02 -5.837E-02Suspended Solids (kg) 45.074 44.926 48.662Oil & Grease (kg) 22.761 22.686 24.572Zinc (kg) -8.236E-02 -8.208E-02 -8.891E-02pH factor ratio 8.045 8.045 8.045Chromium (kg) -2.137E-03 -2.130E-03 -2.307E-03Nickel (kg) 1.880E-03 1.874E-03 2.029E-03Chlorides (kg) 8.476 8.448 9.151Chemical Oxygen Demand (kg) 2.513 2.505 2.713Fluorides (kg) 0.240 0.239 0.259Iron IISI (kg) 0.286 0.285 0.309Nitrogen Total (kg) 0.884 0.881 0.954Phosphates (kg) -1.094E-02 -1.091E-02 -1.182E-02Phosphorus (kg) 1.784E-02 1.778E-02 1.926E-02Sulphides (kg) 2.383 2.375 2.572

EMISSIONS TransportCarbon Dioxide (kg) 52.390 50.998 55.716Carbon Monoxide (kg) 0.609 0.567 0.630Sulfur Oxides (kg) 0.152 0.141 0.157Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 6.904E-02 6.701E-02 7.281E-02Methane (kg) 2.480E-03 2.311E-03 2.434E-03Particulate (kg) 3.638E-02 3.370E-02 3.752E-02Organic Compounds (kg) 8.578E-02 7.972E-02 8.863E-02


Table 13 Continued

Rebar, Rod,Heavy Open Web Light

UNITS trusses joists sections

INPUTSLime (kg) 80.07 80.46 78.85Limestone (kg) 66.51 66.83 65.49Iron ore (pellets) (kg) 1485.91 1493.00 1463.14Prompt Scrap (kg) 36.11 36.28 35.56Obsolete Scrap (kg) 89.12 89.55 87.75Scrap Prompt and Obsolete (kg) 125.23 125.83 123.31Coal Total (kg) 654.75 657.87 644.72

ENERGYChemical Heat MJ 3523.71 3540.66 3469.73Embodied Energy - Prompt Scrap MJ 828.39 832.37 815.70Energy from Coal MJ 19648.24 19741.99 19347.24Energy to pellets MJ 0.00 0.00 0.00Electricity MJ 6673.99 4924.70 3889.46Natural gas MJ 7382.97 5429.63 5321.02Bunker Oil MJ 579.90 582.70 571.00Oxygen MJ 453.57 455.75 446.62Diesel Fuel MJ 129.65 128.05 134.94Light Fuel oil MJ 288.10 289.40 263.70Coke MJ 0.00 0.00 0.00Gasoline MJ 3.74 3.80 3.69

EMISSIONS TO AIRCarbon Dioxide (kg) 2157.64 2151.13 2111.29Carbon Monoxide (kg) 26.34 26.39 25.89Sulfur Oxides (kg) 5.36 6.59 6.46Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 2.70 2.86 2.81Methane (kg) 0.10 0.10 0.10Particulate (kg) 1.57 1.62 1.54Organic Compounds (kg) 3.71 3.72 3.65SOLID WASTESSlag calculated (kg) 226.98 226.95 222.40BOF dust (kg) 17.57 17.56 17.21

1/Yield Ratio 1.330 1.337 1.310

Tonnes sold 360250 12539 252264


Table 13 Continued


UNITS trusses joists sections

EMISSIONS TO WATERWater rate (Liters) 92338.2 92977.7 91230.4Benzene (kg) -6.523E-02 -6.568E-02 -6.445E-02Cyanide (kg) 0.799 0.804 0.789Ammonium (kg) -15.364 -15.470 -15.179Lead (kg) 0.170 0.171 0.168Phenolics MISA (kg) 8.227E-03 8.284E-03 8.129E-03Benzo-pyrene (kg) 6.979E-03 7.027E-03 6.895E-03Naphtalene (kg) -5.330E-02 -5.367E-02 -5.266E-02Suspended Solids (kg) 44.439 44.746 43.905Oil & Grease (kg) 22.440 22.595 22.171Zinc (kg) -8.119E-02 -8.176E-02 -8.022E-02pH factor ratio 8.045 8.045 8.045Chromium (kg) -2.107E-03 -2.122E-03 -2.082E-03Nickel (kg) 1.853E-03 1.866E-03 1.831E-03Chlorides (kg) 8.357 8.415 8.256Chemical Oxygen Demand (kg) 2.477 2.495 2.448Fluorides (kg) 0.236 0.238 0.233Iron IISI (kg) 0.282 0.284 0.279Nitrogen Total (kg) 0.871 0.877 0.861Phosphates (kg) -1.079E-02 -1.086E-02 -1.066E-02Phosphorus (kg) 1.759E-02 1.771E-02 1.738E-02Sulphides (kg) 2.349 2.365 2.321

EMISSIONS TransportCarbon Dioxide (kg) 50.044 53.577 52.538Carbon Monoxide (kg) 0.611 0.657 0.644Sulfur Oxides (kg) 0.124 0.164 0.161Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 6.262E-02 7.112E-02 7.001E-02Methane (kg) 2.319E-03 2.483E-03 2.484E-03Particulate (kg) 3.647E-02 4.041E-02 3.839E-02Organic Compounds (kg) 8.602E-02 9.256E-02 9.079E-02


Table 13 Continued

Hot rolledUNITS HSS Tubing sheet

INPUTS

Lime (kg) 68.907 70.264 63.052Limestone (kg) 57.232 58.359 52.368Iron ore (pellets) (kg) 1278.640 1303.900 1170.04Prompt Scrap (kg) 31.073 31.685 28.433Obsolete Scrap (kg) 76.690 78.201 70.174Scrap Prompt and Obsolete (kg) 107.764 109.886 98.606Coal Total (kg) 563.441 574.548 515.559ENERGY

Chemical Heat MJ 3032.359 3092.083 2774.686Embodied Energy - Prompt Scrap MJ 712.875 726.915 652.299Energy from Coal MJ 16908.272 17241.587 15471.384Energy to pellets MJ 0.000 0.000 0.000Electricity MJ 3860.062 3370.567 5158.720Natural gas MJ 1986.013 2025.248 1817.331Bunker Oil MJ 499.000 508.900 456.600Oxygen MJ 390.320 398.007 357.152Diesel Fuel MJ 177.384 171.612 202.416Light Fuel oil MJ 247.900 252.800 226.800Coke MJ 0.000 0.000 0.000Gasoline MJ 3.220 3.290 2.950EMISSIONS TO AIR

Carbon Dioxide (kg) 1712.806 1802.300 1562.589Carbon Monoxide (kg) 22.488 22.952 20.603Sulfur Oxides (kg) 5.532 5.641 5.065Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 2.319 2.419 2.149Methane (kg) 0.081 0.090 0.081Particulate (kg) 1.336 1.363 1.228Organic Compounds (kg) 3.177 3.240 2.907SOLID WASTESSlag calculated (kg) 192.650 196.444 176.333BOF dust (kg) 14.910 15.199 13.643

1/Yield Ratio 1.145 1.167 1.047

Tonnes sold 30264 160736 4542032


Table 13 Continued


EMISSIONS TO WATER

Water rate (Liters) 79980.4 81572.8 73199.3Benzene (kg) -5.650E-02 -5.763E-02 -5.171E-02Cyanide (kg) 0.692 0.706 0.633Ammonium (kg) -13.308 -13.573 -12.179Lead (kg) 0.147 0.150 0.135Phenolics MISA (kg) 7.126E-03 7.268E-03 6.522E-03Benzo-pyrene (kg) 6.045E-03 6.165E-03 5.532E-03Naphtalene (kg) -4.617E-02 -4.709E-02 -4.225E-02Suspended Solids (kg) 38.491 39.258 35.228Oil & Grease (kg) 19.437 19.824 17.789Zinc (kg) -7.033E-02 -7.173E-02 -6.436E-02pH factor ratio 8.045 8.045 8.045Chromium (kg) -1.825E-03 -1.861E-03 -1.670E-03Nickel (kg) 1.605E-03 1.637E-03 1.469E-03Chlorides (kg) 7.238 7.382 6.625Chemical Oxygen Demand (kg) 2.146 2.189 1.964Fluorides (kg) 0.205 0.209 0.187Iron IISI (kg) 0.245 0.249 0.224Nitrogen Total (kg) 0.755 0.770 0.691Phosphates (kg) -9.346E-03 -9.532E-03 -8.554E-03Phosphorus (kg) 1.523E-02 1.554E-02 1.394E-02Sulphides (kg) 2.035 2.075 1.862EMISSIONS Transport

Carbon Dioxide (kg) 48.036 50.557 43.717Carbon Monoxide (kg) 0.631 0.644 0.576Sulfur Oxides (kg) 0.155 0.158 0.142Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 6.504E-02 6.785E-02 6.012E-02Methane (kg) 2.278E-03 2.532E-03 2.273E-03Particulate (kg) 3.746E-02 3.823E-02 3.435E-02Organic Compounds (kg) 8.909E-02 9.089E-02 8.134E-02


Table 13 Continued

Cold rolled Galvanized GalvanizedUNITS sheet sheet deck

INPUTS

Lime (kg) 66.434 69.055 69.405Limestone (kg) 55.177 57.355 57.645Iron ore (pellets) (kg) 1232.740 1185.900 1191.860Prompt Scrap (kg) 29.958 31.140 31.298Obsolete Scrap (kg) 73.938 76.855 77.244Scrap Prompt and Obsolete (kg) 103.896 107.995 108.542Coal Total (kg) 543.194 522.555 525.180ENERGY

Chemical Heat MJ 2923.516 3038.879 3054.267Embodied Energy - Prompt Scrap MJ 687.287 714.408 718.025Energy from Coal MJ 16300.666 15681.308 15760.097Energy to pellets MJ 0.000 0.000 0.000Electricity MJ 5697.955 6300.715 6292.566Natural gas MJ 1914.725 1841.965 1851.218Bunker Oil MJ 481.100 462.800 465.200Oxygen MJ 376.309 391.159 393.139Diesel Fuel MJ 187.927 156.053 154.449Light Fuel oil MJ 239.000 229.600 231.100Coke MJ 0.000 0.000 0.000Gasoline MJ 3.110 2.990 3.000EMISSIONS TO AIR

Carbon Dioxide (kg) 1720.851 1751.900 1759.365Carbon Monoxide (kg) 21.663 20.842 20.927Sulfur Oxides (kg) 5.560 6.095 6.118Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 2.325 2.431 2.438Methane (kg) 0.081 0.081 0.081Particulate (kg) 1.289 1.242 1.242Organic Compounds (kg) 3.235 2.944 2.933SOLID WASTESSlag calculated (kg) 185.755 178.304 179.202BOF dust (kg) 14.377 13.803 13.864

1/Yield Ratio 1.104 1.147 1.153

Tonnes sold 1200875 2458807 17518


Table 13 Continued


EMISSIONS TO WATER

Water rate (Liters) 76988.3 80129.9 80482.5Benzene (kg) -5.439E-02 -5.661E-02 -5.686E-02Cyanide (kg) 0.666 0.693 0.696Ammonium (kg) -12.810 -13.332 -13.391Lead (kg) 0.142 0.147 0.148Phenolics MISA (kg) 6.860E-03 7.140E-03 7.171E-03Benzo-pyrene (kg) 5.819E-03 6.056E-03 6.083E-03Naphtalene (kg) -4.444E-02 -4.625E-02 -4.646E-02Suspended Solids (kg) 37.051 38.563 38.733Oil & Grease (kg) 18.710 19.473 19.559Zinc (kg) -6.770E-02 -7.046E-02 -7.077E-02pH factor ratio 8.045 8.045 8.045Chromium (kg) -1.757E-03 -1.828E-03 -1.837E-03Nickel (kg) 1.545E-03 1.608E-03 1.615E-03Chlorides (kg) 6.968 7.252 7.284Chemical Oxygen Demand (kg) 2.066 2.150 2.159Fluorides (kg) 0.197 0.205 0.206Iron IISI (kg) 0.235 0.245 0.246Nitrogen Total (kg) 0.726 0.756 0.759Phosphates (kg) -8.996E-03 -9.364E-03 -9.405E-03Phosphorus (kg) 1.466E-02 1.526E-02 1.533E-02Sulphides (kg) 1.959 2.039 2.047EMISSIONS Transport

Carbon Dioxide (kg) 48.296 53.130 53.400Carbon Monoxide (kg) 0.608 0.632 0.635Sulfur Oxides (kg) 0.156 0.185 0.186Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 6.525E-02 7.372E-02 7.400E-02Methane (kg) 2.276E-03 2.457E-03 2.458E-03Particulate (kg) 3.616E-02 3.768E-02 3.768E-02Organic Compounds (kg) 9.079E-02 8.928E-02 8.902E-02


