Annexure-I

Report on Capacity Enhancement

of

Blast Furnace from 3.2 MTPA to 4.25 MTPA &

Sinter Plant from 4 MTPA to 5 MTPA

Through

IMPROVEMENT IN PRODUCTIVITY

With no change in total capacity of

Integrated Steel Plant

OF

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED

ANGUL, ODISHA

- March, 2018
 Capacity Enhancement

CONTENTS

Section Title Page No

1.0 Introduction 4

2.0 Proposed Amendment 4

3.0 Infrastructure Requirement for Capacity enhancement 6

4.0 Process Optimisation and Efficieny Improvement 7

4.1 Blast Furnace: Process Description 7

4.2 Sinter Plant: Process Description 9

5.0 Pollution Load 11

5.1 Air Emission Load 11

5.2 Wastewater Discharge Load 12

5.3 Solid Waste Disposal Load 12

5.4 Overall Pollution Load Statement 13

5.4.1 Overall Conclusion 14

6.0 Environment Management of Existing Plant 14

6.1 Environmental Management Practices 15

6.1.1 Air Management 15

6.1.2 Water Management 16

6.1.3 Waste Management 16

6.1.4 Monitoring Facilities 16

6.1.5 Green Drive 17

6.1.6 Housekeeping 17

6.1.7 Corporate Social Responsibility 17

6.1.8 Environmental awareness programs 18

Page 2
 Capacity Enhancement

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page No

No.
1 Name & capacity of existing units and proposed enhancement/ 5
omission
2 Make-up water requirement for Blast Furnace and Sinter Plant 6

3 Existing and increased power requirement for Blast Furnace and 7

Sinter Plant
4 Name and Source of Raw Materials 7
5 Proposed measures with percentage increase in capacity of BF 8
6 Material Balance of Blast Furnace (figures in TPA) 8

7 Proposed measures with percentage increase in capacity of Sinter 10

Plant
8 Material Balance of Sinter Plant (figures in TPA) 10

9 Stack Emission Load before Capacity enhancement 11

10 Stack emission load after capacity enhancement 11

11 Pollution load from two units of 135 MW each 12

12 Solid Wastes Generation & Utilization (Additional After proposed 13

enahancement)
13 Overall Pollution load statement due to the proposed EC 13
amendment

Page 3
 Capacity Enhancement

1.0 Introduction

Jindal Steel & Power Limited (JSPL) is a part of the US $ 15 billion diversified O.P. Jindal
Group, with an annual turnover of over US $ 3.5 billion. JSPL is an industrial powerhouse
with a dominant presence in Steel, Power & Mining. JSPL is operating steel plants at
various locations in India e.g. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), Angul (Odisha) and Patratu
(Jharkhand). The Company has an Integrated Steel Plant Complex of 6 MTPA at Angul,
Odisha consisting of two routes of Steel making facilities i.e. DRI-BF-EAF route and
BF-BOF route. The Steel Plant comprises of Coal gasification plant (CGP), Syn gas based
DRI plant, Coke Oven, Sinter Plant, Blast Furnace (BF), Electric Arc furnace, Basic Oxygen
Furnace, rolling mills, Captive Power Plant, etc.

The Company has obtained Environmental Clearanace no. J-11011/365/2006-IA.II(I)

dated 22.02.2007 from MoEF&CC for setting up 6 MTPA Integrated Steel plant and 1080
MW (8 x 135 MW) Captive Power Plant at Angul, Odisha.

2.0 Proposed Amendment

The Company proposes to enhance the generation capacities of Blast Furnace from 3.2
MTPA to 4.25 MTPA and Sinter Plant from 4.0 MTPA to 5.0 MTPA. Capacity
enhancement of BF is necessary due to non availability of firm linkage of thermal coal
for production of DRI and in order to meet the input demands of hot metal for SMS. The
increase in the production capacity of the Blast furnace is proposed to be achieved
through increase in injection of wind volume, oxygen enriched blast, charging higher
sinter feed, better process control in operations, use of high grade iron ore, etc.
Whereas the increase in production capacity of the Sinter Plant is proposed to be
achieved through pre-heating of sinter mix, increase in machine speed control, increase
in rate of air flow, oxygen enrichment in ignition hood, etc.

Further due to non-availability of firm linkage of thermal coal and available surplus
power from the existing captive power plant of 810 MW (6x135 MW), the company
proposes to not install the remaining two units of 135 MW each.

The name of the units for which EC has been obtained and the proposed amendment is
tabulated.

Page 4
 Capacity Enhancement
Table 1: Name & capacity of existing units and proposed enhancement/ omission

S Name of plant Units Capacity Proposed Capacity after

No. as per EC enhancement/ proposed
reduction amendment
1. Pellet Plant MTPA 5.0 - 5.0
2. Coal Gasification Nm3/year 4000x106 - 4000x106
plant
3. DRI MTPA 4.0 - 4.0
4. Blast Furnace MTPA 3.2 (+)1.05 4.25
5. Coke Oven MTPA 2.0 - 2
6. Sinter Plant MTPA 4.0 (+)1.0 5.0
7. SMS MTPA 6.0 - 6.0
8. Rolling Mills MTPA 6.0 - 6.0
9. Ferro-alloy plant MTPA 0.08 - 0.08
10. Lime Dolime TPD 3000 - 3000
Plant
11. Process gas MW 62 - 62
recovery turbine
12. Coal based MW 1080 (-) 270 810
Captive Thermal (8x135) (2x135)
Power Plant

Fig.1- Existing Blast Furnace at JSPL Angul

Page 5
 Capacity Enhancement

3.0 Infrastructure Requirement for Capacity enhancement

Land:

No additional land will be required for the capacity enhancement, as same will be
achieved within the layout of already commissioned units.

Water:

Make up water requirement will increase by 168 m3/hr due to the proposed capacity
enhancement. Increase of make up water in individual units i.e. Blast Furnace and Sinter
Plant is given Table 2. This increase in water requirement will be met from the existing
source of make up water which is Samal Barrage on Brahmani River.

Table 2: Make-up water requirement for Blast Furnace and Sinter Plant

S Plant Existing Make up Increase in water Total water

3
No. water requirement(m /h requirement after
3
requirement(m /hr) r) Capacity enhancement
(m3/hr)
1. Blast 670 150 820
Furnace
2. Sinter 72 18 90
Plant
Total 742 168 910

However, two units of 135 MW each of Captive Power Plant, if installed, would have
consumed around 675 m3/hr (@ 2.5 m3/ MWh) make up water. As the Company
proposes not to install the remaining two units, requirement of around 675 m 3/hr fresh
water will be reduced. Therefore no additional fresh surface water load will be there
due to the proposed capacity enhancement.

