letters to the editor

JOM, Dec 2014

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11837-014-1228-0.pdf

letters to the editor

JOM letters to the editor One can theorize 0 what cannot be 0 0 Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum's Conference of Metallurgists in 2012 1 This paper also includes the sad story of the ScanArc technology-not delivering on promises (low dioxin emissions) , not being able to produce a benign and useable residue (all they made was stored in an on- success. Its performance is about like all the other rotary hearth furnaces (RHFs) attempted or still in operation, 50% or less. These RHFs include carbon steel electric arc furnace (EAF) dust plants and iron making (DRI) from ore or from waste oxides. They do not include the Inmetco/Horsehead Resource Development Company plant in Pennsylvania, which treats stainless steel dust As to the RHFs in Japan (iron making), show me published data on actual operations documenting production rate, product quality and iron yields-there is none. Information indicates they are not any better that those in the United States. They are more like a - feeds. As proof, note Mesabi Nugget was licensed by Kobe, which built several RHF units in Japan and has been unable to improve its Minnesota plant. Further, consider the Iron Dynamics plant (a process much like Kobe’s Fastmet) which after ten years of trying could not make it on iron ore. So they changed the feed (now waste oxides) and the goal (not making DRI) and called it success (but with a submerged arc furnace that also still limits the process and the plant still at only 50% of original design capacity). Rather than repeat my evaluations which have been published and presented over 50 times, I will direct the reader to several articles. One is a review published in JOM in July 19982 that surveyed the status of dust processing to that date. Of interest would be the litany of failures of new processes. In the United States, unlike, for example, the EAF mills and industry association in South Korea, steel companies have learned from those examples not to trust process developers to deliver on sales pitches interest. If the only success an EAF dust process can point to is in the lab, then that is not a success real steel mills are interested in. Good chemical engineering analysis and I have critiqued the EAF recycling process presented in the July JOM article, as well as and did not see a good use for it. Another thing steel companies do not trust is an inexperienced newcomer’s ability to ZincOx in the United States (their ZIRO project) went nowhere once they lost their Our work has September 5, 2014 Dear JOM Editor, We thank Dr. Southwick for his letter regarding the article “Moving Towards Better Recycling Options for Electric Arc Furnace Dust”1 and drawing attention to some critical aspects of electric arc furnace (EAF) dust recycling. We appreciate the feedback, and also appreciate the opportunity to be able to respond and have our response appear with his letter in JOM. Such dialogue between practitioners and researchers is healthy. Our claim that a rotary hearth furnace (RHF) would be a better solution for the recycling of EAF dusts than the traditional analysis. The goal of our study was not to proclaim a better technology as this would have required economic and process stability studies. Our work has allowed us to calculate and compare the resource purely from a thermodynamic standpoint. The methodology used for this comparison can be found in Reference 30 of our article. In early 2012, when we calculated the the early ramp-up stage and besides some minor problems, it appeared promising. We were aware of the failures of previous RHF projects, but recent works by Nakayama2 and Tateishi3 suggested that solutions to the operational problems had been found. The study we did was based on clearly stated assumptions: “ commercial RHF plant is not operated at full capacity yet (ZincOx, 2012), the product stream compositions for a fully operational RHF process can only be estimated. The total zinc recovery rate and the amount of iron reporting to the zinc oxide product are included in this study.”4 Throughout our work we considered the produced DRI as a product, which strongly contributes to the “Walking the Talk, or only talking the walk”5 clearly highlights the points of concern. However, as you mentioned in your Steel Times International (March 2010) article,6 the failure of this type of project should also be attributed partially to the incomplete preparation of the project (human error) rather than solely on technology. addresses the RHF technology in its recent ZincOx manifestation. The essential message of the article, however, lies in the drastically new in-process separation (IPS) technology. In our previous study we found that an alternative approach that eliminates EAF dust generation results in a 3 in our article (reproduced as Figure 1 on the previous page) demonstrates that the difference between IPS and traditional high temperature metal recovery systems is more prominent than the difference between the The complete off-gas composition of an EAF was the starting point of our exergy species that can be expected to be present in EAF dusts or separated streams were included in the thermodynamic equilibrium calculations (including ferrites, chlorides, etc.). We also want to point out that the Center for Resource Recovery & Recycling (CR3) does not claim to have invented this technology, but rather