Table 13 Continued

GalvanizedUNITS Studs

INPUTS

Lime (kg) 69.334Limestone (kg) 57.586Iron ore (pellets) (kg) 1190.660Prompt Scrap (kg) 31.266Obsolete Scrap (kg) 77.165Scrap Prompt and Obsolete (kg) 108.431Coal Total (kg) 524.646ENERGY

Chemical Heat MJ 3051.137Embodied Energy - Prompt Scrap MJ 717.289Energy from Coal MJ 15744.072Energy to pellets MJ 0.000Electricity MJ 4689.029Natural gas MJ 1849.365Bunker Oil MJ 464.700Oxygen MJ 392.737Diesel Fuel MJ 154.740Light Fuel oil MJ 230.800Coke MJ 0.000Gasoline MJ 3.000EMISSIONS TO AIR

Carbon Dioxide (kg) 1757.632Carbon Monoxide (kg) 20.909Sulfur Oxides (kg) 6.109Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 2.438Methane (kg) 0.081Particulate (kg) 1.242Organic Compounds (kg) 2.951SOLID WASTESSlag calculated (kg) 179.019BOF dust (kg) 13.855

1/Yield Ratio 1.152

Tonnes sold 23108


Table 13 Continued


EMISSIONS TO WATER

Water rate (Liters) 80400.0Benzene (kg) -5.680E-02Cyanide (kg) 0.696Ammonium (kg) -13.377Lead (kg) 0.148Phenolics MISA (kg) 7.164E-03Benzo-pyrene (kg) 6.076E-03Naphtalene (kg) -4.641E-02Suspended Solids (kg) 38.693Oil & Grease (kg) 19.539Zinc (kg) -7.070E-02pH factor ratio 8.045Chromium (kg) -1.835E-03Nickel (kg) 1.614E-03Chlorides (kg) 7.276Chemical Oxygen Demand (kg) 2.157Fluorides (kg) 0.206Iron IISI (kg) 0.246Nitrogen Total (kg) 0.758Phosphates (kg) -9.395E-03Phosphorus (kg) 1.531E-02Sulphides (kg) 2.045EMISSIONS Transport

Carbon Dioxide (kg) 53.345Carbon Monoxide (kg) 0.635Sulfur Oxides (kg) 0.185Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 7.400E-02Methane (kg) 2.458E-03Particulate (kg) 3.768E-02Organic Compounds (kg) 8.956E-02


Table 14LCI ESTIMATES BY PRODUCT:

CANADIAN MINI-MILLS(per tonne of product)


UNITS Nails Ladder Wire BoltsINPUTSLime (kg) 51.590 51.500 54.450Limestone (kg) 0.000 0.000 0.000Iron ore (pellets) (kg) 266.398 560.977 406.453Prompt Scrap (kg) 415.623 414.775 438.525Obsolete Scrap (kg) 649.244 647.919 685.020Scrap Prompt and Obsolete (kg) 1064.867 1062.694 1123.545Coal Total (kg) 0.000 0.000 0.000ENERGYChemical Heat MJ 44.149 416.044 204.610Embodied Energy - Prompt Scrap MJ 8010.874 6000.199 7605.058Energy from Coal MJ 0.000 0.000 0.000Energy to pellets MJ 192.699 405.783 294.008Electricity MJ 3766.592 3951.359 4188.687Natural gas MJ 6884.989 8486.675 7762.458Bunker Oil MJ 0.000 0.000 0.000Oxygen MJ 93.950 93.760 99.130Diesel Fuel MJ 217.385 236.642 234.274Light Fuel oil MJ 0.000 0.000 0.000Coke MJ 303.964 312.842 324.762Gasoline MJ 0.000 0.000 0.000EMISSIONS TO AIRCarbon Dioxide (kg) 695.277 819.879 638.274Carbon Monoxide (kg) 0.440 0.320 0.361Sulfur Oxides (kg) 0.095 0.123 0.110Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 1.533 1.710 1.493Methane (kg) 0.034 0.034 0.035Particulate (kg) 0.026 0.044 0.037Organic Compounds (kg) 0.093 0.100 0.099SOLID WASTESSlag calculated (kg) 98.57 112.77 107.36BOF dust (kg) 24.84 24.36 20.50

1/Yield Ratio 1.175 1.172 1.239

Tonnes sold 38277.00 9070.00 26470.00


Table 14 Continued


UNITS Nails Ladder Wire BoltsEMISSIONS TO WATERWater rate (Liters) 4205.27 3604.09 4212.09Benzene (kg) 0.0 0.0 0.0Cyanide (kg) 1.437E-05 1.232E-05 1.439E-05Ammonium (kg) 2.191E-03 1.878E-03 2.194E-03Lead (kg) 1.978E-02 1.695E-02 1.981E-02Phenolics MISA (kg) 2.551E-05 2.187E-05 2.556E-05Benzo-pyrene (kg) 0.0 0.0 0.0Naphtalene (kg) 0.0 0.0 0.0Suspended Solids (kg) 5.885 5.044 5.895Oil & Grease (kg) 4.845E-02 4.153E-02 4.853E-02Zinc (kg) 6.187E-02 5.303E-02 6.197E-02pH factor ratio 8.046 8.046 8.046Chromium (kg) 2.637E-05 2.260E-05 2.642E-05Nickel (kg) 1.303E-04 1.117E-04 1.305E-04Chlorides (kg) 0.178 0.153 0.178Chemical Oxygen Demand (kg) 8.570E-02 7.345E-02 8.584E-02Fluorides (kg) 2.671E-02 2.289E-02 2.675E-02Iron IISI (kg) 6.358E-03 5.449E-03 6.368E-03Nitrogen Total (kg) -4.360E-03 -3.737E-03 -4.367E-03Phosphates (kg) 2.439E-02 2.091E-02 2.443E-02Phosphorus (kg) 0.145 0.124 0.145Sulphides (kg) 1.205E-02 1.033E-02 1.207E-02EMISSIONS TransportCarbon Dioxide (kg) 16.263 21.596 16.789Carbon Monoxide (kg) 8.849E-03 6.694E-03 7.676E-03Sulfur Oxides (kg) 2.418E-03 3.570E-03 3.038E-03Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 3.582E-02 4.564E-02 3.873E-02Methane (kg) 7.884E-04 8.992E-04 8.771E-04Particulate (kg) 7.387E-04 1.335E-03 1.080E-03Organic Compounds (kg) 2.205E-03 2.740E-03 2.549E-03


Table 14 Continued

Hot rolled Cold rolledUNITS Tubing sheet sheet

INPUTSLime (kg) 55.400 50.597 55.434Limestone (kg) 0.000 0.000 0.000Iron ore (pellets) (kg) 1095.580 264.245 573.565Prompt Scrap (kg) 447.238 407.568 446.706Obsolete Scrap (kg) 698.630 636.661 697.800Scrap Prompt and Obsolete (kg) 1145.867 1044.229 1144.506Coal Total (kg) 0.000 0.000 0.000ENERGYChemical Heat MJ 1069.215 47.088 409.750Embodied Energy - Prompt Scrap MJ 2892.047 7827.612 6523.610Energy from Coal MJ 0.000 0.000 0.000Energy to pellets MJ 386.961 617.097 506.523Electricity MJ 4200.888 3033.253 3637.208Natural gas MJ 13016.262 6845.422 9218.876Bunker Oil MJ 0.000 0.000 0.000Oxygen MJ 101.100 92.148 100.995Diesel Fuel MJ 291.461 237.441 227.921Light Fuel oil MJ 0.000 0.000 0.000Coke MJ 290.660 283.166 303.307Gasoline MJ 5.140 1.239 2.691EMISSIONS TO AIRCarbon Dioxide (kg) 894.169 506.817 670.736Carbon Monoxide (kg) 0.063 0.516 0.290Sulfur Oxides (kg) 0.190 0.092 0.133Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 1.963 1.311 1.597Methane (kg) 0.038 0.034 0.037Particulate (kg) 0.076 0.028 0.048Organic Compounds (kg) 0.127 0.093 0.109SOLID WASTESSlag calculated (kg) 115.01 105.75 101.82BOF dust (kg) 20.03 26.47 23.85

1/Yield Ratio 1.264 1.152 1.262

Tonnes sold 25946.00 3303823.00 419750.00


Table 14 Continued

Hot rolled Cold rolledUNITS Tubing sheet sheet

EMISSIONS TO WATERWater rate (Liters) 2855.30 4227.92 4076.90Benzene (kg) 0.0 0.0 0.0Cyanide (kg) 9.757E-06 1.445E-05 1.393E-05Ammonium (kg) 1.487E-03 2.202E-03 2.124E-03Lead (kg) 1.343E-02 1.989E-02 1.918E-02Phenolics MISA (kg) 1.732E-05 2.565E-05 2.474E-05Benzo-pyrene (kg) 0.0 0.0 0.0Naphtalene (kg) 0.0 0.0 0.0Suspended Solids (kg) 3.996 5.917 5.705Oil & Grease (kg) 3.290E-02 4.871E-02 4.697E-02Zinc (kg) 4.201E-02 6.221E-02 5.999E-02pH factor ratio 8.046 8.046 8.046Chromium (kg) 1.791E-05 2.651E-05 2.557E-05Nickel (kg) 8.846E-05 1.310E-04 1.263E-04Chlorides (kg) 0.121 0.179 0.173Chemical Oxygen Demand (kg) 5.819E-02 8.616E-02 8.308E-02Fluorides (kg) 1.813E-02 2.685E-02 2.589E-02Iron IISI (kg) 4.317E-03 6.392E-03 6.164E-03Nitrogen Total (kg) -2.961E-03 -4.384E-03 -4.227E-03Phosphates (kg) 1.656E-02 2.452E-02 2.365E-02Phosphorus (kg) 0.098 0.146 0.140Sulphides (kg) 8.180E-03 1.211E-02 1.168E-02EMISSIONS TransportCarbon Dioxide (kg) 27.192 11.996 18.461Carbon Monoxide (kg) 0.002 0.011 0.006Sulfur Oxides (kg) 0.006 0.002 0.004Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 0.060 0.030 0.043Methane (kg) 0.001 0.001 0.001Particulate (kg) 0.002 0.001 0.001Organic Compounds (kg) 0.004 0.002 0.003


Table 14 Continued

UNITS Galvanized Galvanizedsheet deck

INPUTSLime (kg) 53.363 54.080Limestone (kg) 0.000 0.000Iron ore (pellets) (kg) 0.000 1069.490Prompt Scrap (kg) 429.732 453.258Obsolete Scrap (kg) 671.284 708.034Scrap Prompt and Obsolete (kg) 1101.016 1161.293Coal Total (kg) 0.000 0.000ENERGYChemical Heat MJ -301.530 1083.608Embodied Energy - Prompt Scrap MJ 10144.148 3138.795Energy from Coal MJ 0.000 0.000Energy to pellets MJ 408.612 723.300Electricity MJ 3034.530 4331.384Natural gas MJ 5431.002 13825.911Bunker Oil MJ 0.000 0.000Oxygen MJ 97.162 98.570Diesel Fuel MJ 43.864 285.066Light Fuel oil MJ 0.000 0.000Coke MJ 305.487 283.400Gasoline MJ 0.000 5.010EMISSIONS TO AIRCarbon Dioxide (kg) 435.906 948.828Carbon Monoxide (kg) 0.524 0.589Sulfur Oxides (kg) 0.072 0.185Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 1.212 1.848Methane (kg) 0.036 0.035Particulate (kg) 0.018 0.069Organic Compounds (kg) 0.090 0.127SOLID WASTESSlag calculated (kg) 88.85 129.57BOF dust (kg) 26.15 24.42

1/Yield Ratio 1.214 1.281

Tonnes sold 100000.00 5590.00


Table 14 Continued

Galvanized GalvanizedUNITS sheet decking

EMISSIONS TO WATERWater rate (Liters) 5187.91 2907.65Benzene (kg) 0.0 0.0Cyanide (kg) 1.773E-05 9.936E-06Ammonium (kg) 2.703E-03 1.515E-03Lead (kg) 2.440E-02 1.368E-02Phenolics MISA (kg) 3.148E-05 1.764E-05Benzo-pyrene (kg) 0.0 0.0Naphtalene (kg) 0.0 0.0Suspended Solids (kg) 7.260 4.069Oil & Grease (kg) 5.978E-02 3.350E-02Zinc (kg) 7.633E-02 4.278E-02pH factor ratio 8.046 8.046Chromium (kg) 3.253E-05 1.823E-05Nickel (kg) 1.607E-04 9.008E-05Chlorides (kg) 0.220 1.231E-01Chemical Oxygen Demand (kg) 1.057E-01 5.925E-02Fluorides (kg) 3.295E-02 1.847E-02Iron IISI (kg) 7.844E-03 4.396E-03Nitrogen Total (kg) -5.379E-03 -3.015E-03Phosphates (kg) 3.009E-02 1.687E-02Phosphorus (kg) 0.179 0.100Sulphides (kg) 1.486E-02 8.330E-03EMISSIONS TransportCarbon Dioxide (kg) 8.566 27.636Carbon Monoxide (kg) 0.010 0.017Sulfur Oxides (kg) 0.001 0.005Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 0.024 0.054Methane (kg) 0.001 0.001Particulate (kg) 0.000 0.002Organic Compounds (kg) 0.002 0.004