Power:

Power requirement will increase by 15 MW i.e. 03 MW for Blast Furnace and 12 MW for
Sinter Plant after the proposed capacity enhancement. The enhanced power
requirement will be met from the existing Captive Power Plant at Angul.

Page 6
 Capacity Enhancement
Table 3: Existing and increased power requirement for Blast Furnace and Sinter Plant

S Plant Existing Power Increase in Power Total Power requirement

No. requirement requirement due to after Capacity
(MW) enhancement (MW) enhancement (MW)
1. Blast 67 3 70
Furnace
2. Sinter 21 12 33
Plant
Total 88 15 103

Source of additional Raw Material

Enhancing the capacity of Blast Furnace and Sinter Plant will lead to increase in
requirement of raw materials. Name and source of the raw material is detailed in Table
4.
Table 4: Name and Source of Raw Materials

Name of Raw Materials Source and Transportation

Capacity Enhancement of Blast Furnace & Sinter Plant
1 Sintered Ore Produced Inhouse

2 Iron Pellets/ Lump Ore Pellets- From JSPL’s Pellet Plant located at
Barbil, Odisha & other sources and
transported by rail.
Lump ore- will be bought through auction and
will be transported to the Steel Plant by Rail.
3 Coke Available inhouse.
4 Coal for Pulverised Coal Injection Import from Australia & other countries and
same will be transported by rail
5 Flux-Dolomite Available inhouse.

4.0 Process Optimisation and Efficieny Improvement

4.1 Blast Furnace: Process Description

JSPL has commissioned 4554 cum capacity Blast Furnace at its Greenfield Integrated
Steel Plant at Angul.

The purpose of a blast furnace is to chemically reduce and physically convert iron oxides
into liquid iron called "hot metal". The blast furnace is a huge, steel stack lined with
Page 7
 Capacity Enhancement
refractory brick, where iron ore, coke and limestone are dumped into the top, and
preheated air is blown into the bottom. The raw materials require 6 to 8 hours to
descend to the bottom of the furnace where they become the final product of liquid
slag and liquid iron. These liquid products are drained from the furnace at regular
intervals. The hot air that was blown into the bottom of the furnace ascends to the top
in 6 to 8 seconds after going through numerous chemical reactions.

Currently the annual production capacity of the furnace is 3.2 MTPA and the same is
proposed to be enhanced to 4.25 MTPA by increasing productivity. The proposed
enhancement will be achieved by undertaking several measures. The measures and
percentage increase in production capacity of Blast furnace are given in Table 5.

Table 5: Proposed measures with percentage increase in capacity of Blast Furnace

S No. Activity Percentage Increase in

production
1. Oxygen enrichment in the blast 10%

2. Increase in injection of wind volume 11.55%

3. Use of high grade Iron ore 4%

4. Charging of higher Sinter feed and better

process control in Operations using Level-2 7.25%
supervision models

Material balance of the Blast furnace (existing and enhanced Capacity) is given below.

Table 6: Material Balance of Blast Furnace (figures in TPA)

Input (TPA) Input (TPA) Output Quantity Quantity

Raw
for for 3.2 MTPA 4.25 MTPA
Materials
3.2 MTPA 4.25 MTPA
Sintered ore 35,00,500 50,00,000 Hot Metal 3,200,000 42,50,000
Lump iron 15,00,800 Slag, 8,54,400
16,30,000 11,34,750
ore / pellet
LOI, BF gas,
Coke 12,48,000 14,87,000 25,92,497 35,15,882
losses, etc
Pulverised 3,84,000 Dust &
7,65,000 1,17,604 1,30,118
coal (PCI) sludge
1,31,200
Flux 1,48,750
Total 67,64,500 90,30,750 Total 67,64,500 90,30,750

Page 8
 Capacity Enhancement

4.2 Sinter Plant: Process Description

The Company has installed and commissioned Sinter plant with annual capacity of 4.0
Million Tons per annum.

Sinter is used as main iron bearing burden material in Blast Furnace. Main raw material
into a sinter plant is iron ore fines, coke fines and flux (lime stone & dolomite) fines. In
addition to these materials, sinter fines, iron dust (collected from plant de-dusting
system & ESP) and solid waste generated in steel plant like Mill scale, LD Slag, Blast
furnace Flue dust, Burnt lime etc are also used. These raw materials are mixed in
proportion (by weight).

Raw mix is then fed to the mixer for mixing & homogenizing the mix. Water is added
while mixing. From Mixer the mix is transported to Granulator to make granules and
then fed to the sinter machine. Sinter machine is an endless chain of number of pallets
installed in series. Raw mix from granulator is fed on sinter machine pallets through a
drum feeder which distributes the raw mix on sinter machine uniformly up to the
required bed height. Sinter machine is moved on rails & the raw mix proceeds as
machine moves. This raw mix is passed below an ignition furnace where the top layer of
the bed gets sintered. The temperature between 1150 and 1250 °C is maintained in the
ignition furnace and 350 °C in the soaking zone to prevent sudden quenching of the
sintered layer. At the same time the suction of air is applied below the sinter machine.
Due to the suction, the heat of the top layer propagates down below & ignites the coke
breeze present in the mix. Fire & Heat penetrates the mixed material gradually; until it
reaches the bottom layer of sinter bed which is usually 400 to 650 mm in height Ignition
creates chemical reactions. This process continues till the last suction wind box & by the
time material reaches near the discharge end, full bed is sintered. This end point of
burning is called burn through point (BTP).

After sintering is finished up to the bottom of the sinter mix bed, sinter cake is
discharged to primary crusher then passes to cooler. Sinter temperature at the cooler
feed end is around 600 to 800 degree centigrade which is cooled down below 100
degree centigrade. The cooled sinter is then passed through crushing & screening
process for size gradation as required by the blast furnace. After screening process, +5
mm to 50 mm sinter is transferred to Blast Furnace as sinter product and the –5 mm is
returned to sinter plant as return fines for recirculation in the process. 12-22 mm of
sinter product is sent to hearth layer hopper for using it as sinter machine bed layer.

In order to meet the Sinter requirements of the proposed enhanced capacity of Blast

Page 9
 Capacity Enhancement
Furnace, it is necessary to enhance capacity of the Sinter Plant to 5.0 MTPA. The
enhanced capacity is proposed to be achieved by undertaking some measures. The list
of the proposed measures along with the percentage increase in production in Sinter is
given in Table 7.

Table 7: Proposed measures with percentage increase in capacity of Sinter Plant

S No. Activity Percentage Increase in

production
1. Pre heating of Sinter Mix 8.2%

2. Oxygen enrichment in ignition hood 7.95%

3. Increase in machine speed control 8-9%

4. Increase in rate of Air flow

Material balance of the Sinter Plant (existing and enhanced Capacity) is given below.