initiated a project based on ArcelorMittal’s patent US 8377175 B2.7 The project carries strong support from CR3’s industrial members. We completely understand that an unproven technology cannot be proclaimed to be “the” better recycling option, hence the “moving towards” section of our title. As an Industry & University Cooperative Research Program (I/UCRC), CR3 is committed to being the premier cooperative research center focused on sustainable stewardship of the earth’s resources. We consider it our duty to investigate options that can contribute to this goal. As Dr. Southwick stated, “the root problem appears to be a developer’s from their technology trumps metallurgical science and good engineering” (Steel Times International 2010).8 potential of the technology, we decided to highlight this aspect in order to raise awareness with other researchers working on EAF dust recycling. We are currently investigating whether the metallurgical science goes hand in hand with the Thomas Suetens, Karel Van Acker, Bart Blanpain, Brajendra Mishra, and Diran Apelian STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULATION Extent and Nature of Circulation Total No. of Copies (Net Press Run) Paid and/or Requested Circulation Paid/Requested Outside-County Mail Subscriptions Stated on Form 3541 (Include advertiser’s proof and exchange copies) Paid In-County Subscriptions (Include advertiser’s proof and exchange copies) Sales Through Dealers and Carriers, Street Vendors, Counter Sales and Other Non-USPS Paid Distribution Other Classes Mailed Through the USPS Total Paid and/or Requested Distribution Free Distribution by Mail (Samples, Complimentary and Other Free) Free Distribution Outside the Mail (Carrier or Other Means) Total Free Distribution Total Distribution Copies Not Distributed Total Percent Paid and/or Requested Circulation The Statement of Ownership will be printed in the December 2014 issue of this publication. Average No. Copies Each Issue During Preceding 12 Months No. Copies of Single Issue Published Nearest to Filing Date I certify that all information furnished on ths form is true and complete. _______________________________________________ Signature of Publisher 1. T. Suetens , K. Van Acker , B. Blanpain , B. Mishra , and D. Apelian , JOM, 66 , 1119 ( 2014 ). 2. L.M. Southwick , JOM, 50 ( 7 ) 21 - 26 ( 1998 ). 3. L.M. Southwick , Steel Times Int. ( October 2008 ), pp. 30 - 31 . 4. L.M. Southwick , Steel Times Int. ( March 2010 ), pp. 43 - 45 ; www.steeltimesint. com/contentimages/features /EAF_dust_Mar10 .pdf. 5. L.M. Southwick , Steel Tech., 6 ( 2 ) ( January 2012 ), pp. 61 - 68 . 6. L.M. Southwick , Towards Clean Metallurgical Processing for Profit, Social and Environmental Stewardship, ed. R.H. Schonewille , D. Rioux , S. Kashani-Jejad , M. Kreuth , and M.E.S. Muinonen (Montreal, Canada: Metallurgical Society of the Canadian Institute of Metallurgists, 2012 ), pp. 89 - 108 . 7. L.M. Southwick , "Walking the talk, or only talking the walk," comment to Process Failures , LinkedIn Mineral Processing Group (12 June 2014 ). Contact author at LMSouthwick.pe@ att.net for a copy . 1. T. Suetens , K. Van Acker , B. Blanpain , B. Mishra , and D. Apelian , JOM, 66 , 1119 - 1121 ( 2014 ). 2. T. Nakayama and H. Taniishi , Nippon Steel Engineering Technical Review 2 , 25 - 29 ( 2011 ). 3. M. Tateishi , H. Fujimoto , T. Harada , and H. Sugitatsu , “ Development of EAF Dust Recycling and Melting Technology Using the Coal-based FASTMELT® Process,” Direct from Midrex ( 2008 ), www.midrex.com/uploads /documents/Development%20of%20EAF%20Dust%20 Recycling.pdf. 4. T. Suetens , B. Klaasen , K. Van Acker , and B. Blanpain , J. Cleaner Production, 65 , 152 - 167 ( 2014 ). 5. L.M. Southwick , “Project Failures: Walking the Talk, or Only Talking the Walk ,” LinkedIn (12 June 2014 ). 6. L.M. Southwick , Steel Times Int. ( March 2010 ), pp. 43 - 45 ; www.steeltimesint. com/contentimages/features /EAF_dust_Mar10 .pdf. 7. M.A. Naiyang , “ Apparatus and Method for Treating Exhaust Gas ,” U.S. patent 8, 377 , 175 B2 (19 February 2013 ). 8. L.M. Southwick , Steel Times Int. ( October 2008 ), pp. 30 - 31 . Sincerely, Publication Title : JOM; Publication No.: 281 - 200 ; Filing Date: October 1, 2014 ; Issue Frequency: Monthly; No. of Issues Published Annually: 12 ; Annual Subscription Price : $ 411 ; Complete Mailing Address of Known Office of Publication: 233 Spring Street , 6th Floor, New York, NY 10013 ; Contact Person: William Coatsworth; Telephone: ( 201 ) 348 - 4033 x369; Complete Mailing Address of the Headquarters or General Business Office of Publisher: 233 Spring Street , 6th Floor, New York, NY 10013 ; Publisher: Springer Science & Business Media, 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013; Editor: Maureen Byko, TMS, 184 Thorn Hill Road, Warrendale, PA 15086 - 7514 ; Owner: The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society , 184 Thorn Hill Road, Warrendale, PA 15086 - 7514 ; Known Bondholders, Mortgagees and Other Security Holders Owning or Holding 1 Percent or More of Total Amount of Bonds, Mortgages or Other Securities: None; The purpose, function and nonprofit status of this organization and the exempt status for federal income tax purposes has not changed during the preceding 12 months; Publication Name: JOM; Issue Date for Circulation Data Below : October 2014 .


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11837-014-1228-0.pdf

letters to the editor, JOM, 2014, 2401-2403, DOI: 10.1007/s11837-014-1228-0