Table 15LCI ESTIMATES BY PRODUCT:COMBINED CANADIAN MILLS

(per tonne of product)Welded Wire Screws

Mesh, NutsUNITS Nails Ladder Wire Bolts


1/Yield Ratio 1.232 1.344 1.334

Tonnes sold 56735 408826 46646


Table 15 Continued


UNITS Nails Ladder Wire BoltsEMISSIONS TO WATERWater rate (Liters) 33307.99 91360.04 46125.29Benzene (kg) -2.153E-02 -6.448E-02 -3.090E-02Cyanide (kg) 0.264 0.790 0.378Ammonium (kg) -5.068 -15.188 -7.276Lead (kg) 6.937E-02 1.682E-01 9.166E-02Phenolics MISA (kg) 2.732E-03 8.133E-03 3.911E-03Benzopyrene (kg) 2.303E-03 6.899E-03 3.305E-03Naphtalene (kg) -1.759E-02 -5.269E-02 -2.524E-02Suspended Solids (kg) 18.635 44.041 24.393Oil & Grease (kg) 7.438 22.184 10.656Zinc (kg) 1.495E-02 -7.909E-02 -3.288E-03pH factor ratio 8.045 8.045 8.045Chromium (kg) -6.775E-04 -2.082E-03 -9.830E-04Nickel (kg) 6.995E-04 1.835E-03 9.518E-04Chlorides (kg) 2.878 8.264 4.059Chemical Oxygen Demand (kg) 0.875 2.451 1.222Fluorides (kg) 9.594E-02 0.234 0.127Iron IISI (kg) 9.746E-02 0.279 0.137Nitrogen Total (kg) 0.285 0.861 0.410Phosphates (kg) 1.290E-02 -1.020E-02 8.754E-03Phosphorus (kg) 0.103 2.014E-02 9.060E-02Sulphides (kg) 0.783 2.322 1.119EMISSIONS TransportCarbon Dioxide (kg) 28.016 50.346 33.626Carbon Monoxide (kg) 0.204 0.554 0.277Sulfur Oxides (kg) 5.099E-02 1.381E-01 6.962E-02Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 4.663E-02 6.654E-02 5.347E-02Methane (kg) 1.339E-03 2.279E-03 1.550E-03Particulate (kg) 1.233E-02 3.298E-02 1.684E-02Organic Compounds (kg) 2.939E-02 7.801E-02 3.978E-02


Table 15 Continued


UNITS trusses joists sectionsINPUTSLime (kg) 64.313 66.991 52.660Limestone (kg) 30.318 36.161 5.833Iron ore (pellets) (kg) 677.379 1053.380 130.320Prompt Scrap (kg) 240.420 208.501 370.676Obsolete Scrap (kg) 390.472 343.485 581.901Scrap Prompt and Obsolete (kg) 765.023 527.949 1172.703Coal Total (kg) 298.478 355.991 57.424ENERGYChemical Heat MJ 1449.204 2092.837 51.174Embodied Energy - Prompt Scrap MJ 5664.357 3249.933 8747.980Energy from Coal MJ 8957.012 10682.926 1723.234Energy to pellets MJ 0.000 83.498 0.000Electricity MJ 4623.938 4142.777 2441.103Natural gas MJ 6320.844 6757.247 5421.206Bunker Oil MJ 264.358 315.315 50.858Oxygen MJ 257.403 289.320 122.857Diesel Fuel MJ 139.187 188.154 181.436Light Fuel oil MJ 131.336 156.602 23.487Coke MJ 159.207 142.165 261.200Gasoline MJ 1.705 2.056 0.329EMISSIONS TO AIRCarbon Dioxide (kg) 1221.508 1447.713 589.739Carbon Monoxide (kg) 12.295 14.405 2.798Sulfur Oxides (kg) 2.484 3.622 0.643Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 1.892 2.223 1.387Methane (kg) 0.065 0.070 0.026Particulate (kg) 0.727 0.898 0.154Organic Compounds (kg) 1.740 2.057 0.410SOLID WASTESSlag calculated (kg) 143.906 177.025 95.551BOF dust (kg) 19.902 21.146 23.819

1/Yield Ratio 1.239 1.257 1.155

Tonnes sold 790250 23172 2832240


Table 15 Continued


UNITS trusses joists sectionsEMISSIONS TO WATERWater rate (Liters) 44743.54 52014.62 12583.13Benzene (kg) -2.974E-02 -3.554E-02 -5.740E-03Cyanide (kg) 0.364 0.435 0.070Ammonium (kg) -7.002 -8.370 -1.350Lead (kg) 8.986E-02 1.005E-01 3.591E-02Phenolics MISA (kg) 3.767E-03 4.493E-03 7.510E-04Benzopyrene (kg) 3.181E-03 3.803E-03 6.141E-04Naphtalene (kg) -2.430E-02 -2.904E-02 -4.690E-03Suspended Solids (kg) 23.966 26.595 10.149Oil & Grease (kg) 10.260 12.247 2.026Zinc (kg) 1.969E-03 -1.920E-02 5.844E-02pH factor ratio 8.045 8.045 8.046Chromium (kg) -9.439E-04 -1.137E-03 -1.575E-04Nickel (kg) 9.269E-04 1.063E-03 3.012E-04Chlorides (kg) 3.922 4.625 0.924Chemical Oxygen Demand (kg) 1.183 1.385 0.309Fluorides (kg) 0.124 0.139 4.909E-02Iron IISI (kg) 0.133 0.156 3.159E-02Nitrogen Total (kg) 0.394 0.473 7.204E-02Phosphates (kg) 1.045E-02 3.993E-03 2.491E-02Phosphorus (kg) 9.921E-02 6.816E-02 0.155Sulphides (kg) 1.078 1.285 0.219EMISSIONS TransportCarbon Dioxide (kg) 27.313 36.846 11.902Carbon Monoxide (kg) 0.284 0.358 0.066Sulfur Oxides (kg) 5.745E-02 9.040E-02 1.554E-02Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 4.105E-02 5.676E-02 2.666E-02Methane (kg) 1.431E-03 1.749E-03 5.261E-04Particulate (kg) 1.681E-02 2.246E-02 3.724E-03Organic Compounds (kg) 4.015E-02 5.132E-02 9.611E-03


Table 15 Continued



1/Yield Ratio 1.145 1.181 1.091

Tonnes sold 30264 186682 7845855


Table 15 Continued


EMISSIONS TO WATERWater rate (Liters) 79980.39 70632.28 44156.03Benzene (kg) -5.650E-02 -4.962E-02 -2.994E-02Cyanide (kg) 0.692 0.608 0.367Ammonium (kg) -13.308 -11.686 -7.050Lead (kg) 1.471E-01 1.310E-01 8.629E-02Phenolics MISA (kg) 7.126E-03 6.260E-03 3.786E-03Benzopyrene (kg) 6.045E-03 5.308E-03 3.203E-03Naphtalene (kg) -4.617E-02 -4.054E-02 -2.446E-02Suspended Solids (kg) 38.491 34.357 22.885Oil & Grease (kg) 19.437 17.073 10.319Zinc (kg) -7.033E-02 -5.592E-02 -1.107E-02pH factor ratio 8.045 8.045 8.045Chromium (kg) -1.825E-03 -1.600E-03 -9.558E-04Nickel (kg) 1.605E-03 1.422E-03 9.057E-04Chlorides (kg) 7.238 6.373 3.910Chemical Oxygen Demand (kg) 2.146 1.893 1.173Fluorides (kg) 0.205 0.182 0.120Iron IISI (kg) 0.245 0.215 0.132Nitrogen Total (kg) 0.755 0.662 0.398Phosphates (kg) -9.346E-03 -5.905E-03 5.375E-03Phosphorus (kg) 1.523E-02 2.704E-02 6.935E-02Sulphides (kg) 2.035 1.788 1.083EMISSIONS TransportCarbon Dioxide (kg) 48.036 47.309 30.360Carbon Monoxide (kg) 0.631 0.555 0.338Sulfur Oxides (kg) 1.551E-01 1.370E-01 8.298E-02Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 6.504E-02 6.672E-02 4.751E-02Methane (kg) 2.278E-03 2.340E-03 1.623E-03Particulate (kg) 3.746E-02 3.324E-02 2.019E-02Organic Compounds (kg) 8.909E-02 7.879E-02 4.797E-02


Table 15 Continued



1/Yield Ratio 1.145 1.150 1.184

Tonnes sold 1620625 2558807 23108


Table 15 Continued


EMISSIONS TO WATERWater rate (Liters) 58103.91 77201.11 61716.58Benzene (kg) -4.030E-02 -5.439E-02 -4.310E-02Cyanide (kg) 0.494 0.666 0.528Ammonium (kg) -9.491 -12.811 -10.151Lead (kg) 1.099E-01 1.425E-01 1.155E-01Phenolics MISA (kg) 5.089E-03 6.862E-03 5.440E-03Benzopyrene (kg) 4.312E-03 5.819E-03 4.611E-03Naphtalene (kg) -3.293E-02 -4.445E-02 -3.522E-02Suspended Solids (kg) 28.933 37.340 30.347Oil & Grease (kg) 13.876 18.714 14.835Zinc (kg) -3.463E-02 -6.472E-02 -4.330E-02pH factor ratio 8.045 8.045 8.045Chromium (kg) -1.295E-03 -1.756E-03 -1.388E-03Nickel (kg) 1.178E-03 1.552E-03 1.246E-03Chlorides (kg) 5.208 6.977 5.552Chemical Oxygen Demand (kg) 1.552 2.070 1.651Fluorides (kg) 0.153 0.198 0.160Iron IISI (kg) 0.176 0.236 0.188Nitrogen Total (kg) 0.537 0.726 0.575Phosphates (kg) -5.412E-04 -7.822E-03 -3.050E-03Phosphorus (kg) 4.721E-02 2.164E-02 3.583E-02Sulphides (kg) 1.454 1.959 1.554EMISSIONS TransportCarbon Dioxide (kg) 40.569 51.389 47.167Carbon Monoxide (kg) 0.452 0.608 0.486Sulfur Oxides (kg) 1.166E-01 1.777E-01 1.421E-01Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 5.949E-02 7.177E-02 6.912E-02Methane (kg) 1.934E-03 2.389E-03 2.107E-03Particulate (kg) 2.716E-02 3.622E-02 2.906E-02Organic Compounds (kg) 6.802E-02 8.586E-02 6.838E-02


Table 15 Continued


INPUTSLime (kg) 69.334Limestone (kg) 57.586Iron ore (pellets) (kg) 1190.660Prompt Scrap (kg) 31.266Obsolete Scrap (kg) 77.165Scrap Prompt and Obsolete (kg) 108.431Coal Total (kg) 524.646ENERGYChemical Heat MJ 3051.137Embodied Energy - Prompt Scrap MJ 717.289Energy from Coal MJ 15744.072Energy to pellets MJ 0.000Electricity MJ 4689.029Natural gas MJ 1849.365Bunker Oil MJ 464.700Oxygen MJ 392.737Diesel Fuel MJ 154.740Light Fuel oil MJ 230.800Coke MJ 0.000Gasoline MJ 3.000EMISSIONS TO AIRCarbon Dioxide (kg) 1757.632Carbon Monoxide (kg) 20.909Sulfur Oxides (kg) 6.109Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 2.438Methane (kg) 0.081Particulate (kg) 1.242Organic Compounds (kg) 2.951SOLID WASTESSlag calculated (kg) 179.019BOF dust (kg) 13.855

1/Yield Ratio 1.152

Tonnes sold 23108


Table 15 Continued


EMISSIONS TO WATERWater rate (Liters) 80399.96Benzene (kg) -5.680E-02Cyanide (kg) 0.696Ammonium (kg) -13.377Lead (kg) 0.148Phenolics MISA (kg) 7.164E-03Benzopyrene (kg) 6.076E-03Naphtalene (kg) -4.641E-02Suspended Solids (kg) 38.693Oil & Grease (kg) 19.539Zinc (kg) -7.070E-02pH factor ratio 8.045Chromium (kg) -1.835E-03Nickel (kg) 1.614E-03Chlorides (kg) 7.276Chemical Oxygen Demand (kg) 2.157Fluorides (kg) 0.206Iron IISI (kg) 0.246Nitrogen Total (kg) 0.758Phosphates (kg) -9.395E-03Phosphorus (kg) 1.531E-02Sulphides (kg) 2.045EMISSIONS TransportCarbon Dioxide (kg) 53.345Carbon Monoxide (kg) 0.635Sulfur Oxides (kg) 0.185Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 7.400E-02Methane (kg) 2.458E-03Particulate (kg) 3.768E-02Organic Compounds (kg) 8.956E-02