Table 8: Material Balance of Sinter Plant (figures in TPA)

Input (TPA) for Input (TPA) Output Output Output

Raw Materials 4.0 MTPA for (TPA) for (TPA) for
5.0 MTPA 4.0 MTPA 5.0 MTPA
Iron ore fines 35,32,000 44,15,000 Sinter 40,00,000 50,00,000

Limestone 6,78,816 8,48,520 LOI 6,86,869 8,58,586

fines
Dolomite fines 3,59,689 4,49,611 Dust 75,758 94,697

Coke fines 2,80,000 3,50,000 Mois. loss 2,87,879 3,59,848

Calcined lime 80,000 1,00,000

Mill scales/ 1,20,000 1,50,000

dust, etc.
Total 50,50,505 63,13,131 Total 50,50,505 63,13,131

Page 10
 Capacity Enhancement

5.0 Pollution Load

5.1 Air Emission Load

Table 9: Stack Emission Load before capacity enhancement

Unit Stack attached with Stack Stack dia Gas Temp. Gas Velocity Pollution Load, g/s
Height (m) (m) (0C) (m/s)
PM SO2 NOx
Blast Furnace Stove 90.6 5.8 298 12.15 5.02 33.49 25.12
Cast House 50 4.8 70 13.28 10.43 -
Cast House 50 4.8 70 13.28 10.43 -
Sinter Plant Process stack 120 8.37 139 8.63 17.16 - -
Total 43.04 33.49 25.12

Table 10: Stack emission load after capacity enhancement

Unit Stack attached with Stack Stack dia Gas Temp. Gas Velocity Pollution Load, g/s
Height (m) (m) (0C) (m/s) PM SO2 NOx
Blast Furnace Stove 90.6 5.8 298 14.79 6.12 40.78 30.58
Cast House 50 4.8 70 16.94 13.31 -
Cast House 50 4.8 70 16.94 13.31 -
Sinter Plant Process stack 120 8.37 139 10.06 20.00 - -
Total 52.74 40.78 30.58

Page 11
 Capacity Enhancement

As evident from the above table, there will be increase in pollution load due to the
capacity enhancement. However, in order to negate the incremental pollution load,
the Company proposes not to install two units of 135 MW coal based Thermal power
Plant.

Expected decrease in pollution load by not installing two units of 135 MW is given
below in Table 11.

Table 11: Pollution load from two units of 135 MW each

Unit Unit size Stack Stack Gas Gas Pollution Load, g/s
Height dia Temp. Velocity
(m) (m) (0C) (m/s) PM SO2 NOx
CPP 135 MW 220 3.75 148 24.97 5.85 19.51 19.51
135 MW 220 3.75 148 24.97 5.85 19.51 19.51
Total 11.7 39.02 39.02

Perusal of the Table 11 signifies the pollution load that would have been there
because of the CPP. Since the company proposes to surrender these two units from
the EC there will be no increase in pollution load due to the above proposed capacity
enhancement.

Pollution control devices are capable enough to handle this additional production level
and there will be no impact on environment on this account.

5.2 Wastewater Discharge Load

Due to the proposed capacity enhancement no additional wastewater generation is

envisaged as any blowdown will be recycled and reused. Hence there will be no
additional pollution load of wastewater discharge outside the plant premises.

5.3 Solid Waste Disposal Load

Due to the proposed enhancement in capacities of BF & Sinter Plant, generation of BF

slag and sinter dust will increase as mentioned in Table 12. However, the entire
additional solid generated from the project will be utilized. There will be no disposal of
solid wastes in dump yard or as landfill material.

Page 12
 Capacity Enhancement

Table 12: Solid Wastes Generation & Utilization (Additional After proposed
enahancement)

Name of Solid Additional Quantity Utilization Plan

Wastes Generate after capacity
enhancement (TPA)
1 Blast Furnace
Slag 2,80,350 Will be 100% Granulated and used in
cement making in own plant as well as
sold to other cement plants.
Dust and GCP 12,515 Will be 100% reused in Sinter Making
Sludge
2 Sinter Plant
Dust 18,939 Will be 100% reused in Sinter Making

5.4 Overall Pollution Load Statement

Table 13
: Overall Pollution load statement due to the proposed EC amendment

Environmental Additional Load from Effective Remarks

Component load after proposed increase (+)/
proposed two units reduction (-) in
enhancement of 135 load after
MW each proposed EC
(proposed amendment
to be
deleted)
1 Water 168 675 (-) 507 There will
Consumption reduction in
(m3/hr) make up water
requirement due
to proposed
deletion of CPP
2 Power 15 - (+) 15 Additional power
Consumption requirement will
(MW) be met from
existing CPP
3 Air Pollution PM-9.7 g/s PM-11.7 PM- (-) 2 g/s Effective Air
Page 13
 Capacity Enhancement

Load SO2- 7.29 g/s g/s SO2- (-) 31.73 Pollution Load
NOx- 5.46 g/s SO2- NOx- (-) 31.73 will reduce as
39.02 g/s the incremental
NOx- load from BF will
39.02 g/s be compensated
with the reduced
load from CPP.
5 Wastewater 0 0 0 No additional
Pollution Load wastewater
generation
6 Solid Wastes Load
Blast Furnace 2,80,350 - (+)2,80,350 Will be
Slag (TPA) consumed in
own cement
plant and also
sold to other
cement plants
BF dust & 12,515 - (+)12,515 Will be reused in
sludge (TPA) Sinter Plant
Sinter dust 18,939 - (+)18,939 Will be reused in
(TPA) Sinter Plant
CPP ash (TPA) - 1.08 x 106 (-)1.08 x 106 Due to deletion
of two units of
CPP, there will be
no ash
generation.

5.4.1 Overall Conclusion

As evident from the above, there will not be any additional land and water
requirements. Further, there will not be any increase in pollution load, as marginal
increase in air pollution will get offset due to deletion of 2 units of 135 MW CPP.

6.0 Environment Management of Existing Plant

The existing Environment Management Department (EMD) of JSPL comprises of

qualified and experienced personnel from varied streams. The company is ISO 9001,
OSHA 18000 and 14000 certified. JSPL has established a modern environmental
laboratory having sophisticated instruments like EDXRF, AAS, GCMS, Combustion Flue

Page 14
 Capacity Enhancement

Gas Analyzer, Stack Monitoring Kits, Respirable & Fine Dust Samplers, pH meter,
Spectrophotometer, Turbidity meter, Autoclave, Laminar Flow, Mercury Analyzer,
Flame Photometer, CO Monitor etc. including microbiological testing facility and met
instruments to monitor environmental parameters. JSPL also have a fully equipped
state of the art laboratory.

6.1 Environment Management Practices

JSPL Angul has developed a strong Environment Management Department (EMD)

having multi-disciplinary team of professional and technical staff. Responsibility of this
department include impact assessment studies for new projects, ensure compliance to
statutory obligations, environmental monitoring to check efficacy of environmental
management practices, develop greenery in and around JSPL complex, Good
housekeeping and creating environmentally aware workforce. JSPL has connected all
continuous Ambient Air Quality Station (CAAQS) and all major stacks with Pollution
Board servers.

6.1.1 Air Management

Every aspect of pollution generated due to plant activities is monitored in detail and
adequate steps are taken to minimize it. Control measures are implemented at all
required locations. The major measures for abatement of pollutants include

6.1.1.1 Air Management: Blast Furnace

The following measures have been taken for control of air emissions from Blast
furnace.
• Wet scrubber and 90 m height stack attached with gas cleaning plant.
• Bag filter and 50 m height stack attached with each unit of stock house and cast
house.
• Bag filter attached with PCI unit.

6.1.1.1 Air Management: Sinter Plant

The following measures have been taken for control of air emissions from the existing
Sinter Plant at Angul.
• Electrostatic Precipitator and 120 m height stack attached with
• Bag filter and 80 m height stack attached with plant dedusting unit.
• Bag filter and 70 m height stack attached with each unit of Flux crushing and
Page 15
 Capacity Enhancement

screening & Coke crushing and screening unit.

6.1.2 Water Management

At JSPL, water pollution is controlled by adopting a range of monitoring processes and

treatment measures. Resource conservation through optimization of water use and
their reuse after required treatment is an integral aspect of company’s environment
management plan.

6.1.3 Waste Management

Some of the projects undertaken by JSPL to utilize solid waste are as follows –
 Use of blast furnace waste gas as alternative fuel in reheating furnace, power
plants.
 SMS slag is used for road making while blast furnace slag is used for cement
making.
 A captive fly ash brick plant is installed. All construction activities of the
company are done through fly ash bricks.
 A modern and state of the art health care centre allows scientific collection of
biomedical waste and its effective disposal to authorized recycler.

6.1.4 Monitoring Facilities

The department is equipped with a state-of-art laboratory to monitor pollutants in air,

water, solid wastes etc. The available facilities include: Combustion Flue Gas Analyzers,
Stack Monitoring Kits, High Volume Samplers, Respirable Dust Samplers,
Spectrophotometers, Gas Chromatograph, Flame Photometer, EDXRF, AAS etc.

Four permanent fully automatic Online Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Stations
(AAQMS) and meteorological station are installed around the plant premises to
monitor PM10, SPM, RSPM, SO2, NOx and CO in ambient air. The meteorological
parameters monitored include wind direction and speed, solar radiation, humidity,
rainfall and temperature. Online data is retrieved periodically, consolidated and
reviewed.

JSPL has also installed continuous online stack monitoring system in all the major
stacks of the plant and the same have been connected to the Pollution Control Board
servers. Further 3 nos. of online wastewater analysis systems have also been installed
inside the plant.
Page 16
 Capacity Enhancement

6.1.5 Green Drive

JSPL has initiated large scale bio-diversified afforestation and horticulture activities.
JSPL undertakes mass tree plantation every year. Company has done plantation not
only in its complex of JSPL but also in Angul city and villages.

6.1.6 Housekeeping

Special housekeeping drive is practiced through 5 “S” techniques. Housekeeping

coordinators have been identified in each department. They are trained on
Housekeeping Concept to improve housekeeping in their respective areas.

In general, following steps have been taken to improve housekeeping -

 All work place are maintained clean & well painted
 All equipment/ machines are maintained clean
 All roads & drains are maintained clean
 All road shoulders are made pucca
 Drains are provided along the roads to carry runoff water.
 Scrap yard developed to put all scrap/ wastes at identified place
 Waste bins put in strategic spots for waste collection
 From colony, all wastes is lifted timely and shifted for vermi-composting
 Awareness is spread through periodic inter-flow meetings, display sessions and
hoarding.
 Deployment of mobile road sweeping
 Elimination of spillages of water, oil and material etc through regular audits.

6.1.7 Corporate Social Responsibility

Elements of CSR -
 Sports Promotion
 Employment in JSPL
 Education
 Health & Hygiene
 Water Management
 Environment Management
 Infrastructure Development

6.1.8 Environmental Awareness Programs

JSPL understands that for achieving sustainable development environmentally aware

Page 17
 Capacity Enhancement

workforce plays a very important role. Hence various types of awareness programmes
are organized at various levels for employees as well as surrounding community at
regular intervals. The interest among employees and the stake holders is generated
through educational documentaries, skits, competitions, exhibitions and fairs.

 Screening of documentaries on environment at regular intervals within the

colony and neighbourhood.
 Invited lectures on common issues viz. rainwater harvesting, bio-methanation,
municipal waste and fly ash management etc.
 Mass tree plantation drives involving locals, employees and school children at
regular intervals. Free distribution of saplings to interested villagers.
 Training and awareness campaigns on environment management programmes
under ISO 14001, OHSAS and TPM management systems.
 Observance of World Environment Day involving employees, colony residents
and local village schools
 Recognitions through awards viz., “Green Man of the Dept.”, “Green Dept. of
the Year”, “Best House Keeping team” etc at defined intervals.
 Share infrastructure and expertise on environment monitoring and
management among neighbourhood industries.
 Free distribution of educative pamphlets to housewives viz. home gardening
and horticultural practices.
 Annual Flower & vegetable show on massive scale involving the citizens of
Angul.

Page 18
Annexure-II
 Report On

Techno Commercial Feasibility Study of Coke Dry

Quenching in By Product Recovery Coke Ovens

for

Jindal Steel and Power Limited

Jindal Nagar
Angul, Orissa

March, 2018

Submitted by
CSIR-CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF MINING AND FUEL RESEARCH
(Council of Scientific & Industrial Research)

DHANBAD- 828108, JHARKHAND

 Project Completion Report

1.0 Project Title

Techno Commercial Feasibility Study of Coke Dry Quenching in By Product
Recovery Type Coke Oven.

2.0 Sponsored by
Jindal Steel and Power Limited, SH-63, Chendipada, Jindal Nagar, Angul-759111,
Orissa.

3.0 Objective
Advice on Techno Commercial feasibility for installation of Coke Dry Quenching
(CDQ) in JSPL, Angul’s Coke Oven plants.

4.0 Duration
Two Months

5.0 S&T inputs being provided by client

The client has provided the required data regarding the existing wet process of coke
quenching, and other relevant data required for preparation of this report.