Table 16LCI ESTIMATES BY PRODUCT:

COMBINED US MILLS(per tonne of product)

Welded WireMesh, Screws

UNITS Nails Ladder Wire Nuts BoltsINPUTSLime (kg) 70.824 56.823 68.713Limestone (kg) 41.484 11.487 29.682Iron ore (pellets) (kg) 997.970 252.385 754.511Prompt Scrap (kg) 185.966 342.715 274.188Obsolete Scrap (kg) 313.573 546.505 447.127Scrap Prompt and Obsolete (kg) 499.539 889.219 721.316Coal Total (kg) 395.689 109.564 276.376ENERGYChemical Heat MJ 2064.285 330.705 1444.318Embodied Energy - Prompt Scrap MJ 3253.147 6832.780 4867.314Energy from Coal MJ 11874.206 3287.889 8293.743Energy to pellets MJ 74.360 4.179 108.875Electricity MJ 6763.658 4638.803 5515.209Natural gas MJ 7578.877 6266.675 7968.876Bunker Oil MJ 350.463 97.042 244.795Oxygen MJ 320.939 156.612 262.466Diesel Fuel MJ 148.421 163.663 154.089Light Fuel oil MJ 174.071 48.199 121.589Coke MJ 122.795 246.214 192.855Gasoline MJ 2.262 0.628 1.578EMISSIONS TO AIRCarbon Dioxide (kg) 1633.618 1059.675 1316.845Carbon Monoxide (kg) 16.099 4.921 11.401Sulfur Oxides (kg) 4.007 1.157 2.831Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 2.385 1.824 2.080Methane (kg) 0.078 0.045 0.063Particulate (kg) 0.962 0.277 0.680Organic Compounds (kg) 2.280 0.690 1.622SOLID WASTESSlag calculated (kg) 176.825 109.800 156.214BOF dust (kg) 20.685 23.973 19.997

1/Yield Ratio 1.305 1.208 1.344

Tonnes sold 1007867 13621699 5071191


Table 16 Continued

WeldedWire Mesh; Screws

UNITS Nails Ladder Wire Nuts BoltsEMISSIONS TO WATERWater rate (Liters) 54359.70 18723.93 40558.46Benzene (kg) -3.713E-02 -1.028E-02 -2.657E-02Cyanide (kg) 0.455 0.126 0.325Ammonium (kg) -8.745 -2.420 -6.256Lead (kg) 1.051E-01 4.637E-02 8.302E-02Phenolics MISA (kg) 4.694E-03 1.322E-03 3.369E-03Benzo-pyrene (kg) 3.973E-03 1.100E-03 2.843E-03Naphtalene (kg) -3.034E-02 -8.402E-03 -2.171E-02Suspended Solids (kg) 27.809 12.839 22.225Oil & Grease (kg) 12.795 3.585 9.174Zinc (kg) -1.982E-02 4.854E-02 1.029E-02pH factor ratio 8.045 8.045 8.045Chromium (kg) -1.188E-03 -3.060E-04 -8.398E-04Nickel (kg) 1.111E-03 4.213E-04 8.462E-04Chlorides (kg) 4.833 1.494 3.529Chemical Oxygen Demand (kg) 1.447 0.475 1.069Fluorides (kg) 1.458E-01 0.064 0.115Iron IISI (kg) 1.634E-01 0.051 0.119Nitrogen Total (kg) 0.494 0.133 0.352Phosphates (kg) 4.266E-03 2.248E-02 1.270E-02Phosphorus (kg) 0.072 1.463E-01 1.086E-01Sulphides (kg) 1.342 0.382 0.965EMISSIONS (Transport)Carbon Dioxide (kg) 38.692 23.037 31.094Carbon Monoxide (kg) 0.378 0.107 0.262Sulfur Oxides (kg) 9.417E-02 2.523E-02 6.527E-02Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 5.674E-02 3.964E-02 4.958E-02Methane (kg) 1.841E-03 9.695E-04 1.477E-03Particulate (kg) 2.264E-02 6.039E-03 1.572E-02Organic Compounds (kg) 5.359E-02 1.503E-02 3.740E-02


Table 16 Continued

Rebar, Rod, Heavy Open Web Light

UNITS trusses joists sectionsINPUTSLime (kg) 59.300 54.970 53.377Limestone (kg) 17.826 8.337 7.081Iron ore (pellets) (kg) 385.895 241.488 153.274Prompt Scrap (kg) 305.767 356.142 354.817Obsolete Scrap (kg) 491.247 566.177 563.480Scrap Prompt and Obsolete (kg) 996.722 1125.383 1155.044Coal Total (kg) 170.039 79.517 67.539ENERGYChemical Heat MJ 669.188 235.966 97.287Embodied Energy - Prompt Scrap MJ 6122.294 6808.833 7087.534Energy from Coal MJ 5102.704 2386.233 2026.762Energy to pellets MJ 0.000 41.110 0.000Electricity MJ 3881.085 3184.454 2464.544Natural gas MJ 5937.934 5760.736 5419.480Bunker Oil MJ 150.602 70.432 59.816Oxygen MJ 190.469 138.668 129.936Diesel Fuel MJ 137.076 191.524 178.431Light Fuel oil MJ 74.820 34.980 27.624Coke MJ 216.604 259.189 256.702Gasoline MJ 0.971 0.459 0.387EMISSIONS TO AIRCarbon Dioxide (kg) 853.366 630.752 578.055Carbon Monoxide (kg) 7.189 3.580 3.147Sulfur Oxides (kg) 1.440 0.860 0.737Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 1.516 1.348 1.304Methane (kg) 0.050 0.041 0.026Particulate (kg) 0.420 0.213 0.177Organic Compounds (kg) 1.023 0.523 0.457SOLID WASTESSlag calculated (kg) 113.911 105.822 97.717BOF dust (kg) 20.739 24.125 23.704

1/Yield Ratio 1.218 1.189 1.162

Tonnes sold 813449 1654657 10048718


Table 16 Continued

Rebar, Rod, Heavy Open Web Light

UNITS trusses joists sectionsEMISSIONS TO WATERWater rate (Liters) 26416.31 14971.15 13631.90Benzene (kg) -1.596E-02 -7.463E-03 -6.338E-03Cyanide (kg) 0.195 0.091 0.078Ammonium (kg) -3.756 -1.755 -1.490Lead (kg) 5.954E-02 4.015E-02 3.841E-02Phenolics MISA (kg) 2.036E-03 9.680E-04 8.277E-04Benzo-pyrene (kg) 1.707E-03 7.984E-04 6.781E-04Naphtalene (kg) -1.304E-02 -6.098E-03 -5.179E-03Suspended Solids (kg) 16.228 11.252 10.839Oil & Grease (kg) 5.534 2.618 2.234Zinc (kg) 3.646E-02 5.556E-02 6.067E-02pH factor ratio 8.045 8.046 8.046Chromium (kg) -4.914E-04 -2.134E-04 -1.755E-04Nickel (kg) 5.720E-04 3.486E-04 3.244E-04Chlorides (kg) 2.206 1.143 1.009Chemical Oxygen Demand (kg) 0.684 0.373 0.336Fluorides (kg) 8.207E-02 5.500E-02 5.254E-02Iron IISI (kg) 7.486E-02 3.897E-02 3.448E-02Nitrogen Total (kg) 0.209 0.095 7.981E-02Phosphates (kg) 1.956E-02 2.433E-02 2.598E-02Phosphorus (kg) 1.361E-01 1.537E-01 0.162Sulphides (kg) 0.586 0.281 0.242EMISSIONS (Transport)Carbon Dioxide (kg) 19.535 14.913 12.778Carbon Monoxide (kg) 0.171 0.090 0.078Sulfur Oxides (kg) 3.436E-02 2.191E-02 1.858E-02Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 3.380E-02 3.086E-02 2.764E-02Methane (kg) 1.130E-03 9.314E-04 5.682E-04Particulate (kg) 1.003E-02 5.449E-03 4.451E-03Organic Compounds (kg) 2.433E-02 1.316E-02 1.131E-02


Table 16 Continued

Hot rolled UNITS HSS Tubing sheet

MATERIAL INPUTSLime (kg) 71.121 72.044 61.022Limestone (kg) 59.070 58.556 38.949Iron ore (pellets) (kg) 1278.640 1298.097 1106.697Prompt Scrap (kg) 32.072 43.898 131.804Obsolete Scrap (kg) 79.154 97.573 226.858Scrap Prompt and Obsolete (kg) 111.226 141.471 358.663Coal Total (kg) 563.441 558.544 371.511ENERGY INPUTSChemical Heat MJ 2925.887 2930.191 2181.538Embodied Energy - Prompt Scrap MJ 713.143 787.846 1345.706Energy from Coal MJ 16908.272 16761.326 11148.641Energy to pellets MJ 0.000 10.779 45.712Electricity MJ 3847.522 3381.265 4668.056Natural gas MJ 1986.013 2331.401 4237.799Bunker Oil MJ 499.000 494.725 329.025Oxygen MJ 402.859 402.168 291.376Diesel Fuel MJ 158.997 156.723 225.777Light Fuel oil MJ 247.900 245.758 163.432Coke MJ 0.000 8.096 74.404Gasoline MJ 3.220 3.342 3.362EMISSIONS TO AIRCarbon Dioxide (kg) 1711.273 1775.451 1317.762Carbon Monoxide (kg) 22.468 22.295 14.971Sulfur Oxides (kg) 5.527 5.484 3.686Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 2.317 2.404 1.985Methane (kg) 0.081 0.089 0.066Particulate (kg) 1.334 1.326 0.899Organic Compounds (kg) 3.174 3.151 2.121SOLID WASTESSlag calculated (kg) 192.472 193.998 172.098BOF dust (kg) 14.896 15.320 18.473

1/Yield Ratio 1.181 4.570 1.675

Tonnes sold 5000000 5385062 9484525


Table 16 Continued

Hot rolled UNITS HSS Tubing sheet

EMISSIONS TO WATERWater rate (Liters) 74849.96 74291.35 50676.12Benzene (kg) -5.288E-02 -5.242E-02 -3.486E-02Cyanide (kg) 0.648 0.642 0.427Ammonium (kg) -12.454 -12.345 -8.211Lead (kg) 1.376E-01 1.369E-01 9.697E-02Phenolics MISA (kg) 6.669E-03 6.612E-03 4.405E-03Benzo-pyrene (kg) 5.657E-03 5.608E-03 3.730E-03Naphtalene (kg) -4.321E-02 -4.283E-02 -2.849E-02Suspended Solids (kg) 36.022 35.839 25.603Oil & Grease (kg) 18.190 18.033 12.009Zinc (kg) -6.582E-02 -6.387E-02 -2.394E-02pH factor ratio 8.045 8.045 8.045Chromium (kg) -1.708E-03 -1.693E-03 -1.118E-03Nickel (kg) 1.502E-03 1.492E-03 1.032E-03Chlorides (kg) 6.774 6.719 4.523Chemical Oxygen Demand (kg) 2.008 1.993 1.351Fluorides (kg) 0.191 0.190 0.135Iron IISI (kg) 0.229 0.227 0.153Nitrogen Total (kg) 0.706 0.700 0.464Phosphates (kg) -8.747E-03 -8.130E-03 1.905E-03Phosphorus (kg) 1.426E-02 1.734E-02 5.493E-02Sulphides (kg) 1.904 1.888 1.259EMISSIONS (Transport)Carbon Dioxide (kg) 49.579 51.485 38.646Carbon Monoxide (kg) 0.651 0.646 0.433Sulfur Oxides (kg) 0.160 0.159 0.107Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 6.713E-02 6.974E-02 5.861E-02Methane (kg) 2.351E-03 2.573E-03 1.935E-03Particulate (kg) 3.866E-02 3.842E-02 2.602E-02Organic Compounds (kg) 9.195E-02 9.131E-02 6.138E-02


Table 16 Continued

Cold rolled Galvanized GalvanizedUNITS sheet sheet decking

MATERIAL INPUTSLime (kg) 60.174 65.313 71.178Limestone (kg) 20.466 39.498 57.948Iron ore (pellets) (kg) 491.408 791.272 1188.675Prompt Scrap (kg) 289.200 160.405 42.928Obsolete Scrap (kg) 466.372 272.268 95.748Scrap Prompt and Obsolete (kg) 755.572 432.672 138.676Coal Total (kg) 195.205 348.666 511.509ENERGY INPUTSChemical Heat MJ 873.952 1856.109 2898.519Embodied Energy - Prompt Scrap MJ 5539.526 3249.150 781.663Energy from Coal MJ 5857.891 10463.096 15349.851Energy to pellets MJ 442.056 17.912 18.828Electricity MJ 4104.863 5205.453 6229.213Natural gas MJ 4487.043 3036.276 2162.926Bunker Oil MJ 172.891 308.796 453.091Oxygen MJ 204.281 301.712 397.773Diesel Fuel MJ 185.268 106.426 139.812Light Fuel oil MJ 85.888 153.197 225.084Coke MJ 202.234 101.656 7.377Gasoline MJ 1.345 1.995 3.052EMISSIONS TO AIRCarbon Dioxide (kg) 898.958 1299.045 1736.616Carbon Monoxide (kg) 8.072 14.051 20.377Sulfur Oxides (kg) 2.045 4.085 5.958Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 1.594 1.985 2.420Methane (kg) 0.051 0.065 0.080Particulate (kg) 0.476 0.834 1.210Organic Compounds (kg) 1.217 1.990 2.857SOLID WASTES 0.000 0.000 0.000Slag calculated (kg) 126.683 148.417 177.735BOF dust (kg) 22.300 17.902 14.126

1/Yield Ratio 1.218 1.194 1.192

Tonnes sold 22633798 21035777 3841626


Table 16 Continued

Cold rolled Galvanized GalvanizedUNITS sheet sheet decking

EMISSIONS TO WATERWater rate (Liters) 29398.90 51883.43 73517.30Benzene (kg) -1.832E-02 -3.536E-02 -5.187E-02Cyanide (kg) 0.224 0.433 0.635Ammonium (kg) -4.313 -8.327 -12.217Lead (kg) 6.399E-02 1.007E-01 1.354E-01Phenolics MISA (kg) 2.332E-03 4.471E-03 6.543E-03Benzo-pyrene (kg) 1.960E-03 3.783E-03 5.550E-03Naphtalene (kg) -1.497E-02 -2.889E-02 -4.238E-02Suspended Solids (kg) 17.331 26.653 35.463Oil & Grease (kg) 6.342 12.184 17.845Zinc (kg) 2.819E-02 -1.703E-02 -6.326E-02pH factor ratio 8.045 8.045 8.045Chromium (kg) -5.700E-04 -1.131E-03 -1.675E-03Nickel (kg) 6.279E-04 1.061E-03 1.477E-03Chlorides (kg) 2.494 4.607 6.649Chemical Oxygen Demand (kg) 0.766 1.380 1.972Fluorides (kg) 0.088 0.140 0.188Iron IISI (kg) 0.085 0.156 0.225Nitrogen Total (kg) 0.241 0.470 0.693Phosphates (kg) 1.707E-02 4.788E-03 -8.064E-03Phosphorus (kg) 1.242E-01 7.265E-02 1.705E-02Sulphides (kg) 0.670 1.279 1.868EMISSIONS (Transport)Carbon Dioxide (kg) 24.424 39.440 54.400Carbon Monoxide (kg) 0.232 0.439 0.639Sulfur Oxides (kg) 0.059 0.128 0.187Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 4.160E-02 5.869E-02 7.579E-02Methane (kg) 1.336E-03 1.929E-03 2.497E-03Particulate (kg) 1.374E-02 2.607E-02 3.793E-02Organic Compounds (kg) 3.495E-02 6.208E-02 8.958E-02


Table 16 Continued


MATERIAL INPUTSLime (kg) 71.561Limestone (kg) 59.436Iron ore (pellets) (kg) 1190.660Prompt Scrap (kg) 32.270Obsolete Scrap (kg) 79.644Scrap Prompt and Obsolete (kg) 111.915Coal Total (kg) 524.646ENERGY INPUTSChemical Heat MJ 2944.005Embodied Energy - Prompt Scrap MJ 717.559Energy from Coal MJ 15744.072Energy to pellets MJ 0.000Electricity MJ 5306.151Natural gas MJ 1849.365Bunker Oil MJ 464.700Oxygen MJ 405.354Diesel Fuel MJ 136.239Light Fuel oil MJ 230.800Coke MJ 0.000Gasoline MJ 3.000EMISSIONS TO AIRCarbon Dioxide (kg) 1755.923Carbon Monoxide (kg) 20.888Sulfur Oxides (kg) 6.103Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 2.436Methane (kg) 0.081Particulate (kg) 1.240Organic Compounds (kg) 2.948SOLID WASTES 0.000Slag calculated (kg) 178.840BOF dust (kg) 13.842

1/Yield Ratio 1.189

Tonnes sold 1247325


Table 16 Continued

Galvanized UNITS Studs

EMISSIONS TO WATERWater rate (Liters) 75313.47Benzene (kg) -5.320E-02Cyanide (kg) 0.652Ammonium (kg) -12.531Lead (kg) 1.385E-01Phenolics MISA (kg) 6.710E-03Benzo-pyrene (kg) 5.692E-03Naphtalene (kg) -4.347E-02Suspended Solids (kg) 36.245Oil & Grease (kg) 18.303Zinc (kg) -6.622E-02pH factor ratio 8.045Chromium (kg) -1.719E-03Nickel (kg) 1.512E-03Chlorides (kg) 6.816Chemical Oxygen Demand (kg) 2.021Fluorides (kg) 0.193Iron IISI (kg) 0.230Nitrogen Total (kg) 0.711Phosphates (kg) -8.801E-03Phosphorus (kg) 1.434E-02Sulphides (kg) 1.916EMISSIONS (Transport)Carbon Dioxide (kg) 55.059Carbon Monoxide (kg) 0.655Sulfur Oxides (kg) 0.191Nitrogen Oxides (kg) 7.638E-02Methane (kg) 2.536E-03Particulate (kg) 3.889E-02Organic Compounds (kg) 9.244E-02


5 BIBLIOGRAPHY

5.1 Integrated Mills

1. "1989 Annual Statistical Report." American Iron and Steel Institute, 1990.

2. Agrawal, J. C., et al. "Nitrogen Oxide Emissions in the Steel Industry." Iron and Steelmaker, August(1992).

3. "Annual Technical Review of European Steel-making." Steel Times, September (1991).

4. "Bar/Structural Mill Roundup." 33 Metal Producing, May (1991).

5. Barde, Jean-Philippe. "The Path to Sustainable Development." Metallurgical Plant andTechnology, April (1991).

6. Barnes, K. R., et al. "Low Cost Tandem Mill Improvements at Stelco." International Conference onModernization of Steel Rolling, Beijing, China, 1989.

7. Barnes, K. R. "The Coilbox as a Metallurgical Tool." Steel Technology International, 1990/91.

8. Bauer, Karl-Heinz. "Recycling of Iron and Steelworks Wastes Using the Inmetco Direct ReductionProcess. "Metallurgical Plant and Technology, April (1990).

9. "Blast Furnace Roundup." 33 Metal Producing, May (1991).

10. "BOF Roundup." 33 Metal Producing, May (1991).

11. Bogdandy, Ludwig von, et al. "Developments in Oxygen Converter Steel-making. "SteelTechnology International, 1989.

12. Chapman, Lloyd R. "How to Organize an Energy Management Effort." Iron and Steel Engineer,August (1990).

13. "Coke Oven Roundup." 33 Metal Producing, May (1991).

14. "Cold Strip Mill Roundup." 33 Metal Producing, May (1991).

15. "Competitiveness of Canada's Steel Industry - Steel Demand Analysis." Special Projects Branch,Industry, Science and Technology Canada, 1992.

16. "Continuous Pickling Roundup." 33 Metal Producing, May (1991).

17. "Continuous Casting Roundup." 33 Metal Producing, May (1991).

18. "Continuous Annealing Roundup." 33 Metal Producing, May (1991).

19. "Criteria Pollutant Emission Factors for 1985 NAPAP Emissions Inventory." U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 1987.

20. "Current and Future Ironmaking Technologies in Japan." Steel Times International, January (1992).


21. Donaldson, R. J., et al. "Blast Furnace Process Modelling and Sensor Application at Dofasco." Ironand Steelmaker, August (1991).

22. Eisenut, W., et al. "New Findings and Developments in Environmental Protection and Safety andHealth at Work in Coke Oven Plants." Proceedings of the 7thIronmaking Conference, ISS-AIME, Toronto, Canada, 1988.

23. Elliott, J. F. "Iron and Steel: Technology, Energy and the Environment." World Steel Review, Vol.1., (1991).

24. "Emission Factors for Greenhouse and Other Gases by Fuel Type - An Inventory." Ad HocCommittee on Emission Factors, Energy, Mines and Resources Canada, 1990.

25. "Emission Factors for Iron and Steel Industry in Ontario." SCC, 90; SCC, 91; AP-40; AP-42. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 1986-91.

26. "Energy and the Steel Industry." International Iron and Steel Institute, Committee on Technology,Brussels, 1982.

27. "Energy Conservation in the Steel Industry." American Iron and Steel Institute, 84th GeneralMeeting, New York, NY, 1976.

28. "Energy Conservation in the Steel Industry." Conference Proceedings, AISI, Pittsburgh, PA, 1983.

29. "Energy Consumption Guide." U.K. Energy Efficiency Office, Department of Energy, 1991.

30. Eysn, Manfred. "Modernization of the Voest-Alpine Stahl AG LD-3 Steelworks in Linz."Metallurgical Plant and Technology, August (1990).

31. Facco, Guiseppe. "State-of-the-Art Reheating Furnaces." Iron and Steel Engineer, January (1990).

32. Fitzgerald, F. "Technical Trends in Iron and Steel-making." Proceedings of the Sixth InternationalIron and Steel Congress, Nagoya, Japan, 1990.

33. Fruhan, R. J., et al. "Current Status and Future Developments in Oxygen Steel-making."Proceedings of the Sixth International Iron and Steel Congress, Nagoya, Japan, 1990.

34. Galloway, S. M., et al. "Recycling of Steel-making Waste Oxides Through the BOF Vessels."Proceedings of the 75th Steel-making Conference, ISS-AIME, Toronto, Canada, 1992.

35. Gardner, D. "An In-depth Model of the Ontario Iron and Steel Industry." Economics and ForecastDivision, Corporate Planning Branch, Ontario Hydro, 1989.

36. Geiseler, Juergen. "Utilization of Steelworks Slags." Stahl and Eisen, Vol. 111, (1991).

37. George, D.W.R. "Strategic Study of Future Ironmaking Processes – Process Descriptions." StelcoTechnical Services Limited, 1990.

38. George, D.W.R. "Strategic Study of Future Ironmaking Processes - Analysis." Stelco TechnicalServices Limited, 1990.

39. Gilbert, Frank C. "A Method of Controlling and/or Reducing NOx Formation in Highly EfficientBurners as Applied to the Steel Industry." Iron and Steel Engineer, September (1989).


40. Hoefer, F., et al. "Producing Continuously Cast High Quality Steel via KMS Converter andSecondary Steel-making." Metallurgical Plant and Technology, June (1990).

41. Hoefer, F., et al. "Scrap Melting with Cost-effective Energies." Proceedings of the SixthInternational Iron and Steel Congress, Nagoya, Japan, 1990.

42. Hoeffken, Erich, et al. "Recovery and Use of Converter Gas." Steel Technology International,1988.

43. Hogan, William T. "Prospects for Steel in the 1990s." Steel Technology International, 1988.

44. Hogan, William T. "Steel in the Year 2000." Metallurgical Processes for the Year 2000 andBeyond, The Minerals and Metals Society, 1988.

45. Hogan, William T. "Steel in 1990 and Beyond." Iron and Steel Engineer, August (1989).

46. Hogan, William T. "Economic Factors Influencing Technological Change." Steel TechnologyInternational, 1992.

47. Hogan, William T. "Hot Strip Mill Developments." Iron and Steel Engineer, April (1989).

48. Holton, Luther J. "Automation Enhancement at Dofasco's No. 2 Hot Strip Mill." Iron and SteelEngineer, January (1990).

49. "Hot Strip Mill Roundup." 33 Metal Producing, May (1991).

50. "Hot-Dip Galvanizing Roundup." 33 Metal Producing, May (1991).

51. Hughes, Ian F. "An Integrated Steel Plant for the Year 2000." Metallurgical Processes for the Year2000 and Beyond, The Minerals and Metals Society, 1988.

52. Jescar, Rudolf, et al. "Fields of Activity of the Institute of Energy Process Technology of theTechnical University of Clausthal, Parts I, II." Steel Research Vol. 61, (1990).