6.0 Work Plan

o Site visit by CSIR-CIMFR officials for inspection of current coke quenching
operations.

o Collection of required relevant data from Coke Plant (detail requirement of data was
discussed during visit of CSIR-CIMFR officials and meeting with coke plant
officials).
o Data Analysis and techno commercial feasibility study
o Report Preparation

1
7.0 INTRODUCTION

Jindal Steel and Power Limited (JSPL) is a part of the US $ 15 billion diversified O. P.

Jindal Group, with an annual turnover of over US$ 3.5 billion. JSPL is an industrial

powerhouse with a dominant presence in Steel, Power, Energy, Mining and

infrastructure Sectors. JSPL is operating steel plants at various locations in India, e.g

Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) Patratu (Jharkhand), Angul (Orissa). JSPL Angul has 6.0 MTPA

capacity integrated steel plant consisting of two routes of Steel Making facilities (DRI -

EAF & BF - BOF route). JSPL, Angul has already commissioned 1.0 MTPA (2 batteries)

coke oven. The coke oven capacity at Angul is 2.0 MTPA with stamp charging facilities.

It consists of 4 batteries and each battery consists of 72 ovens.

In coke oven batteries, metallurgical coke production takes place from blends of

selected bituminous coal, called coking coal or metallurgical coal. Only certain high

rank bituminous coals are classified as metallurgical coking coals. The coal blend,

crushed to a desired size is charged into the ovens (through top charging or stamp

charging) and heated to above 1200°C over a period of few hours. After the

carbonization process is completed, the red hot coke is pushed out of the coke

ovens.

The next stage prior to further processing, involves the cooling of the

incandescent red hot coke produced. Coke cooling techniques comprise of use of

different cooling mediums or different operating processes. Most widely used

technique i.e. wet quenching (which uses water as cooling media) is being compared

along with coke dry quenching technique, which employs use of inert gas for cooling

2
purposes. Techno Commercial feasibility of one Coke Dry Quenching module, capable

of quenching 1.0 MTPA of coke being produced from two coke oven batteries of JSPL,

Angul has been considered in the present study.

Coke dry quenching (CDQ) technology is currently considered as a preferred

technology in the coke plants, owing to its advantages such as energy saving.

Variation arising due to their different characteristic processes and media used

reflects on the coke quality attained.

Process of Coke Dry Quenching is the alternative to wet quenching method of

incandescent coke discharged from coke ovens, and hereinafter referred to as CDQ.

Dry quenching of coke is a proved, reliable process. Shortly after World War

I, a dry quenching technology was developed by the Sulzer brothers. More than

70 coke plants in gas works and steel mills used dry quenching prior to

1950, but most of the gas-works installations were closed when natural gas

became readily available.

In 1960 the Soviet Union commissioned its first commercial dry quenching

pilot plant at Cherepovets Integrated Iron and Steel Works. Because of the success

of the pilot project, CDQ process expanded and till 1973 more than 40 towers in

the Soviet Union dry quench up proximately 15,000,000 tons of coke/year.

With the increase in energy costs outstripping general inflation, the estimated returns on

investment in CDQ improved very significantly. Since then the position has not changed

materially (costs and credits have increased roughly in parallel), but the twin pressures

remain and, with a convincing economic case now demonstrable in many specific plant

circumstances, the future wider adoption of CDQ seems certain.

3
However, considering the annual down time for maintenance as well as operational
issues with CDQ a wet quenching setup is always essential for continuous production

of coke.

7.1 General Principles of Coke Dry Quenching

In CDQ the coke from the ovens is transferred in batches to a chamber where it is cooled

counter currently by direct heat exchange to a continuous stream of inert gas. The gas

then passes to a waste heat boiler where the heat taken up from the coke is recovered
by the generation of steam at conditions, appropriate to its subsequent mode of

utilization. The cooled coke (< 2000C) is discharged in discrete batches from the

chamber and passed directly to the screening plant.

A CDQ module consists of the following main components: a cooling chamber, with

arrangements for admission and discharge of coke, without admission of air or the
discharge of gas and solid particles; arrangements for the removal of coarser particles

from the heated gas leaving the chamber; a waste-heat boiler; arrangements for the

removal of dust from the cooled gas leaving the boiler; and a blower to return the cooled

gas to the chamber. The principle of operation of CDQ is illustrated in Figure.1

A CDQ installation essentially requires the reserved wet quenching arrangement to cater
the coke quenching requirements during its break down, annual maintenance,

inspection and overhaul.

7.2 Advantages of Coke Dry Quenching

The most obvious advantages, and one which seems certain to be of increasing

importance, is the recovery of energy, which, in wet quenching is simply dissipated. In

broad terms, the sensible heat of the hot coke discharged from the ovens amounts to
about half of the energy input to the ovens from the under firing gas; in CDQ, about 80

4
percent of this sensible heat is recovered, a saving, therefore equivalent to about 40

percent of the under firing input.

The energy recovered by CDQ is in the form of high grade steam. Wide flexibility of

steam characteristics is available through appropriate variation of the boiler design:

actual practice may embrace conditions (bar/0C) ranging from 20/280 to 117/525. The

quantitative yield of steam depends upon the CDQ design, the type (mainly the ash

percentage) and temperature of the hot coke and (to a slight degree) the steam

characteristics adopted: the range may be 0.4 – 0.5 t/t of coke and an average steam

generation rate of 0.44 t/t of coke cooled may be adopted for evaluation purpose on the

basis of the demonstrated performance of existing CDQ installations. The steam may

be used for power generation and/or process purposes and the achievement of the

maximum economic benefit depends upon the attainment of the highest possible steam

utilization level and the highest possible efficiency of utilization. In practice, a utilization

level of 80 percent should be achievable, while the efficiency of utilization will depend

upon both the areas of utilization and the quality of plant practice. These considerations

are particularly relevant to proposals to use the energy recovered in CDQ for coal

preheating, either with or without initial steam generation.

Granted that quenching towers today are normally fitted with arrestors for grit and dust,
the amount by which the emission of these materials from the coking plant would be

marginally reduced by the introduction of CDQ.

In some circumstances, and in view of increasing stringent environmental norms, it

seems that these benefits could be the dictating factor to move towards CDQ. CDQ is

5
Figure. 1 Coke Dry Quenching Process Flow Diagram
6
the only available, so called coking plant anti-pollution measure. Even if it does not

help in pollution control, its contribution to energy conservation, remains very strong

justifications for adoption of CDQ.

7.3 Impact of Coke Quenching Methods in By Product Recovery Type Coke

Ovens.
One of the technological operations in coke making is coke quenching done in wet or

dry way. For comparative study of impact of coke quenching methods on coke quality

and subsequent effect on blast furnace operation, data of coal blends as charged in

JSPL's by product recovery type coke ovens and coke data were analyzed. Coke data

was collected for coke quenched using wet quenching process of JSPL and dry

quenching process from available sources.