53. Junno, Seija. "Optimization of Steel Mill Production." Proceedings of the Sixth International Ironand Steel Congress, Nagoya, Japan, 1990.

54. Knieper, Alfred E., et al. "Energy Savings with the Lurgi/Thyssen Process in Oxygen Steel-making." Iron and Steel Engineer, May (1990).

55. Kriner, Scott A. "Hot-Dip Galvanizing: A Review of the Process." Steel Technology International,1989.

56. Labee, Charles J., Samways, Norman L. "Development of the Iron and Steel Industry, US andCanada - 1992." Iron and Steel Engineer, February (1992).

57. "Ladle Preheating Roundup." 33 Metal Producing, May (1991).

58. "Ladle Metallurgy Roundup." 33 Metal Producing, May (1991).

59. Luengen, H. B., et al. "Environmental Measures In European Sinter Plants and Blast Furnaces."Second European Ironmaking Congress, Inst. of Metals, Glasgow, 1991.

60. Luerssen, F. W. "Developments in North American Steel Technology." World Steel Review, Vol. 1(1991).


61. Marino, Don J. "Disposal Solutions that Will Not Come Back to Haunt You." Iron and SteelEngineer, April (1990).

62. McChesney, S. C. "1988 Interim Repair of the Lake Erie Works' No. 1 Blast Furnace." Iron andSteel Engineer, September (1989).

63. "Metallurgical Works In Canada - Primary Iron and Steel." Energy, Mines and Resources Canada,1989.

64. Michard, J. A. "Necessity of Change for Steel Industry Survival." Steel Technology International,1988.

65. "Mining and Mineral Processing Operations in Canada, 1991." Energy, Mines and ResourcesCanada, 1991.

66. "Modern Technology for Heavy and Flat Rolled Steel Processing." Iron and Steel Engineer,December (1990).

67. Nashan, Gerd. "The European Development Center for Cokemaking Technology - Tasks andTargets." Cokemaking International, 1990.

68. Nilles, Paul. "Continuous Casting Today - Status and Prospects." Metallurgical Plant andTechnology, October (1991).

69. Patterson, James W. "Industry Waste Management." Lewis Publishers Inc., Chelsea, MI, 1985.

70. Patuzzi, Alexander, et al. "Comparative Study of Modern Scrap Melting Processes." Proceedings ofthe Sixth International Iron and Steel Congress, Nagoya, Japan, 1990.

71. Pehlke, Robert D. "Continuous Casting of Steel in the 21st Century." Metallurgical Processes forthe Year 2000 and Beyond, The Minerals and Metals Society, 1988.

72. Pehlke, Robert D. "Oxygen Steel-making in the Future." Metallurgical Processes for the Year 2000and Beyond, The Minerals and Metals Society, 1988.

73. Phillip, Juergen A., et al. "How the German Steel Industry is Managing Waste Disposal." SteelTechnology International, 1990\91.

74. "Plate Mill Roundup." 33 Metal Producing, May (1991).

75. Poos, A. "The Future of the Blast Furnace." Proceedings of the Sixth International Iron and SteelCongress, Nagoya, Japan, 1990.

76. Poos, A. "Recent Advances in Blast Furnace Ironmaking in Western Europe." ISIJ International,Vol 31 (1991).

77. "Power Utilization in Flat Processing of Steel." Electric Power Research Institute, Final Report,1989.

78. "Production of Primary Iron in Canada: Managing the Air Quality Challenges." Coal and FerrousDivision, Mineral Policy Section, Energy Mines and Resources Canada, 1992.

79. "Reheat Furnace Roundup." 33 Metal Producing, May (1991).


80. Roberts, William L. "Power Utilization in the Manufacture of Heavy Steel Products." Center forMaterials Production, Carnegie Mellon Research Institute Report No. 88-9, 1988.

81. "Rod Mill Roundup." 33 Metal Producing, May (1991).

82. Rohde, Wolfgang. "Development of Plant Technology for Hot Strip Production in the Future."Metallurgical Plant and Technology, April (1991).

83. Schulz, Ekkehard. "Modern Steel-making Cleans Up Its Act." Steel Times International, January(1992).

84. Slayden, Marilyn. "Efficient Operation of Dust Collection Systems." Steel TechnologyInternational, 1989.

85. Springorum, Dirk. "The Changing World of Steel-making - The European View." MetallurgicalPlant and Technology, February (1988).

86. "Statistics on Energy in the Steel Industry (1990 Update)." International Iron and Steel Institute,Brussels, Belgium, 1990.

87. "Status Report on Effluent Monitoring Data for the Iron and Steel Sector for the Period November 1,1989 to October 31, 1990." MISA, Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy, 1991.

88. "Steel Industry Competitiveness and the Environment: An Integrated Approach." Conferencesponsored by Energy, Mines and Resources Canada and Canadian Steel Producers Association,Ottawa, Canada, 1991.

89. Sustich, Ronald W. "NOx Reduction Methods and Their Effects on Efficiency of RegenerationBurners." Iron and Steel Engineer, September (1989).

90. Tateoka, Masatake. "Recent Trends and Future Outlook for Cokemaking Technology in theJapanese Steel Industry." Proceedings of the Sixth International Iron and Steel Congress, Nagoya,Japan, 1990.

91. "The Steel Industry and Energy Crisis." Edited by Julian Szekely, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York,1975.

92. Tourchin, Robert, W. "Dofasco's New 68 in. Hot Strip Mill: Planning, Design and OperatingResults." AISE Yearbook, 1984.

93. "Trucking in Canada, 1985." Statistics Canada Publication No. 53-222.

94. "Tundish Metallurgy Roundup." 33 Metal Producing, May (1991).

95. Usher, Thomas J. "Competitive Issues Facing the Domestic Steel Industry." Iron and SteelEngineer, December (1991).

96. Usher, Thomas J. "Steel Industry in the Nineties." Iron and Steel Engineer, February (1991).

97. Vandenberg, Gerald P. "Thickness Control at Dofasco's No. 2 Hot Strip Mill." Iron and SteelEngineer, September (1989).

98. Walsh, John H. "Making Better Use of Carbon: The Co-production of Iron and Liquid Fuels." 30thAnnual Conference of Metallurgists of the CIM, Ottawa, Canada, 1991.


99. Wright, Trevor, et. al. "Commissioning and Operating Results of a 300 t K-OBM Converter atDofasco." Metallurgical Plant and Technology, August (1989).

100. Wright, Trevor, et al. "Development of K-OBM Practice and Increased Scrap Use. Proceedings ofthe Sixth International Iron and Steel Congress, Nagoya, Japan, 1990

5.2 Mini-mills1. “Electric Furnace Roundup”, 33 Metal Producing, May 1991, pp 39-48.

2. “EAF and BOF Compete - and Mini-Mills Make the Running”, Joseph K. Stone, Steel TimesInternational, October 1987, pp 20, 23, 46.

3. “Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking with Quasi-Submerged Arcs and Foamy Slags”, Edgar G.Wunsche, Iron and Steel Engineer, April 1984, pp 35-42.

4. ‘Oxy-Coal Burners to Replace Electricity in the EAF', Brian Welburn, STI, 1990/91, pp 93-95.

5. “Quality Assured Scrap is now a reality”, Frazer Wright, STI, 1992, pp 79-83.6. “Electric Steelmaking Using Direct Reduced Iron”, Jose Manuel Cenoz, STI, 1992, pp 85-89.

7. “Meltshop Emission Control In North America”, Manfred Bender, STI, 1988, pp 167-170.

8. “Modern Arc Furnace Technology”, R. Heinke et al, STI, 1988, pp 151-158.

9. “The Consteel Process for Continuous Steelmaking”, John A. Vallomy, STI, 1989, pp 161-163.

10. “Oxy-Fuel Burners for Electric Steelmaking”, Jim Untz, STI, 1989, pp 155 - 159.

11. “Saving of Electrical Energy in the EAF Through a new Fume Emission Control”, RudolfStockmeyer, MPT, 3/91, pp 40-43.

12. “Scrap Preheating Fuels Energy Savings”, George Hess, Iron Age, Dec 1990, pp 16-20.

13. “Recovery Metals from Flue Dust with Plasma Technology”, David Pocklinton, STI, 1989, pp 351-353.

14. “Lukens to Install Environmental System”, Iron and Steel Engineer, August 1991, p 7.

15. “New Technology for Treating Electric Arc Furnace Dust”, Toshio Matsuoka, Iron and SteelEngineer, February 1991, pp 37-40.

16. “Electric Arc Furnace Dust Symposium”, Charles J. Labee, Iron and Steel Engineer, January 1990,pp 61-64.

17. “Optimization of Electric Arc Furnace Performance Through Closed-Loop Control of ElectricalPower”, Thomas A. Harper, Iron and Steel Engineer, April 1990, pp 40-44.

18. “Optimal Distribution of Oxygen in High-Efficiency Electric Arc Furnaces”, Henrik Gripenberg,Iron and Steel Engineer, July 1990, pp 33-37.

19. “Horizontal-Oriented Tapping of 1000 Heats at HYLSA”, Porfirio Gonzales, Iron and SteelEngineer, May 1989, pp 15-16.


20. “Inclined Rotary Reduction System for Recycling Electric Arc Furnace Bag House Dust”, NormanL. Kotrabe, Iron and Steel Engineer, April 1991, pp 43-45.

21. “Neural Networking an Electric Arc Furnace to become an Intelligent Arc Furnace (EAF)', WilliamE. Staib, Iron and Steel Engineer, April 1991, p 70.

22. “Computer Analysis of Electric Arc Furnace Fume Control: Application and Validation”, PeterBrand, Iron and Steel Engineer, September 1991, p 70.

23. “Scrap Preheating Fuels Energy Savings”, George Hess, Iron Age, December 1990, pp 16-20.

24. “Improving Environmental Performance in Mini-Mills, Part 1”, L. L. Teoh, Steel TimesInternational, January 1991, pp 29-31.

25. “Saving of Electrical Energy in the Arc Furnace Through a new Fume Control System”, RudolfStockmeyer et al, Stahl und Eisen, 110, December 13, 1990, pp 113-116.

26. “Design Criteria for the Modern UHP Electric Arc Furnace with Auxiliaries”, Ironmaking andSteelmaking, 1990, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp 282-287.

27. “New Technology for Treating Electric Arc Furnace Dust”, Toshio Matsuoka et al, Iron and SteelEngineer, Feb 1991, pp 37-40.

28. “The Semi-Robotic Melt-Cast Shop”, Joseph Rokop, 1991 Steelmaking Conference Proceedings, pp533-538.

29. “Reflections on the Possibilities and Limitations of Cost Saving in Steel Production in Electric ArcFurnaces”, Karl-Heinz Klein et al, MPT, 1/1989, pp 32-42.

30. “Improvement of Water-Cooled Electric Arc Furnace Electrodes”, Dieter Zoellner et al, MPT,6/1988, pp 22-25.

31. “New Concept in EAF Energy Savings”, Steel Times Supplement, March 1992, pp 22-24.

32. “Technical and Commercial Benefits of DR-Based Steelmaking at OEMK”, Direct from Midrex,Vol. 17, No. 2, pp 6-7.

33. “The Influence of Coke Injection on Power Consumption in an UHP Electric Furnace”, M. Motlagh,I&SM, Oct 1991, pp 73-78.

34. “New Developments in Electric Arc Furnace Technology”, Gianni Gensini, MPT, 1/1991, pp 52-56.

35. “Advantages of Electric Arc Furnace Operation with Low System Reactance”, Emil A. Eisner et a!,MPT, 2/1991, pp 44-51.

36. Hi-Plas Treating Steelwork Dust”, R. Lightfoot, Steel Times, Oct 1991, pp 559-?.

37. “Is it Time for Wider DRI Acceptance?”, David Edwards et a!, 33 Metal Producing, 10/91, pp 33-35.

38. “Fine-Tuning the Electric Arc Furnace”, Wallace D. Huskonen, 33 Metal Producing, 10/91, pp 23-24.

39. “Benefits of HBI in the EAF Melt Shop”, John T. Kopfle et al, Direct from Midrex, Vol. 16, No. 4,3rd Quarter 1991, pp 6-9.


40. “Conversion of Zn and Pb-bearing EAF Dust”, (news), MPT, 5/1990, p 29.

41. “Modernization of Swedish EAF”, (news), MPT, 3/1990, p 78.

42. “BSW Modernizes Electric Steelmaking”, MPT, 4/1991, p 36.

43. “Badische Stahiwerke - Out in Front of the Pack”, T. P. McAloon, I&SM, Jan 1990, pp 12-13.

44. “The Hyl Hytemp Systems for Direct Linking of a DR Plant to the EAF”, David Yañez, Thomas M.Scarnati, MPT International, 4/1992, pp 42-46.

45. “A New Concept for Using Oxy-Fuel Burners and Oxygen Lances to Optimize Electric Arc FurnaceOperation”, A. Adolph et a!, La Revue de Metallurgie -CIT, Jan 1990, pp 47-53.

46. “Productive Maintenance of a Modern EAF Steelmaking Process”, Tatsumi Kimura et al,Proceedings of the Sixth International Iron and Steel Congress, 1990, Nagoya, Japan, ISIJ, pp 233-240.

47. “Arc Furnace Control System”, (news), I&SE, Dec 1989, p 73.

48. “Efficient EAF Steelmaking Using DRI as the Main Raw Material”, Tachia Jooji, IISI 21, 21stAnnual Meeting/Conference, IISI, Washington, DC, October 1987, pp 122-125.

49. “Direct Reduction Electric Arc Furnace; The Techno-economic Overview of Performance”, ArturoTomas Acevedo, IISI 21, 21st Annual Meeting/Conference, IISI, Washington, DC, October 1987, pp109-117.

50. “Development of EAF Steelmaking Technology in Japan - Past, Present and Future”, Kohji Ishihara,Proceedings of the Sixth International Iron and Steel Congress, 1990, Nagoya, Japan, ISIJ, pp 72-81.

51. “The 90’s Electric Arc Furnace Route: The Leap Forward”, Aristide Jean Berthet, Proceedings of theSixth International Iron and Steel Congress, 1990, Nagoya, Japan, ISIJ, pp 180-189.

52. “The Systems Approach to the Design of Advanced Electric Arc Furnaces”, Thomas L. Ochs et al,Proceedings of the Sixth International Iron and Steel Congress, 1990, Nagoya, Japan, ISIJ, pp 158-162.

53. “DR-EAF Coupling Through Direct Charging of Hot Reduced Iron”, Paul Quintero et al,Proceedings of the Sixth International Iron and Steel Congress, 1990, Nagoya, Japan, ISIJ, pp 111-116.

54. “Improvement in Productivity of the 80 tonne UHP-EAF”, Shigefumi Takaha et al, Proceedings ofthe Sixth International Iron and Steel Congress, 1990, Nagoya, Japan, ISIJ, pp 90-97.

55. “The K-ES Process - High Productivity EAF Steelmaking With Reduced Electrical EnergyConsumption”, F. Hauck et al, I&SM, May 1991, pp 65-67.

56. “A Future Direction for the Minimill”, Jacques E. Astier, Steel Times International, March 1992, pp26-27.

57. “Environmental Control in the Steel Industry”, compilation of papers prepared for 1991 EncosteelWorld Conference, pp 355-378.


58. “Reducing Energy Costs in Electric Steelmaking Plants with a Load Control System”, ManfredBock, Kurt Hohendahi, Bernd Puchinger, MPT International, April 1992, pp 62-68.

59. “New Concept for Using Oxy-fuel Burners and Oxygen Lances to Optimize Electric Arc FurnaceOperation”, N. Adolph, G. Pau. K. N. Klein, E. Lepoutre, J. C. Vuillermoz, M. Devaux, 1988Electric Furnace Conference.

60. “Worldwide Experience of Electric Arc Furnace Bottom Stirring”, Sara Hornby Anderson, EtienneLepoutre, Michel Devaux, Nicolas Perrin, EAF Conference, New Orleans, December 1990, pp 1-28.

61. “Continuous Fume Analysis at Vallourec Saint-Saulve”, N. Perrin, C. Dworat zek, J. C. Vuillermoz,B. Daudin and S. H. Anderson, 1991 Electric Furnace Conference Proceedings.

62. “Improving the Efficiency of Electric Arc Furnaces in the United States”, Group Study Proposed,November 1992, pp 8-19.

63. “The True Cost of Scrap for Electric Steelmaking”, John W. Clayton, pp 137. 139.

64. “University Research for Improved Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking and Scrap Utilization”, R. J.Fruehan and A. McLean, I&SM, October 1987, pp 11-14.

65. “Batch Charging Hot Briquetted Iron in the Electric Arc Furnace”, Tan Su Haw, D. W. Clark and B.A. Lewis, SEAISI Quarterly, January 1986, pp 23 28.

66. “Electric Arc Steelmaking in the 4th Generation”, G. A. Ligot and P. J. Salomon, edited version ofpaper presented at electric arc furnace symposium, December 1981, Metal Bulletin Monthly,November 1992, pp 7-21.199.

67. “The Role of Electric Furnaces with Direct Reduced Iron”, T. E. Dancy, I&SM, May 1983, pp 36-42.

68. “Innovative Melting Process of Iron and Scrap”, Koichiro Semura, Testuo Sato, Shuzo Ito, TomioSuzuki, Takeo Yoshigae, 1991 Steelmaking Conference Proceedings, pp 793-799.

69. “Glassification of Electric Arc Furnace Dust”, J. Kenneth Bray, Steel Times International,November 1992, p 33.

70. “Variables Influencing Electric Energy and Electrode Consumption in Electric Arc Furnaces”,Siegfried Köhle, MPT International, 6/1992, pp 48-53.

71. “Electric Arc Furnace Roundup - Canada”, I&SM, May 1992, pp 10-31.

72. “Ladle Metallurgy Roundup”, 33 Metal Producing, May 1991, pp 60-65.

73. “Ladle Preheating Roundup”, 33 Metal Producing, May 1991, pp 55-59.

74. “Continuing Developments in Secondary Steelmaking”, Hermann P. Hastert et al, 1989, STI, 1989,pp 189-193.

75. “A Process Control System for Ladle Steelmaking”, Diana L. Brown, STI,1990/91, pp 145.

76. “Ladle Furnaces: Better Output and Lower Cost”, AMM, 9/23/85, pp 8A,14A.


77. “Technology to Upgrade Galvanized Steel Scrap to Clean Scrap”, Iron and Steel Engineer,December 1991, p 51.

78. “Experience with Advanced Secondary Steelmaking Technologies”, G. Stolte et al, 1991Steelmaking Conference Proceedings, pp 471-480.

79. “Exchange of Gas Purging Cones in Steel Casting Ladles - Operating Experience with NewMounting System”, Hans Rothfuss, MPT, 5/1989, pp 51-53.

80. “Secondary Steelmaking, a Must for Meeting Steel Consumers’ Demand”, Paul Nilles et al, MPT,5/1989, pp 72-88.

81. “Energy Balance of a Ladle Furnace”, Wolfgang Hoppmann et a!, MPT, 3/1989, pp 38-51.

82. “Development of a Small Sized Ladle Metallurgy System”, Richard U. Swaney et al, MPT, 5/1990,pp 64-73.

83. “Ladle Metallurgy”, William T. Hogan, I&SE, Nov 1989, pp 38-39.

84. “Commercial Application of New Ladle Technology”, MPT International, 1/1992, p 92.

85. “Trends and Technology in Refining”, Goran Carlsson, STI, 7/1992, pp 25-29.

86. “Ladle-Furnace”, VAI-Technology.

87. “Continuous Casting Roundup”, 33 Metal Producing, May 1991, pp 68-76.

88. “Tundish Metallurgy Roundup”, 33 Metal Producing, May 1991, pp 77-84.

89. “CSP - The New Casting and Rolling Process for Economical Production of Strips - for both NewPlants and Modernization Projects”, Rudolf Guse, Proceedings International Conference onModernization of Steel Rolling, CSM, Beijing, China, April 10-15, 1989, pp 185-192.

90. “World Continuous Casting Report: New Projects on the Horizon”, Iron Age, July 16, 1984, pp 23-31.

91. “Continuous Casting for Hot Direct Rolling”, Akira Shirayama, STI, 1988, pp 234-237.

92. “The Tundish: A Continuous Metallurgical Refiner”, Prof. Alex McLean, STI, 1989, pp 195-199.

93. “Thin Slab Casting for Strip and Plate Production”, H. E. Wiemer et a!, STI, 1989, pp 215.

94. “Increasing the Productivity of Continuous Casting”, W. Kerry Phillips, STI, 988, pp 217-219.

95. “New technology to Tackle Centreline Segregation”, Masayuki Hattori et at, STI, 1990/91, pp 189-193.

96. “High Speed Continuous Casting of Blooms and Billets”, A. Depierreux, STI, 992, pp 155-159.

97. “The Bloom Casting of Engineering Steels”, Robert Ruddlestone, STI, 1990- 91, pp 177-183.

98. “Current R&D Work on the Near-net-shape Continuous Casting Technology in Europe”, Jean-PierreBirat, MPT International, 3/1991, pp 44-57.

99. “The Tundish - Transmitter of Signals of Quality”, Prof. Alex McLean, STI, 1990/91, pp 165-168.


100. “Development of Plant Technology for Hot Strip Production in the Future”, Wolfgang Rohde, MPTInternational, 2/1991, pp 70-83.

101. “Canadian Producers Form Casting Venture”, Angela Kryhul, AMM, 10/26/89, p 4.

102. “Application of the Spray-Tech Mold System”, Cass R. Kurzinski, Iron and Steel Engineer, April1989, pp 32-33.

103. “CTG/Scientific Systems Services to Provide Process Control System for New Canadian SteelPlant”, Iron and Steel Engineer, January 199?, p 48.

104. “Italimpanti Receives Contract from NICK Canada”, Iron and Steel Engineer, January 1991, p 9.

105. “Continuous Casting of Steel in the 21st Century”, Robert D. Pehike, Metallurgical Processes for theyear 2000 and Beyond, AIME Annual Meeting, Feb 1989, Las Vegas, Nevada, pp 115-127.

106. “Automatic Surface Inspection of Continuously Cast Billets”, Yngve Strom, ISE, Sept 1991, P-62.

107. “A Review on Theoretical Analysis of Rolling in Europe”, P. Montmitonnet et al, ISIJ International,Vol. 31, 1991, No. 6, pp 525-538.

108. “Improvement of Internal Quality of Large Section Bloom with Soft Reduction”, Tohru Shumiya,The Sumitomo Search, No. 42, April 1990, pp 25-31.

109. “Development of Thin Slab Caster”, Kawasaki Steel Technical Report No. 22, May 1990, pp 22-31.

110. “Economic Analysis of Thin Section Casting”, J. C. Agarwal et al, I&SM.

111. “The Sandalin Effect and Continuously Cast Steels”, A. J. Vazquez Vaamonde et al, InternationalJournal of Materials and Product Technology, Vol. 6, No. 3, 1991, pp 175-216.

112. “Continuous Casting and Rolling of Thin Slabs”, Horst Wiesinger et at, Stahl und Eisen, Nov. 14,1990, pp 81-88.

113. “Metallurgy Above the Mold”, J0 Isenberg-O’Loughlin, 33 Metal Producing, 7/91, pp 23-28.

114. “Transport Phenomena in Tundishes: Heat Transfer and the Rate of Auxiliary Heating”, OlusegunJohnson Ilegbusi, Steel Research 62, No. 5, 1991, pp 193-200.

115. “Development of Sophisticated Super Efficient Slab Caster at Kakogawa Works”, Tadashi Saito etat, Kobelco Technology Review, No. 10, Mar 1991, pp 26-31.

116. “The Continuous Casting Mold: A Basic Tool for Surface Quality and Strand Productivity”, Jean-Pierre Birat, 1991 Steelmaking Conference Proceedings, pp 39-48.

117. “Future Trends in the Development of Continuous Casting Moulds”, J. K. Brimacombe, 1991Steelmaking Conference Proceedings, pp 189-196.

118. “Mold Instrumentation for Breakout Detection and Control”, W. H. Emling, 1991 SteelmakingConference Proceedings, pp 197-217.

119. “Improvement in the Production of High Grade Wire Rods and Bars by Using a Bloom Caster”,Toyoshi Takimoto et al, 1991 Steelmaking Conference Proceedings, pp 547-552.


120. “Development of a New Type of Continuous Casting Process”, Isao Matsui, 1991 SteelmakingConference Proceedings, pp 57 1-575.

121. “Development of High Power Plasma Torch in the Tundish”, H. Iritani et a!, 1991 SteelmakingConference Proceedings, pp 699-705.

122. “Billet Caster Automation for South Korea”, (news), MPT, 6/1989, p 70.

123. “Continuous Casting Today - Status and Prospects”, Paul Nilles, MPT, 6/1991, p 56.

124. “Less Water Consumption Through Spray Molds”, (news), MPT, 6/1991, p 92.

125. “Process Control System for Dofasco No. 1 Continuous Slab Caster”, Mark D. Harshaw et a!, MPT,4/1989, pp 102-111.