Typical coal blend analysis is presented in Table 1. As per the coal blend

characterization shown in Table 1 the coal blend data are well within the range of good

coking coal for coke making for metallurgical purposes.

Various operating parameters for wet quenching being used with By Product type
recovery coke ovens at JSPL, Angul and dry quenching available in literatures are

shown in Table 2. As evident from the data, coking temperature, coking cycle, coke

discharge temperature remains same, whether the quenching process be wet or dry,

because quenching is the process of which is done only after pushing the hot coke. As

shown in Table 2. coke temperature after dry quenching is about 50o C higher than wet

quenching.

Composition of circulating gas in CDQ process is depicted in Table 3. Presence of 2-

3% CO and 17 -18% CO2 in CDQ circulating gas and the relatively higher temperature

of coke after quenching is an indication of coke burning losses which is also shown in

7
Table 2. in which solution (carbon) loss has been shown as 1.7 tons/hr. Whereas, in

case of wet quenching, same is negligible. Circulating gas contains hydrogen also,

therefore CDQ facilities present potential explosion hazards and somewhat comparable

to those associated with pulverized coal boilers or with gas or oil steam generators.

Table 1. Test results of JSPL coal blend sample used for coke making in by
product type coke oven
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS (db), % ASH CONSTITUENTS (db), %
Ash 9.01 Fe (T) 5.41
Volatile Matter 24.52 CaO 2.42
Inherent Moisture 1.50 SiO2 54.38
ALKALIES ANALYSIS (db), % P 0.04
Na2O 0.36 MgO 0.96
K2O 1.78 Al2O3 29.85
RHEOLOGICAL PROPERTIES TiO2 2.51
CSN 6.5
GIESELER PLASTOMETER HGI 65
Max. Fluidity, ddpm 219 GCV, kcal/kg 7514

PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MACERALS ANALYSIS, % VITRINITE DISTRIBUTION, %
Vitrinite 65 V7 3
Exinite / Liptinite 4.5 V8 8
Inertinite 29.5 V9 18
Mineral Matter 1.0 V10 30
Vitrinite Reflectance, % V11 38
Ro V12 3
1.10
MMR 1.15

8
Table 2. Operating parameter for 1 MTPA of Wet Quenching Unit of JSPL, Angul
and Dry Quenching unit from literature for quenching incandescent coke
being used with By Product Coke Making Plant
Operating Parameters Wet Dry
Quenching Quenching
Coal charge/oven (db), T 24 24
Bulk density of coal cake (wet), kg/m3 1100 1100
Coking Temperature, °C 1320 1290-1320
Coking Cycle, hrs 24 24
Coke discharge temp., °C 1050 990-1050
Coke temperature after quenching, °C ˂150 ˂ 200

Coke Yield (Gross), % 75-76% 75-76%

Coke production/day 2700 2700
Coke production capacity (gross), MTPA 1.0 1.0

Quenching Power consumption, kW h/t 0.8 19

Make up Water requirement in m3/ton of coke 0.45 Nil

Break down hours/Annum 6.0 90

Tentative cost of wet quenching setup, Crs. 5.00 175.00

Solution (Carbon) loss Negligible 1.7 t/hr max. (at

Man Power Requirement/day Operation (2) 135 TPH)

Operation
and wharf [12(CDQ)+10
attender (3) (Boiler)+3(Battery)]
+Mechanical
[9(CDQ)+6
(Boiler)]+IEM[7]
Maintenance cost Low High

9
 Table 3. Tentative Potential Hazardous Components of circulating gas in Dry
Quenching Unit
CO 2.0 - 3.0%
H2 0.0 - 1.0 %
CO2 17.0-18.0 %

Very minor improvement was observed in hot and cold strength of coke, produced using

wet and dry quenching and the same is depicted in Table 4. As shown in Table 5

Proximate, ultimate, and other chemical analysis of coke remain same for wet and dry

quenching, because these properties are dependent on coal carbonization process.

Table 4. Hot and Cold Strength of Coke as produced in by product

type coke oven
Wet Quenching Dry Quenching

Coke CSR 64.00 64.96

Coke CRI 25.80 24.38
Coke M40 84.51 84.90
Coke M10 5.10 4.80

Table 5. Test results of JSPL, Angul’s Coke sample as produced in by product type
coke oven
Proximate Analysis Chemical Analysis
IM (db), % 0.40 Fe(T) (db), % 8.7

Ash (db), % 12.88 CaO (db), % 2.37

VM (db), % 0.65 SiO2 (db), % 55.30

FC (db), % 86.47 Al2O3 (db), % 26.70
Alkalis
TiO2 (db), % 2.05
Na2O (db), % 0.43 P (db), % 0.043
K2O (db), % 1.64 GCV of Coke, kcal/kg 6800

10
As mentioned in Table 6. there is no significant difference between average mean size

of the coke after wet and dry quenching.

Table 6. Size distribution of coke as Produced in By Product Coke Plant

By Product Coke plant at Available Data
JSPL,Angul
Coke Size Wet Quenching Dry Quenching

+80 mm fraction, % 4.58 3.1

BF grade Coke (30-80 mm), 85.37 81.6
%
Coke AMS 50.50 47.54
As mentioned above average solution (carbon) loss is 1.7 tons/hr while using CDQ

process whereas there is no such loss for wet quenching process. As per published

literature and depicted in Table 7 about 77 tons/hr of steam having temperature 485oC

and pressure 62.8 bar may be produced from CDQ process.This steam may be used

for power generation or for process uses. The amount of energy which is produced

using CDQ is the main attraction and this recovers the huge investment as well as

maintenance and operational cost incurred in CDQ installation.

Table 7 Tentative Operating parameters of Dry Quenching unit

suitable for two Coke Oven Batteries of 1 MTPA Capacity
Plant capacity 135 TPH

Coke charge temp. 990-1050 °C

Coke output temp. 180-200 °C

Gas inlet temp. 130 °C

Gas out let temp. 930 °C
Steam generation 77 TPH

Steam Pressure 62.8 bar G

Steam temp. 485 °C

Total gas vol. 192000 Nm3/hr

11
8.0 Technical Feasibility of CDQ for JSPL, Angul’s Coke Oven

JSPL have Coke Ovens with Stamp Charging and by product recovery facility at Angul,

Orrisa. Gross coke production from two batteries is about 2700 dry metric tons of coke

per day. 24 ton of blend coal on dry basis may be charged in each oven of each battery.

The detail characterization of one of the coal blend charged is given in Table 1.

Wet quenching is a simple & a cost effective process of cooling coke with water spraying

over hot coke inside the Quenching tower. Fig.2 shows the Quenching Tower installed

at JSPL, Angul. The natural draft allows the water vapor to flow out through the tower

to the atmosphere. Fig. 3 shows hot coke being handled in the quenching car after

pushing from the carbonization chamber.

JSPL, Angul has installed a baffle arrangement on the top of Quenching tower made of
special wooden structure which consists of spray pipe lines creating water screen for

the steam. When the steam passes through this water screen and mist wooden

structure, the small particles in the steam is stuck to the wooden structure and also

scrubbed through water spraying arrangement. Hence the clean steam is left to the

atmosphere and does not pollute the environment. Schematic of general arrangement

of baffle in quenching tower is shown in Fig. 4.

12
 Fig.2 Quenching Tower

Fig. 3 Coke being handled in the Quenching Car

13
 Fig. 4. General Arrangement of Baffle in Quenching Tower

CDQ process is installed basically to generate revenue from sensible heat being

recovered during quenching of hot-coke by means of Nitrogen in a close circuit. The

steam so produced is used to generate power. However, JSPL, Angul already has 135

MW x 6 units of captive Power plant and approximately 62 MW from process steam

boilers, which produces surplus Power. Hence, the CDQ system will not benefit JSPL

14
in terms of power generation. Dry quenched coke is inherently dustier at screening

stations and during transportation than wet quenched coke. This also affects

atmosphere tangibly and hence to control fugitive emissions, additional dust control

equipment need to be installed. Dry quenching facilities presents potential

explosion/hazards. Reliable automatic sequencing, monitoring, feedback and purging

systems are necessity to minimize such hazards. Significant amount of oxygen leaking

into the system can cause an explosion hence the composition of the inert gases in dry
quenching units must be continuously monitored with feedback for automatic changes

in gas composition.

Installation of CDQ will demand extra treatment of effluent in BOD plant to meet
stipulation of Zero Liquid Discharge, whereas the same is being used in quenching of

coke in Wet Quenching System. New equipment for dry quenching with no reduction in

equivalent conventional steam producing equipment cost of DM water generation, etc.

has a higher capital cost than wet quenching equipment. CDQ consumes around 2.5

MW of auxiliary power. Moreover, heavy excise duty to be paid for the additional power

being generated by CDQ.

In CDQ hot coke from Coke oven is collected in a Rotary Bucket & discharged into

cooling chamber for uniform distribution and effective cooling of coke. But to operate

the Rotary Bucket the height clearance between coke car track level to oven level and

the distance between coke car track to Guide car track need to be increased. For

batteries which are already in operation, it is very difficult to install a Rotary Bucket car.

It is possible only if the batteries are cooled down. Cooling down and again heating up

for a coke oven battery made of silica bricks will incur huge capital expanses and

15
damage to coke oven walls. As mentioned in section 7.3 coke temperature after CDQ

is about 50oc higher than the coke temperature after Wet Quenching, therefore to handle
the coke quenched through CDQ, existing running conveyors need to be changed to

high temperature resistant conveyor belt.

Operating parameters of coke plant with wet quenching process at JSPL, Angul is

shown in Table 2. From Table 2 it is evident that there is no difference in coking

temperature and coke discharge temperature as these parameters are dependent on

coke making process and not on coke quenching process. But significant difference can

be observed when the effect of quenching process is considered. Coke temperature

after quenching is less in case of wet quenching. No or negligible solution (carbon) loss

was observed during wet quenching. As depicted in Table 2 CDQ requires about twenty

four times more electrical power with respect to wet quenching process for per ton of

coke. Breakdown hours per annum of CDQ is 15 times higher than that of wet

quenching. Considering the breakdown hours of CDQ a wet quenching setup is

essential to prevent carbon loss during breakdown hours.

Necessary raw material for wet quenching of coke is only water and only about 0.45

cubic meter of makeup water is required for per ton of coke where as raw material for

CDQ is an inert gas plant or mostly used Nitrogen plant, which incurs huge investment.

As reported in Table 2 wet quenching process at JSPL, Angul requires 2 persons in

operation and 3 persons at coke discharge wharf, whereas CDQ process needs intense
attention during operation, which require 12 CDQ operators, 10 boiler operators and

other 25 persons at various points of CDQ plant.

Quality of water which is being recycled for wet quenching process at JSPL, Angul is

presented in Table 8. All the parameters are within acceptable limits as per

16
environmental norms. Therefore, there is no hazard to environment as well as to the

plant personals where as CDQ tower where actual quenching operations are being
carried out is quite prone to explosion due to presence of hydrogen in the circulating

gases.

Table 8. Water quality after Wet quenching at JSPL, Angul

pH 8.4
TSS 326 ppm
COD < 250 ppm
BOD < 30 ppm

Chloride < 60 ppm

Coke characterization data for JSPL, coke is presented in Table 5. Comparison of hot

and cold strength of coke produced depicted in Table 4, shows that wet quenched coke

has CSR value of 64.00 where as dry quenched coke carbonized in By Product ovens

has CSR value of 64.96. Similarly, improvement of about one point in CRI value and

less than 1 points in M40 was observed while using dry quenching process.

Coke size distribution for coke produced at JSPL, Angul’s coke plant using wet

quenching and standard dry quenching is presented in Table 6. From the data

presented in the tables it is evident that coke size distribution achieved from wet
quenching is comparable or even better than the coke size distribution achieved from

dry quenching. Coke average mean size in case of coke wet quenching at JSPL, Angul

is 50.50 mm which is most favorable for blast furnace uses. Table 9 shows size analysis

of wharf coke as produced JSPL, Angul. Figure. 5 shows one batch of quenched coke

which was dropped on the coke wharf at JSPL, Angul.

17
 Table 9. Size Analysis of Wharf Coke as produced JSPL, Angul

+100 mm 10.71
-100+80 mm 18.29
-80+50 mm 42.92
-50+40 mm 12.62
-40+30 mm 8.35
-30 mm 7.11
Total 100

Figure. 5 Wet Quenched Coke on Coke Wharf at JSPL, Angul

Considering the above discussed issues CDQ process is only advantageous if an

integrated steel plant does not have captive power plant, otherwise CDQ process poses
intense capital investment, operational attention, cost and hazard without any extra

benefit to environment. Whereas wet quenching process of incandescent coke is easy

to operate with least environmental impact along with negligible carbon loss.

18
9.0 Economics of CDQ process

Technical aspects of retrofitting CDQ system has been discussed in detail in last section.

Operation data of CDQ and wet quenching and their analysis reveals that installation of
same capacity of CDQ system will cost much higher than that wet quenching, installed

in an integrated steel plant like JSPL, Angul.

Table 10 (a) and (b). represent the cost analysis of CDQ system with respect to wet

quenching system. The initial cost of CDQ system shown in Table 10 (a) is the cost of

available design. Moreover, cost of installation of inert gas facility (mostly nitrogen) has

not been included in Table 10 (a).

As per technical discussions in section 8.0 and comparison of the data provided by

JSPL, Angul for its coke plant having wet quenching, with available data for CDQ

process, any remarkable enhancement in coke quality is not observed. Therefore, any

saving due to enhancement in coke quality has not been considered in cost analysis.

Solution (carbon) loss of 1.7 ton/hour has also been reported in case of CDQ system.

Whereas this loss is negligible in case of wet quenching.

CDQ system produces good quality steam, which can be used for power generation or

for other process uses. But JSPL, Angul has got no use of steam, because it has got

its own captive power plant, from which it is generating surplus power. So, as per

present scenario for JSPL, Angul installation of CDQ is not viable.

Cost of installation and operation of a wet quenching setup is quite cheaper, easily
operable, not hazardous and relatively environment friendly with respect to CDQ

process.

19
Table 10 (a): Cost analysis of CDQ System and Wet Quenching System

Wet Quenching System CDQ System

Expense/ Expense/
Description Requirements Annum Requirements Annum
Manpower
Deployment 5 Nos 0.15 Rs Cr 47 Nos 1.39 Rs Cr
Power
Consumption/ton
of coke 0.89 Kwh 0.33 Rs Cr 19 Kwh 6.83 Rs Cr
Water
Consumption/ton
of coke 0.45 M3 0.90 Rs Cr Almost Nill 0.00 Rs Cr
Nitrogen
Consumption NA 0.00 Rs Cr 490 M3/ Hr 1.65 Rs Cr

Credit :: Power 19 MW/

Generation NA 0.00 Rs Cr MTPA Coke -8.24 Rs Cr

Net Expense/
Year 1.38 Rs Cr 1.63 Rs Cr

Project Cost 2.5 Rs Cr 175 Rs Cr

20
Table 10(b): Calculated Net value of Wet Quenching and CDQ system after 20 Yrs.

Cash Outflows (Including Inflation) Wet Quenching CDQ

Year 0 2.50 Rs Cr 175 Rs Cr
Year 1 1.38 Rs Cr 1.63 Rs Cr

Year 2 1.43 Rs Cr 1.68 Rs Cr

Year 3 1.47 Rs Cr 1.73 Rs Cr

Year 4 1.51 Rs Cr 1.78 Rs Cr

Year 5 1.56 Rs Cr 1.83 Rs Cr

Year 6 1.60 Rs Cr 1.89 Rs Cr

Year 7 1.65 Rs Cr 1.95 Rs Cr

Year 8 1.70 Rs Cr 2.00 Rs Cr

Year 9 1.75 Rs Cr 2.06 Rs Cr

Year 10 1.81 Rs Cr 2.13 Rs Cr

Year 11 1.86 Rs Cr 2.19 Rs Cr

Year 12 1.92 Rs Cr 2.26 Rs Cr

Year 13 1.97 Rs Cr 2.32 Rs Cr

Year 14 2.03 Rs Cr 2.39 Rs Cr

Year 15 2.09 Rs Cr 2.47 Rs Cr

Year 16 2.16 Rs Cr 2.54 Rs Cr

Year 17 2.22 Rs Cr 2.62 Rs Cr

Year 18 2.29 Rs Cr 2.69 Rs Cr

Year 19 2.36 Rs Cr 2.77 Rs Cr

Year 20 2.43 Rs Cr 2.86 Rs Cr

Net Present Value of next 20 year
expenses (Disc @10%) Rs. 15.42 Rs. 174.58

21
10.0 Summary
Present study demonstrates technological inside of the coke dry quenching (CDQ) and

coke wet quenching technology for byproduct recovery, stamp charged coke making

technologies. The salient conclusions of the present study are as follows:

o Capital Cost: - Although Coke Dry Quenching process is attractive when it is

used in a byproduct recovery coke plant available with integrated steel plant like JSPL,
Angul, switching over permanently to coke dry quenching from wet quenching requires

significant capital investment of the order of Rs. 175 Cr. (for 1.0 MTPA Coke Oven

Plant). Hence total capital cost will be approx. Rs. 350 Cr. (for 2.0 MTPA Coke Oven

Plant).

o O & M Cost: - Detail cost analysis of CDQ technology with respect to wet quenching

reveals that annual financial loss estimated by use of CDQ system is more than the

cost of a wet quenching.

o Power Generation:- A CDQ system suitable for by-product recovery coke plant

available with JSPL, Angul may produce 77 TPH of steam, from CDQ installation

suitable for two batteries, which can be used for power generation. But, JSPL, Angul is

having captive power plant and has surplus power. Therefore, CDQ, if installed will lead

to further increase in surplus power.

o Power Consumption: - Power consumption in CDQ is about twenty four times more

in comparison to wet quenching.

o Technical Difficulty: - Coke Temperature after CDQ is higher than the coke

temperature after Wet Quenching. Hence the existing running conveyors need to be

22
changed to high temperature resistant belt which is a very costly affair at this point of

time in the running plant.

o Safety & Environment: - There is no environmental or safety hazard in operating

wet coke quenching system and CDQ system do not show any benefit to the

environment over the wet quenching system. Moreover, explosion hazard is also

associated with CDQ system. Further, CDQ may allow the toxic inert gases, which

are used as the cooling medium, to leak.

o Manpower Requirement: - Only 5 semiskilled manpower is required for

operation of Wet Quenching system, whereas 47 skilled manpower is required for

operation and maintenance of whole CDQ process.

o Breakdown: - Average breakdown hours of CDQ system is about 15 times

higher than Wet Quenching. To continue the quenching process a parallel Wet

Quenching equipment are very essential to maintain.

o Coke Quality: - Analysis of coal and coke data of by-product recovery coke plant,

with wet and dry quenching reveals that by implementing CDQ system, very little or
insignificant improvement in coke quality may be achieved, which is economically not

feasible, once the cost of installation of CDQ system is considered.

o Carbon Loss: - CDQ technology accounts for carbon loss of about 1.7 ton/hr of

coke, whereas, in case of wet quenching same is zero or negligible and more coke

fines are generated in CDQ chamber during descent of coke lump by gravity.

23
11.0 Conclusion
On the basis of present study and a comparison of detail cost analysis of CDQ with

respect to wet quenching, it is concluded that for JSPL, Angul’s by product recovery

coke making units, Wet Quenching of incandescent Coke is a better option than Coke
Dry Quenching, because of higher initial cost, larger break down hours, carbon losses,
fines generation, excess man power requirement, greater power consumption,

operational hazards etc. in case of CDQ.

24