126. “Casting and Cast-Rolling of Thin Slabs at the Mannesmannroehren Werke AG”, Hans-JuergenEhrenberg, MPT, 3/1989, pp 52-69.

127. “New Technologies and Facilities for Continuous Casting and Rolling of Steel”, Klaus Brueckner,MPT, 6/1988, pp 34-44.

128. “Rolling of Continuously Cast Strips and the Technical Consequences with Respect to the Design ofHot Strip Production Plants”, Guenter Flemming et al, MPT, 1/1988, pp 16-35.

129. “Near-Net-Shape Casting of Flat Products”, Wolfgang Reichelt, MPT, 2/1988, pp 18-24.

130. “Improvement of Internal Quality by Stable Casting under Low Teeming Temperature UsingTundish Induction Heater”, Aimei Shiraishi et al, Proceedings of the Sixth International Iron andSteel Congress, 1990, Nagoya, Japan, pp 264-270.

131. “Improvement of Center Segregation in Continuously Cast Blooms by Soft Reduction in the FinalStage of Solidification”, Shigeaki Ogibayashi et al, Proceedings of the Sixth International Iron andSteel Congress, 1990, Nagoya, Japan, pp 271-278.

132. “First Minimill in Italy for High-Quality Inline-Strip-Production at Arvedi”, Giovanni Gosio et al,MPT, 5/1991, pp 60-69.

133. “Process Technology and Quality Control for Continuous Casting of Special Steel Billets”, Karl-Josef Kremer et al, MPT, 1/1987, pp 42-52.

134. “The Status of Continuous Casting”, IISI, MPT, 2/1987, pp 6-9.

135. “The New Single and Twin Slab Continuous Caster at Hoogovens B.V., Ijmuiden, TheNetherlands”, Johan Herman Verhaus et a!, MPT, 3/1987, pp 8-20.

136. “Current R&D Work on Near-Net-Shape Continuous Casting Technologies in Europe”, Jean-PierreBirat et al, MPT, 3/1991, pp 44-57.

137. “Improvement in the Production of High Grade Wire Rods and Bars by Using a Billet Caster”, S.Watanabe et a!, La Revue de Metallurgy - CIT, Feb 1991, pp 151-158.

138. “Current R&D Work on Near-Net-Shape Continuous Casting Technologies in Europe”, J. P. Birat eta!, La Revue de Metallurgy - CIT, June 1991, pp 543- 556.

139. “New Billet Caster for Producing Quality Steel’, T. Kominami et al.


140. “Process Computer System for Billet Casting”, Wolfgang Oberaigner, MPT, 4/1991, pp 72.

141. “New Developments in Continuous Casting Technology”, Dieter Kothe et al, MPT, 1/1990, pp 12-26.

142. “Thin Section Casting and the Need for DRI/HBI”, J. C. Agarwal et a!, Direct from Midrex, 3rdQuarter 1991, pp 3-5.

143. “Modernization of Italian Continuous Casting Plant”, (news), MPT, 3/1990, p 80.

144. “Modernization of Billet caster”, MPT, 4/1990, p 94.

145. “CTG/Scientific Systems Services to provide process control system for new Canadian steel plant”,Iron and Steel Engineer, January 199?, p 48.

146. “Integrated Monitoring Systems for Continuous Casting Plants and Their Components”, ClemensMiller, MPT International, 1/1992, pp 38-47.261.

147. “Continuous Casting Today Status and Prospects”, P. Nilles and A. Etienne, MPT International, pp56-67.

148. “Industry Waste Management”, James W. Patterson, Lewis Publishers Inc., Chelsea, Michigan,1985, pp 71-97.

149. “How German Steel Industry is Managing Waste Disposal”, Juergen A. Phillip et a!, STI, 1990/91,pp 275-279.

150. “Efficient Operation of Dust Collection Systems”, Marilyn Slayden, STI, 1989, pp 347-350.

151. “Removing Heavy Metals from Steelworks Waste Waters”, Carl Batliner et al, STI, 1989, pp 355-359.

152. “Needs and Implications of Effluent Monitoring”, Barry E. Prater, STI, 1992, pp 241-248.

153. “Impact of 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment on the Iron and Steel Industry”, Bruce A. Steiner, ISE,Jan 1992, pp 41-43.

154. “1990 Clean Air Act Amendments: Technical/Economic Impact on US Coke and SteelmakingOperations”, Damodar U. Prabhu, ISE, Jan 1992, pp 33-40.

155. “Making Better Use of Carbon: The Co-Production of Iron and Liquid Fuels”, John H. Walsh, 30thAnnual Conference of Metallurgists of the CIM, Aug 18-21, 1991, Ottawa, pp 1-38.

156. “Approaching Zero Effluent”, Dennis R. Poulson, ISE, Sep 1989, p 122.

157. “Innovative Technologies for Treatment of Oily Wastewaters in the Iron and Steel Industry”,Andrew Benedek, ISE, Sep 1991, p 65.

158. “Westinghouse Plasma-Fired Cupola Process for Treatment of Industrial Wastes”, S. V. Dighe, ISE,Sep 1991, p 49.

159. “The Metallurgy of Direct Reduction of Metallurgical Wastes According to the Inmetco Process”,Klaus Grebe et a!, Stahl und Eisen, 110, Nr. 7, July 13, 1990, pp 99-106.


160. “Utilization of Steelmaking Slags”, Juergen Giseler, Stahl und Eisen, 111, Nr. 1, Jan 15, 1991, pp133-138.

161. “Pollution Control and Clean Technologies, a Dilemma for Industry”, MPT, 2/1988, p 4.

162. “Hi-Plas Treating Steelwork Dust”, R. Lightfoot, Steel Times, Oct 1991, pp 559-562.

163. “Technology for Treatment of Steel-Plant Dust”, N. A. Barcza et al, World Steel Review, Vol. 1,No. 1, Spring 1991, pp 134-144.

164. “Environmental Protection in the Steel Industry”, Juergen A. Philipp, World Steel Review, Vol. 1,No. 1, Spring 1991, pp 62-73.

165. “The Path to Sustainable Development”, Jean-Philippe Barde, MPTI, 4/1990, pp 8 - 12.

166. “Steel Industry Measures to Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions”, Y. Shinohara and M. Yoshida,“Environmental Control in the Steel Industry”, compilation of papers prepared for 1991 EncosteelWorld Conference, pp 605-625.

167. “A Total Management System for Steelworks Waste”, A. Shimizu, “Environmental Control in theSteel Industry”, compilation of papers prepared for 1991 Encosteel World Conference, pp 197-205.

168. “Processing of Wastes from the Steel Industry”, Jurgen Kohl, Stahl und Eisen 112 (1992), n. 8, pp83-86.

169. “Recycling of Zinc from Scrap Used in the Electric Arc Furnace”, Erich Höffken, Josef Wolf andPeter KUhn, Thyssen Technische Berichte, Heft 1/92, pp 119-127.

170. “Dispenser Reduces Flue Dust Treatment”, Dan Bergman, MEFOS, Environment and Energy.

171. “Gas-Fired Flame Reactor: EAF Dust Process”, Dr. Anil P. Lingras and John F. Pusateri, GasResearch Institute.

172. “Energy, the Environment, and Iron and Steel Technology”, John F. Elliott, Conference Proceedings,“Energy and the Environment in the 21st Century”, MIT, Cambridge, Mass, March 26-28, 1990, pp373-382.

173. “Proposed Changes to Ontario’s Legislation and Regulations Relating to Air Emissions: TheirEffect on the Iron and Steel Industry”, John M. Hewings, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 1991Electric Furnace Conference Proceedings, pp 147-149.

174. “Saving the Environment Can Save Energy”, Steel Times International, November 1992, pp 37,40.

175. “Current State of the Direct Reduction of Iron Ores to Sponge”, Rolf Steffen, MPT, 3/1988, pp 18-25.

176. “The Evolution of Direct Reduction”, Terence E. Dancy, 1991 Ironmaking Conference Proceedings,AISI, pp 611-624.

177. “Has DRI’ s Time for Wider Acceptance Come?”, A Ullah et al, 1991 Iron-making ConferenceProceedings, AISI, pp 777-788.

178. “Direct-Reduction Technology and Economics”, C. G. Davis, J. F. McFarlin and H. R. Pratt,reprinted from Ironmaking and Steelmaking, 1982, No. 3, pp 93-129.


179. “Coal-based Direct Reduction in the Inmetco Process and Subsequent Melting Techniques”, Dr. H.Franzen, Prof. W. Reichelt, Dr. G. Rottmann and Dr. H. Vorwerk, 1984 Metec Exhibition, pp 1-3.

180. “Scrap Processing with the Latest Fragmentizers”, Frazer Wright, STI, 1989, pp 129-139.

181. “The True Cost of Scrap for Electric Steelmaking”, John W. Clayton, STI, 1989, pp 137-139.

182. “Evolution of the Kondirator for Processing Scrap”, Wilhelm Linnerz, STI, 1989, pp 133-135.

183. “AMG Resources Corp. Growing with Recycling”, Iron and Steel Engineer, July 1989.

184. “Proler Unveils Detinning Plant”, Iron and Steel Engineer, June 1990, p 67.

185. “Steel Industry Recycling - Over 50% for Nearly 50 Years”, Iron and Steel Engineer, June 1990, p55.

186. “U.S. Demand for Recycled Steel Equals 77.3 % of Finished Steel Shipments”, Iron and SteelEngineer, May 1990, p 25.

187. “Improved Scrap Handling at Inland Steel Co.’s Indiana Harbor Works No. 1 Electric Furnace, Ironand Steel Engineer, December 1990, p 5 1-56.

188. “DOE to Study Scrap Preheating System”, Iron and Steel Engineer, April 1990, p 55.

189. “Integrated Scrap Management System”, (news), Iron and Steel Engineer, January 1991, p 73.

190. “Steel Can Recycling - Feedstock for BOF’s and Electric Furnaces”, Gregory L. Crawford, Iron andSteel Engineer, May 1990, pp 45-47.

191. “Technology to Upgrade Galvanized Steel Scrap to Clean Scrap”, Iron and Steel Engineer,December 1991, p 51.

192. “A New Automated Scrap Handling System”, Roif Hofmann, MPT, 3/1989, pp 108-111.

193. “Scrap Melting with Cost-Effective Energies”, F. Hoefer et al, Proceedings of the Sixth InternationalIron and Steel Congress, 1990, Nagoya, Japan, ISIJ, pp 1-?.

194. “Comparative Study with Modern Scrap Melting Processes”, Alexander Patuzzi et a!, Proceedings ofthe Sixth International Iron and Steel Congress, 1990, Nagoya, Japan, ISIJ, pp 49-?.

195. “Steel Mills Consume More Purchased Scrap”, (news), I&SE, Dec 1989, p 32.

196. “The Future of Scrap Specifications”, Albert Cozzi, 33 Metal Producing, 10/91, p 30.

197. “Possibilities for Scrap Preparation in the Shredder for Qualified Use in Steel Works, Hans Gotthelf,World Steel Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, Spring 1991, pp 130-131.

198. “Kinetics of Scrap Dissolution in the Converter, Theoretical Model and Plant Experimentation”, H.Gaye, M. Wanin, P. Gugliermina, Ph. Schittly, Steelmaking Proceedings, Detroit, 1985, Vol. 68, pp91-104.

199. “Auto Shredding Benefits Cited”, American Metal Market, Vol. 100, No. 38, February 26/92, pp2,16.

200. “Mobile Flexible Scrap Shear”, MPT 1/1992, p 95.


201. “New Concept for Recycling Autos”, Kerstin Garbracht, Stahl u. Eisen 112 (1992), No. 5, pp 73-76.

202. “Steel Recycles Its Image”, Bob Kehoe, Iron Age, June 1992, pp 16-20.

203. “Galvanized Products Require Complete Recycling”, George J. McManus, Iron Age, June 1992, pp2 1-23.

204. “Scrap Generation and Utilization for the Iron and Steel Industry of the World”, Hans WilhelmKreutzer, Stahl u. Eisen 112 (1992), No. 5, pp 65-69.

205. “A Technical Evaluation of Dezincification of Galvanized Steel Scrap”, J. C. Niedringhaus, R. D.Radabaugh, J. W. Leeker, A. E. Streibick, pp 1-37.

206. “Recycling of Zinc from Scrap Used in the Electric Arc Furnace”, Erich Höffken, Josef Wolf andPeter Kuhn, Thyssen Technische Berichte, January 1992, pp 119-127.

APPENDIX 7

SHAPES PRODUCTSENERGY AND EMISSION DIAGRAMS

CRADLE-TO-GATE LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY: CANADIAN AND US …€¦ · Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle...

Documents

Transcript of CRADLE-TO-GATE LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY: CANADIAN AND US …€¦ · Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle...