Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Addendum to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
For
Amendment of Environmental Clearance (EC)
Of
Kalyani Steels Ltd
For its Proposed Expansion of Iron and Steel Plant
(1.4 MTPA) Located at Koppal District, Karnataka
9th Apr, 2019
1
Table of Contents 1 - Introduction: ................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Brief introduction of Environmental Clearance details .................................................................................. 3
1.2 Nature of the project proposed ................................................................................................................................. 3
1.2.1Products with capacities include: ................................................................................................................. 3
1.2.2Production Units: ................................................................................................................................................. 3
1.3 Description of Coke Plant & DRI included in 1.4 MTPA EC ............................................................................ 4
1.4 Proposed Amendment .................................................................................................................................................. 5
1.5 Scope of the study: .......................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.5.1Technical aspects of non-recovery with heat recovery: ...................................................................... 5
1.5.2Baseline data of EIA report submitted by KSL & post project monitoring data ........................ 6
1.5.3Recent baseline status of recent EIA study appraised by Ministry for the adjoining project
of M/s Mukand Ltd ........................................................................................................................................................ 6
2 - Project Description ...................................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Changes proposed to be made in Existing EC of 1.4 MTPA Expansion Project ..................................... 7
2.2 Basic steel plant /process flow chart (as per EC granted) with material balance ............................... 3
2.3 Change in process flow sheet for the proposed coke plant ........................................................................... 4
2.3.1Brief description of Recovery Type coke manufacturing with schematic drawings ............... 5
2.3.2Brief description of Non-Recovery Type coke manufacturing with schematic drawings ..... 7
2.4 Basic material balance for Recovery and Non-recovery coke plant for rated capacity of 0.6
MTPA .................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.4.1Material Balance diagram for Recovery Type 0.6 MTPA Coke Oven (As per PFR & EIA
report submitted for Existing EC): ......................................................................................................................... 9
2.4.2Material Balance diagram for Non-Recovery Type 0.6 MTPA Coke Oven (As proposed): . 10
2.5 Water balance flow chart .......................................................................................................................................... 11
2.5.1Water balance as per Existing EC: ............................................................................................................. 11
2.5.2Water balance for Proposed amendment in EC: .................................................................................. 11
2.6 Comparison between Non-Recovery and By-Product Recovery Type Coke Oven ........................... 13
2.7 Brief on demonstrated experience worldwide ................................................................................................ 14
3 - Baseline Environment ............................................................................................................................... 16
3.1 Baseline Air Environment as per the EIA appraised for earlier KSL’s Existing EC ........................... 16
3.2 Post project monitoring data .................................................................................................................................. 18
3.3 KSL’s Existing Plant’s Half Yearly Monitoring Data ....................................................................................... 18
3.4 Baseline Soil, Water and Noise as per the EIA appraised for earlier KSL’s Existing EC.................. 20
3.5 Recent baseline data from M/s Mukand Ltd (Generated for period Apr 2016 - June 2016) ........ 27
4 - Impact Assessment ..................................................................................................................................... 38
4.1 Results of impact assessment made with respect to Air Environment in the EIA as per Existing
EC ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 38
2
4.2 Absolute emissions calculations for Non-recovery Coke Oven with heat recovery ......................... 42
4.3 Results of impact assessment made with respect to Air Environment considering recent
baseline data from M/s Mukand Ltd .................................................................................................................... 42
4.4 Comparison of air dispersion modeling results .............................................................................................. 47
4.5 Mitigation measures ................................................................................................................................................... 47
4.5.1By-product Recovery Coke Ovens ............................................................................................................. 47
4.5.2Heat-Recovery type Coke Ovens ................................................................................................................ 48
5 - Alternatives of Technology...................................................................................................................... 49
5.1 Alternatives in comparison to EIA for coke plant ........................................................................................... 49
5.2 Alternatives for pollution control equipment etc. .......................................................................................... 53
6 - Environmental Monitoring programme ............................................................................................. 54
6.1 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring ............................................................................................................................ 54
6.2 Water Quality Monitoring......................................................................................................................................... 54
7 - Environmental Cost benefit analysis ................................................................................................... 55
8 - Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 56
3
1 - INTRODUCTION:
1.1 Brief introduction of Environmental Clearance details
Kalyani Steels Ltd (KSL) is a part of over $3.0 billion Kalyani Group. KSL was established in 1973 and is
a leading manufacturer of forging and engineering quality carbon & alloy steels using the blast furnace
route.
KSL had planned expansion of their Integrated Steel Plant (ISP) for production of 1.4 MTPA carbon and
alloy steel along with stainless steel in Koppal district of Karnataka.
The Environmental Clearance (EC) for the proposed expansion was accorded by Ministry of
Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEFCC) vide F. No. J-11011/172/2007-IA II(I) on 19th
January 2016.
The timeline for obtaining EC was as follows:
ToR prescribed during 23rd meeting of Reconstituted Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) held on
18th-19th September, 2014
Public Hearing conducted on 28th march 2015
Final EIA/EMP report submitted vide application dated 26th June, 2015.
EC granted vide F. No. J-11011/172/2007-IA II(I) on 19th January 2016
1.2 Nature of the project proposed
KSL had proposed the expansion of their Integrated Steel Plant (ISP) for production of 1.4 MTPA carbon
and alloy steel along with stainless steel.
Details about the nature of the project is as below:
1.2.1 Products with capacities include:
Crude Steel - 1.40 MTPA
Saleable Steel - 1.36 MTPA
o Long Products - 1.26 MTPA (Billets, blooms, rounds & rolled Products)
o Cast Ingots - 0.10 MTPA
1.2.2 Production Units:
Sl.
No.
Production
Unit
Configuration & Production capacities as per EC dated
19th January 2016
1 Coke Oven Plant 2 x 45 ovens Coke Ovens and By-Products Recovery Plant (COBP) 0.6 MTPA Gross Coke
2 Sinter Plant Pellet Plant
1 x 33 sq m + 1 x 130 sq m 1.79 MTPA 1 x 1.2 MTPA
3 Blast Furnace
1 x 750 cu m + 2 x 250 cu m + 1 x 350 cu m 1.64 MTPA Hot Metal
4 DR Plant 1 x 0.5 MTPA
4
Sl.
No.
Production
Unit
Configuration & Production capacities as per EC dated
19th January 2016
5 Pig casting machine 40 TPH & 180 TPH
6 Lime/dolo Calcining Plant
2 x 300 TPD 0.17 MTPA Calcined Lime; 0.05 MTPA Calcined Dolo
7 Steel Melt Shop BOF - 2 x 60 T LF - 3 x 60 T IF - 1 x 50 T VD/RH - 2 x 60 T EAF - 1 x 60 T AOD - 1 x 60 T 1.46 MTPA Liquid Steel
8 Casting units Continuous Caster- Billet cum bloom cu m round caster Billet cum bloom caster Bloom cum round caster Ingot Casting 1.4 MTPA Crude Steel
9 Rolling Mill Bar & Wire Rod Mill 0.49 MTPA Bars, flats & Wire Rods
Heavy bar Mill 0.31 MTPA Rounds & RCS
Bar & Rod Mill 0.34 MTPA Bars & Rods
Annealing Furnace - 60 TPH Tempering Furnace - 50 TPH
10 Air Separation Plant 600 TPD (BOO basis)
11 Power Plant BF gas based - 8 MW CDQ - 6 MW (5.4 MW production capacity) TRT - 3.65 MW (3.28 MW production capacity)
Requirement of water for the expansion of ISP was estimated to be about 3.14 MGD. The total
requirement of water for existing as well as the expansion would be about 4.68 MGD which would be
drawn from Tungabhadra, at a distance of 5.2 km in south western direction of the plant site.
Total power requirement for the expansion of ISP was about 128 MW, proposed to be met through in-
plant generation and drawl of power from KPTCL grid
The capital cost was estimated to be Rs.5531 Crore and the scheduled completion period was 60
months from Go-ahead.
1.3 Description of Coke Plant & DRI included in 1.4 MTPA EC
As per the EC, KSL had proposed to install by-product Recovery type coke ovens with the following
configuration:
2 X 45 ovens, 4.3 m tall
Stamp charging
0.6 MTPA gross coke capacity
CDQ
Further, KSL had proposed 1 x 0.5 MTPA DR Plant based on Coke Oven Gas (COG) as reductant.
5
1.4 Proposed Amendment
At present KSL proposed amendment in Coke Oven Configuration as follows:
a. Phase 1: 0.20 MTPA Heat Recovery coke oven with Modified Wet Quenching with 25 MW WHR
Power Plant
b. Phase 2: 0.40 MTPA Heat Recovery coke oven with Modified Wet Quenching with 50 MW WHR
Power Plant
Further, KSL requests for deletion of 1 x 0.5 MTPA DR Plant based on Coke Oven Gas (COG) as
reductant.
Detailed table with Product Configuration & Capacities of Existing EC & Proposed Amendment is given
in section 2.1 of this document.
1.5 Scope of the study:
1.5.1 Technical aspects of non-recovery with heat recovery:
KSL has decided to set up Heat-Recovery Type Coke Oven with stamp charging – technical aspects of
which are given below:
In stamp charge heat recovery type coke making process with waste heat recovery boiler, the organic
matter of the coal are combusted completely within the oven. No additional fuel is required for heating
the bottom and walls of the ovens for the process of Carbonization.
Carbonization in heat recovery type coke ovens is slow and the coke produced is hard & lumpy and
suitable for use as metallurgical coke in blast furnaces. The hot flue gas from carbonization is used to
generate power through high pressure steam in Waste Heat Recovery Boilers (WHRB). There is no
provision for recovering gas.
The basic tentative design parameters are as presented in following table:
Item Unit Phase- 1 Phase-2 Total
No. Of Ovens Nos. 11 11 11
Coke oven blocks (max)
Nos. 4 8 12
Total number of ovens
Nos. 44 88 132
Tentative Coal Cake size:
Length mm 12,200 12,200 12,200
Width mm 3,600 3,600 3,600
Height mm 1,100 1,100 1,100
Coal charged per oven
Dry T 48 48 48
Bulk density(stamped coal)
Dry T/ m3
0.9-1.1 0.9-1.1 0.9-1.1
Normal Carbonisation time
Hrs 65-67 65-67 65-67
6
Yield (Dry coal to Dry Coke)
% ~70 - 74% ~70 - 74% ~70 - 74%
Days Operational
Days 365 365 365
Hrs/Day Operational
Hrs/ Day 24 24 24
Coke Production Dry TPA 200,000 400,000 600,000
The targeted tentative Coke quality is as below:
Moisture, Max % 5.00%
Ash (dry basis), % 11.5 - 12.5%
Volatile matter (dry basis), % 1 - 1.5%
Sulphur, % (Max) 0.60%
M40 % (Min) 80.00%
M10 % (Max) 8.00%
CSR, % 62 - 64%
CRI, % 23-26%
BF Grade (including Nut Coke)
6 - 80 mm
Foundry Grade > 80 mm
Coke Fines < 6 mm
Further, as the batteries of Heat Recovery Type Coke Oven operate under negative pressure and, hence,
there is no fugitive emission during operation.
1.5.2 Baseline data of EIA report submitted by KSL & post project monitoring data
The company had collected baseline data for the period of October 2014 - January 2015 during EIA
report preparation. This is elaborated in the report in section 3.1
As KSL has not implemented the project, Post Project monitoring data is not available.
However, the company regularly submits monthly monitoring data to KSPCB for its operating plant.
This is elaborated in this report in section 3.3
1.5.3 Recent baseline status of recent EIA study appraised by Ministry for the adjoining project
of M/s Mukand Ltd1
In Jun 2018, M/s Mukand Ltd in its EIA report has submitted baseline data for the period of Apr 2016 – June 2016. As M/s Mukand Ltd’s proposed Rolling Mill (for which its EIA report was prepared) is adjacent to KSL’s existing plant and expansion project location, this baseline data is used the latest
version of the baseline data prepared for the area.
The said baseline data from M/s Mukand Ltd is elaborated in this report in section 3.5
1 Ref. link: http://environmentclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/EIA/23062018F4O8I4KSAnnexure-EIAEMPdocuments.pdf
7
2 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Changes proposed to be made in Existing EC of 1.4 MTPA Expansion Project
As explained above, KSL proposes change in Coke Oven Configuration as follows:
0.20 MTPA Heat Recovery coke oven with Modified Wet Quenching in Phase-1 with 25 MW
WHR Power Plant
0.40 MTPA Heat Recovery coke oven in Phase-2 with 50 MW WHR Power Plant (Note: Type of
quenching will be decided based on prevailing best available technology and techno-economic
feasibility at that point of time)
Further, KSL requests for deletion of 1 x 0.5 MTPA DR Plant based on Coke Oven Gas (COG) as
reductant.
Following table delineates the changes proposed in Environment Clearance:
Sl. No. Production
Unit
Configuration as per EC dated
19th January 2016
Proposed Configuration
for amendment of EC
Final Configuration
1. Coke Oven Plant
2x 45 ovens 0.6 MTPA Gross Coke By product Recovery type Coke ovens, CDQ
Phase 1: 0.20 MTPA Heat
Recovery coke oven with
Modified Wet Quenching
Phase 2: 0.40 MTPA Heat
Recovery coke oven with
Modified Wet Quenching
Phase 1: 0.20 MTPA Heat
Recovery coke oven with
Modified Wet Quenching
Phase 2: 0.40 MTPA Heat
Recovery coke oven with
Modified Wet Quenching
2. Sinter Plant Pellet Plant
1 x 33 sq m + 1 x 130 sq m 1.79 MTPA Product Sinter 1 x 1.2 MTPA
No Change 1 x 33 sq m + 1 x 130 sq m 1.79 MTPA Product Sinter 1 x 1.2 MTPA
3. Blast Furnace 1 x 750 cu m + 2 x 250 cu m + 1 x 350 cu m 1.64 MTPA Hot Metal
No Change
1 x 750 cu m + 2 x 250 cu m + 1 x 350 cu m 1.64 MTPA Hot Metal
4 DR Plant 1 x 0.5 MTPA Deletion of DR Plant Deletion of DR Plant
5 Pig casting
machine
40 TPH
180 TPH
No change 40 TPH
180 TPH
6 Lime/dolo
Calcining
Plant
2 x 300 TPD
0.17 MTPA Calcined Lime; 0.05
MTPA Calcined Dolo
No change 2 x 300 TPD
0.17 MTPA Calcined Lime; 0.05
MTPA Calcined Dolo
7 Steel Melt
Shop
1.46 MTPA Liquid Steel
BOF- 2 x 60 T No change BOF- 2 x 60 T
LF-3 x 60 T LF-3 x 60 T
IF- 1 x 50 T IF- 1 x 50 T
VD/ RH- 2 x 60 VD/ RH- 2 x 60
EAF – 1 x 60 T EAF – 1 x 60 T
AOD – 1 x 60 T AOD – 1 x 60 T
8 Casting Units Continuous Caster- Billet cum No Change Continuous Caster- Billet cum
1
Sl. No. Production
Unit
Configuration as per EC dated
19th January 2016
Proposed Configuration
for amendment of EC
Final Configuration
bloom cum bloom cum round
caster- 1 x 3 strand
Billet cum bloom caster- 1 x 3
strand
Bloom cum round caster- 1 x 2
strand
Ingot Casting
1.4 MTPA Crude Steel
bloom cum bloom cum round
caster- 1 x 3 strand
Billet cum bloom caster- 1 x 3
strand
Bloom cum round caster- 1 x 2
strand
Ingot Casting
1.4 MTPA Crude Steel
9 Rolling Mill Bar & Wire Rod Mill 0.49 MTPA
Bars, flats & Wire Rods
No change Bar & Wire Rod Mill 0.49 MTPA
Bars, flats & Wire Rods
Heavy bar Mill 0.31 MTPA
Rounds & RCS
Heavy bar Mill 0.31 MTPA Rounds
& RCS
Bar & Rod Mill 0.34 MTPA Bars
& Rods
Bar & Rod Mill 0.34 MTPA Bars &
Rods
Annealing Furnace
-60 TPH
Tempering Furnace
-50 TPH
Annealing Furnace
-60 TPH
Tempering Furnace
-50 TPH
10 Air
Separation
Plant
600 TPD (BOO basis) No changes 600 TPD (BOO basis)
11 Power Plant BF gas based-8 MW
CDQ- 5.4 MW
TRT- 3.65 MW
BF gas based – No change
TRT – No change
Power plant –
BF gas based – 8 MW
TRT – 3.65 MW
Power plant –
2
Sl. No. Production
Unit
Configuration as per EC dated
19th January 2016
Proposed Configuration
for amendment of EC
Final Configuration
Phase 1: 25 MW WHR PP
Phase 2: 50 MW WHR PP
Phase 1: 25 MW WHR PP
Phase 2: 50 MW WHR PP
3
2.2 Basic steel plant /process flow chart (as per EC granted) with material balance
4
2.3 Change in process flow sheet for the proposed coke plant
5
2.3.1 Brief description of Recovery Type coke manufacturing with schematic drawings
At the start of coke manufacturing processes, the selected coals are screened, crushed to less
than 3 mm and blended based on their petrography for the production of a high-quality coke.
The coal blend is charged into the coke oven, and coke is formed by the destructive distillation
of coal at temperatures of around 1,100 deg C and higher.
At the end of the coking cycle, the hot coke is pushed from the oven into a quench car, which
transports the hot coke for its quenching and stabilizing.
Quenching is performed with either water (wet quenching) or nitrogen (dry quenching), after
which the product coke is transported to the blast furnace (BF) or stockpile.
Following figure shows a simplified conceptual coke-making flow sheet (for By-product as well
as Heat recovery type):
In the by-product recovery coke technology, coal is carbonized in by-product ovens involving
indirect heating of the coal mass. In this method coal is carbonized in the absence of air and heat
is supplied to the coal mass by burning fuel gas in the combustion chamber adjacent to the
coking chamber. The volatile matter comes out of the coal mass after attaining the required
temperature which subsequently cooled at different stages for the recovery of the by-products
in the by-product plant. The coke ovens which are based on this technology are known as by-
product coke ovens.
By-product recovery coke ovens operate under positive pressure.
Following schematic shows By-product recovery coke oven operating:
6
Further, to extract usable by-products from the Coke Oven Gas, an elaborate by-product
recovery plant is needed. A schematic of the same is as below:
7
2.3.2 Brief description of Non-Recovery Type coke manufacturing with schematic
drawings
The coal preparation method in Non-recovery coke-making is same as that of Recovery type
coke-making.
In the heat recovery coke technology, the heat is generated by the combustion of volatile matter
which is then penetrated into the coal mass through radiation from the oven top and also by
conduction from oven bottom & walls. The volatile matter in the coking coal evaporates have
rich combustibles. These combustibles present in the waste gas are burned and hot flue gas is
generated (which has high sensible heat). This is used for the production of steam and
generation of power
Heat recovery type coke ovens operate under negative pressure
Following diagram shows the schematic of a typical (horizontal type) Heat recovery Coke Oven:
The following diagram shows the overall working of Heat Recovery coke oven:
8
As for quenching of hot Coke, there are three proven available processes for quenching of hot
coke as under:
1. Coke Wet Quenching (CWQ) :
The standard technique that is applied worldwide is the wet quenching of coke,
where quenching of hot coke is performed by spraying water on the hot coke. Water with
coke particles is then collected, settled, cooled and recycled for quenching with fresh make-
up water
2. Coke Dry Quenching (CDQ)
Coke Dry Quenching (CDQ) is an alternative to the traditional wet quenching of the coke.
Coke is cooled using an inert gas in dry cooling plant, instead of cooling by sprayed water
However, CDQ is only feasible for Coke Ovens with capacities more than 0.8 MTPA
3. Modified Wet Quenching
There exists a relatively new method of CWQ known as Modified Wet Quenching (also
known as coke stabilisation quenching), in which wet quenching of coke is done water spray
from top nozzles. The water vaporises immediately after coming in contact with hot coke.
The steam so generated is cooled and cleaned with the help two scrubber levels and two
baffle systems.
The water coming out from Modified Wet Quenching process will be taken to the multi-stage
settling pond where the coke particles are allowed to be separated and the clean water from
the decantation chamber is re-cycled with fresh make-up water.
The settled coke particles are taken out by crab bucket, air dried to reduce the moisture
content and then sent to other part of the plant (normally Sinter Plant) for recycling.
Given above background, KSL has opted for Modified Wet Quenching process.
9
2.4 Basic material balance for Recovery and Non-recovery coke plant for rated capacity of 0.6 MTPA
2.4.1 Material Balance diagram for Recovery Type 0.6 MTPA Coke Oven (As per PFR & EIA report submitted for Existing EC):
10
2.4.2 Material Balance diagram for Non-Recovery Type 0.6 MTPA Coke Oven (As proposed):
11
2.5 Water balance flow chart
2.5.1 Water balance as per Existing EC:
2.5.2 Water balance for Proposed amendment in EC:
As shown in the diagram above, the total revised water requirement for the proposed project for 1.4 MTPA crude steel productions would be about
2.76 MGD (523cum/hr).
12
Required water would be drawn from Tungabhadra River which is at a distance of 5.2 km in south west direction of the site. Water withdrawal
permission from Tungabhadra Board, Govt. of Karnataka is available with KSL – 4.8 MGD (909 cum/hr). Out of 909 cum/hr, 292 cum/hr water
required for the existing plant. Balance 617 cum/hr are available for the proposed expansion against a requirement of 523 cum/hr. No additional
water withdrawal permission required for the proposed expansion.
Following table shows the detailed calculation of revised water requirement:
MGD M3/ Day M3/ Hr
As per Existing EC Total Make-Up water req. (Exi + Expansion)
4.68 21,288 887
Less: COBP 0.68 3,090 129
Less: DRI 0.24 1,080 45
Add: CO HR 0.26 1,184 49
Add: WHR PP 0.24 1,080 45
Add: Buffer 0.04 167 6.96
Revised Make-Up water requirement
4.30 19,548 815
Existing plant requirement 1.54 7,008 292
Revised EC Facilities 2.76 12,504 521
Water Drawal permission 4.80 21,821 909
13
2.6 Comparison between Non-Recovery and By-Product Recovery Type Coke
Oven
Item Non-Recovery
(Heat Recovery)
By-Product Recovery
(as per Existing EC
configuration)
Type of Battery Generally Horizontal Vertical
ovens available
All Vertical
Area Requirement More Less
Coke Quality Good Good
Coke Mean Size 55mm-60mm 45mm-50mm
Coke Yield 72%-75% 74%-76%
Process Coal burnt partially to supply
heat for carbonization
Walls are heated separately by
in-built burners. Fuel used
either coke oven gas/lean gas
Burning loss 1%-2.5% ~0.5%
Units installed Batteries, Waste Heat boilers,
Turbines,
Batteries, By-product plant,
Implementation period 18-24 months 36 – 40 months
Oven Pressure -3mm to -5mmwg 7mm to 14mmwg
Machines required Pusher Machines, Charge car, Quench car stamping machine
Pusher car, charge car transfer car , quench car, stamping machine
Power Generation from flue gasses
Possible to recover waste heat from flue gasses
Possible to generate power from Coke oven gas
Fugitive emission Nil Gadgets & specialized techniques required for control
Pushing/Charging emission
Low Substantial. Additional gadgets & specialized techniques required.
Oven construction Major Fireclay, minor silica Major silica, minor fire clay
Effluent generation Nil Generation of phenolic effluent containing cyanide, which requires extensive treatment in BOD plant
Impact on Air:
Emissions from
Batteries
Leakage from doors, lids, off take & others (Max %) • Leakage from Door
– 5 (PLD) • Leakage from
Charging lid – 1 (PLL)
• Leakage from AP covers – 4 (PL0)
Nil (As ovens operate under negative pressure)
Negligible Negligible
Yes, Emission of dust and PAH (BaP) (As ovens operate under positive pressure) Additional equipment and specialized techniques adopted to keep emissions within Regulatory norms
Yes Yes
Pushing emission PM during coke pushing – 5gm/ton coke
Charging emission
14
Charging emission (seconds/charge) – 16 (with HPLA)
Emissions from Stack
Flue Gasses CO2,NOx, SO2 Desulphurization of waste gas done before venting out
CO2,NOx, SO2, Sulfur is recovered in Coke oven gas using ‘Claus Process’ and sold off
Estimated controlled emission to air
Within prescribed CPCB Standards for Iron & Steel Plant (2012) PM = 7.8 Kg/hr SO2= 19.5 Kg/hr NOx= 58.5 Kg/hr
Within prescribed CPCB Standards for Iron & Steel Plant (2012) PM =34 Kg/hr SO2=8.5 Kg/hr NOx=44 Kg/hr
Net Carbon Footprint (0.6 MTPA gross coke)
92,258 TPA 244,263 TPA
Green Pushing Avoided, because of clear visibility inside oven
Often possible when coke is pushed before thermal distillation is complete. Emission of benzene and HAP takes place
Liquid Waste
Waste water from primary gas cooling (Max values: pH – 6 - 8.5 TSS - 100 mg/l BOD 3 – 30 mg/l COD – 250 mg/l O & G – 10 mg/l
Cyanide as CN- - 0.2
mg/l Phenol – 1.0 mg/l)
No process waste water generated as by-products not required
Effluent containing cyanide & phenol and treated in BOD plant. The treated water from BOD plant would still contain cyanide & phenols, the outlet concentration of which should conform to the Effluent standards
Waste water from equipment cooling
Waste water is treated and reused. Waste water is treated and reused.
Solid Waste
Coal Tar sludge & BOD sludge
No generation Mixed with feed coal and recycled
2.7 Brief on demonstrated experience worldwide
Through literature survey, it is found that Non-Recovery type (or Heat Recovery type) Coke
Ovens are found more environmentally friendly.
Excerpts of opinions regarding the same have been given below:
(Mentioned reference reports can be provided on request)
1. “With respect to emission, there are two major advantages of non-recovery process: 1)
The ovens operate under negative pressure which eliminates leaks from doors, lids and
offtakes and 2) waste water and solid wastes associated with by-product recovery plants are absent”
15
(National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollution (NESHAP) for Coke Ovens;
United States Environmental Protection Agency; EPA-453/R-01-006 February 2001,
Final Report)
2. The U.S.Environmental Protection Agency recognizes the heat-recovery process as
meeting the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
(Presented at AISTech 2010 – The Iron and Steel Technology Conference and Exposition,
Pittsburgh - Presented at AISTech 2010 – The Iron and Steel Technology Conference and
Exposition, Pittsburgh)
3. “That means , in practise, that in USA, the non-recovery technology is the only one,
which is allowed by the US EPA for the new greenfield plants because of the prevailing
negative pressure and consequently prevention of leaks at the ovens” - Environmental
Control and Emission Reduction for Coking Plants
(By: Michael Hein and Manfred Kaiser- DMT GmBH and Co.KG, Coke Making Technology
Division, Essen, Germany)
4. “The non-recovery/heat recovery oven batteries are expanding in Australia, Brazil,
China, Colombia, India and the USA, because they demand smaller investment and they
are less polluting, because of the operation with negative pressure.
(Jorge Medias, Metallon, San Nicolas, Buenos Aires, Argentina and Mariano Cordova-
Independent Consultant, San Nicolas, Buenos Aires, Argentina.) - AISTech 2011
Proceedings, Vol -1)
5. “These non-recovery coke ovens complied with stringent pollution control regulations.
These non-recovery ovens are the heat recovery ovens since they are used not only for
production of coke, but also for generation of power by means of waste heat recovery.
Hence, the heat recovery type of coke ovens is energy efficient and environment friendly”
(Comparison of By-Product coke oven and Heat Recovery Coke Oven – Satyendra; Feb
15, Ispat Digest, Ispat Guru)
16
3 - BASELINE ENVIRONMENT
3.1 Baseline Air Environment as per the EIA appraised for earlier KSL’s Existing EC
The specific station wise recorded ambient air quality (AAQ) values for the monitoring period
(October 2014 - January 2015) are presented in the Table below:
Parameters Code Monitoring Locations Direction
from site
Distance
from site,
km
Air
A1 Ginigera village N 0.7 A2 Hirebagnal village S 2.3 A3 Kunikera village SW 5.7 A4 Tanakanakal village NW 9.3 A5 Guddanahalli village NE 4.6 A6 Budhguppa village NE 8.7 A7 Hosakankapur village E 0.4 A8 Hosaningapur village SE 7.5
Table: Ambient Air Quality in Koppal Study Area:
Station
Code
Location Monitored
values
Max Min Average
A1 GINIGERA VILLAGE
PM10 94.7 70.8 84.2
PM2.5 51.3 37.0 43.8
SO2 11.2 7.4 8.8
NOX 39.2 25.0 33.5
CO (8 hrs) 1650 460 930
O3 (8 hrs) 36.5 <10.0
A2 HIRE BAGHNAL
VILLAGE
PM10 96.8 67.4 84.8
PM2.5 50.2 37.1 43.8
SO2 11.3 7.5 8.6
NOX 40.9 27.2 33.7
CO (8 hrs) 1680 450 948
O3 (8 hrs) 38.5 <10.0
A3 KUNIKERI VILLAGE
PM10 91.4 67.4 80.1
PM2.5 59.8 38.6 46.0
SO2 12.9 7.2 8.5
NOX 42.1 5.0 32.1
CO (8 hrs) 1620 380 860
O3 (8 hrs) 35 <10.0
A4 TANAKANAKAL
VILLAGE
PM10 88.5 58.9 75.0
PM2.5 45.6 32.8 38.8
SO2 8.2 7.1 7.5
NOX 30.0 21.8 24.9
CO (8 hrs) 680 <10.0
O3 (8 hrs) <10.0
A5 GUDDANAHALI
VILLAGE PM10 95.3 72.1 83.9
PM2.5 52.0 38.8 44.7
17
Station
Code
Location Monitored
values
Max Min Average
SO2 8.4 7.2 7.7
NOX 28.3 21.7 24.9
CO (8 hrs) <100.0
O3 (8 hrs) <10.0
A6 BUDHGUPPA VILLAGE
PM10 86.8 60.9 71.9
PM2.5 43.7 27.9 36.1
SO2 7.6 7.1 7.3
NOX 26.7 21.7 23.7
CO (8 hrs) <100.0
O3 (8 hrs) <10.0
A7 HOSA KANKAPUR
VILLAGE
PM10 97.1 68.6 82.7
PM2.5 49.5 41.4 45.1
SO2 12.8 7.2 8.3
NOX 38.2 27.0 31.4
CO (8 hrs) 1680 720 1048
O3 (8 hrs) 38.0 <10.0
A8 HOSA NINGAPUR
VILLAGE
PM10 94.7 67.7 83.8
PM2.5 53.2 39.1 46.9
SO2 10.2 7.9 8.7
NOX 42.6 31.2 36.6
CO (8 hrs) 1420 580 935
O3 (8 hrs) 35.0 <10.0
It may be seen that the average concentration (24 hrs) of PM10 and PM2.5 are in the range of
71.9 - 84.8 mcg/cu m and 36.1 - 46.9 mcg/cu m respectively. The SO2 and NOX values are well
within the permissible values as set by NAAQS.
18
3.2 Post project monitoring data
As KSL has not implemented the said 1.4 MTPA Expansion project, post project monitoring data
is not available.
3.3 KSL’s Existing Plant’s Half Yearly Monitoring Data
As per the Half Yearly (1st Half) Compliance Report of Kalyani Steels Limited, Ginigera Village,
Koppal Taluk & District, Karnataka for April 2018 to September 2018, the baseline data for AAQ
and Noise are presented below:
19
20
3.4 Baseline Soil, Water and Noise as per the EIA appraised for earlier KSL’s Existing EC
The monitoring locations for various parameters are presented below.
Parameters Code Monitoring Locations Direction
from site
Distance from
site, km
Soil S1 Tanakanakal village NW 9.3 S2 Budhguppa village NE 7.8 S3 Ginigera village W 0.5
Surface Water
SW1 Intake point of Tungabhadra SE 8.5 SW2 Tawargera village lake N 9.4 SW3 Kukanapalli village pond NE 9.6 SW4 Kerahalli village lake NE 7.2 SW5 Tungabhadra canal in Agalkera village E 6.7 SW6 Reservoir outlet of Tungabhadra
pipeline
E Within premises SW7 Raw water (intake) process make up E Within premises SW8 Ginigera lake N 1.5
Ground Water
GW1 Ginigera village - Tubewell NW 0.5 GW2 Hirebagnal village - Tubewell S 5.6 GW3 Kunikera village - Borewell SW 5.7 GW4 Tanakanakal village - Tubewell NW 9.3 GW5 Guddanahalli village - Tubewell NE 4.6 GW6 Agalkera village - Tubewell E 7.3 GW7 Hosakankapur village - Borewell E 0.4 GW8 Hosaningapur village - Tubewell SE 7.5
Noise
N1 Hospet Steels Ltd, Main gate N 0.1 N2 Kirloskar Ferrous Industries,
Bevinahalli
E 3.6 N3 Koppal District Hospital W 8.1 N4 Primary School, Kunikera village SW 5.7 N5 Guddanahali village NE 4.6 N6 Hosakankapur village E 0.5 N7 Koppal market area W 9.7 N8 Ginigera Market NW 0.5
21
The soil monitoring data for the period October 2014 - January 2015 is presented below:
Table: Soil Quality in Koppal Study Area
The soil in the study area is slightly blackish in colour and clayey in texture. The soil is also
slightly basic in nature & rich in calcium. The fertility of soil is average due to low moisture
content and mediocre concentrations of nitrogen, potassium and organic carbon. Iron content
varies from 980 mg/kg to 1,280 mg/kg. The concentration of other heavy metals is well below
the acceptable range.
Key Parameters
Tanakanakal
village(S1)
Budugumpa
village (S2) Project site (S3)
Physical:
Colour Slightly Blackish Slightly Blackish Slightly Blackish
pH (1:2) 7.72 7.68 7.6
Alkanity/Acidity Slightly Basic Slightly Basic Slightly Basic
Soil Texture Clay Clay Clay
Sand (%) 20 30 30
Silt (%) 20 25 20
Clay (%) 60 45 50
Hydraulic conductivity (cm/sec.) 1.65 x 10-3 1.60 x 10-3 1.56 x 10-3
Bulk Density (gm/cc) 1.36 1.3 1.26
Moisture (%) 25 18 12
Porosity (%) 56 46 48
Infiltration rate(cm/hrs) 0.26 0.23 0.2
Chemical:
Available N2 (mg/kg) 280 236 180
Available P2O5 (mg/kg) 120 90 42
Available K2O (mg/kg) 750 620 480
Chloride (mg/kg) 712 820 925
Sulphate (mg/kg) 112 83 210
Sodium absorption ratio (SAR) 4.71 5.7 6.18
Available Organic Carbon (gm/kg) 3.2 2.5 1.2
Calcium (mg/kg) 3182 2386 2580
Magnesium (mg/kg) 1280 850 950
Iron (mg/kg) 980 1128 1280
Copper (mg/kg) 10.5 9.5 10.8
Lead (mg/kg) <3.0 <3.0 <3.0
Chromium (mg/kg) <0.20 <0.20 <0.20
Microbial Population (No./ gm) 2.8 x 103 3.6 x 103 1.6 x 103
22
Surface Water Quality monitoring data for the period of October 2014- January 2015 is
presented below:
Table: Surface Water Quality in Koppal Study Area
Parameters SW1 SW2 SW3 SW4
Physical
Odour (TON) No Odour No Odour No Odour No Odour
Temperature °C 27 26.7 25.67 25.33
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/l) 128.3 290.7 286.00 281.00
Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) 12.7 12.8 13.90 14.67
Chemical (mg/l)
pH 7.69 7.98 8.04 8.10
Total Hardness 38.00 114.67 101.33 114.00
Dissolved Oxygen 5.93 5.47 5.87 5.93
BOD at 270C for 3 days 5.00 8.33 5.67 5.67
COD 19.53 30.90 22.87 17.83
Oil & Grease <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Salinity (ppt.) Nil Nil Nil Nil
Kjeldahl Nitrogen 4.00 8.83 4.73 6.03
Chloride 19.95 31.44 34.34 39.82
Sulphates as SO4 17.50 25.42 28.33 31.82
Bicarbonate 37.74 100.94 99.96 106.30
Phosphate 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.58
Calcium 10.69 28.85 24.58 26.19
Magnesium 2.72 10.24 9.60 11.68
Sodium 15.00 37.50 41.00 42.33
Manganese <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03
Zinc 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.13
Iron 0.43 0.59 0.93 1.04
Chromium (Total) <0.2081 <0.2081 <0.2081 <0.2081
Chromium (Hexavalent) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Bacteriological (CFU/100ml)
Total Coliform 630.0 913.3 560.00 733.33
Faecal Coli 283.3 450.0 240.00 330.00
23
Table: Surface Water Quality in Koppal Study Area
Parameters SW5 SW6 SW7 SW8
Physical
Odour (TON) No Odour No Odour No Odour No Odour
Temperature °C 25.3 26 26.3 25.67
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/l) 115.3 122 127 210.33
Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) 16.3 12.7 <10 18.53
Chemical (mg/l)
pH 7.79 7.88 8.19 8.08
Total Hardness 52.67 46.67 47.33 54.00
Dissolved Oxygen 5.53 5.93 5.67 5.27
BOD at 270C for 3 days 7.00 4.67 6.33 8.67
COD 27.73 14.63 29.33 32.67
Oil & Grease <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Salinity (ppt.) Nil Nil Nil Nil
Kjeldahl Nitrogen 5.53 3.67 3.57 8.20
Chloride 25.56 24.82 22.29 18.57
Sulphates as SO4 22.33 21.25 22.17 29.08
Bicarbonate 39.20 38.39 35.09 116.39
Phosphate 0.29 0.14 0.16 0.60
Calcium 13.90 12.56 12.29 14.43
Magnesium 4.32 3.68 4.00 3.99
Sodium 13.50 15.50 13.67 36.83
Manganese <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03
Zinc 0.21 0.10 0.18 0.11
Iron 0.88 0.31 0.94 3.23
Chromium (Total) <0.2081 <0.2081 <0.2081 <0.2081
Chromium (Hexavalent) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Bacteriological (CFU/100ml)
Total Coliform 783.3 650.00 576.00 920.00
Faecal Coli 380.0 276.67 253.33 526.67
The total hardness of all surface streams as reported in the aforementioned Tables ranges from
38 - 114.7 mg/l. The average DO level for all surface streams ranges between 5.3 - 5.9 mg/l
whereas average BOD level ranges between 4.7 - 8.7 mg/l. Total coliform count ranges from 560
- 920 CFU/100 ml across various surface water sampling locations. It has been observed that
the Faecal coliform is also on the higher side and hence, not fit for human consumption without
disinfection.
24
Ground Water Quality monitoring data for the period of October 2014- January 2015 is
presented below:
Table: Ground Water Quality in Koppal Study Area
Parameters GW1 GW2 GW3 GW4
Physical
Colour(Hazen) 1 1 1 1
Odour Odourless Odourless Odourless Odourless
Taste Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable
Turbidity (NTU) 1.7 1.8 2.7 2.9
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/l) 689.3 1027.8 2935.8 1567.2
Temperature (°C) 26.2 26.7 26.7 26.7
Chemical (mg/l)
pH 7.22 7.36 6.71 7.26
Alkalinity 248.4 426.3 510.5 287.0
Total Hardness 210.7 314.7 1506.7 716.7
Residual Chlorine <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Nitrate 4.60 5.83 6.50 6.70
Fluoride <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Phenol <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Total Nitrogen 5.9 7.2 18.2 7.9
Boron <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Chloride 48.50 96.15 897.72 301.50
Sulphate 120.08 89.50 169.67 111.08
Bicarbonate 303.0 520.0 622.9 350.1
Cyanide <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Calcium 61.42 49.70 302.97 200.40
Magnesium 13.76 45.76 136.48 52.00
Manganese 0.07 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03
Zinc 0.76 0.24 0.06 5.58
Aluminium <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006
Iron 0.43 0.60 0.26 0.92
Chromium (Hexavalent) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Copper <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Mercury <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Cadmium <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Sodium 103.00 158.00 290.00 54.00
Arsenic <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Lead <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03
Bacteriological (CFU/100ml)
Total Coliform nil nil nil nil
Faecal Coliform nil nil nil nil
25
Table: Ground Water Quality in Koppal Study Area
Parameters GW5 GW6 GW7 GW8
Physical
Colour(Hazen) 1 1 1 1
Odour Odourless Odourless Odourless Odourless
Taste Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable
Turbidity (NTU) 6.6 1.7 2.7 5.1
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/l) 1402.2 896.3 1359.5 758.2
Temperature (°C) 26.7 27.0 26.7 26.8
Chemical (mg/l)
pH 6.90 7.28 7.24 6.81
Alkalinity 319.0 311.7 409.5 181.2
Total Hardness 686.7 390.0 526.7 230.7
Residual Chlorine <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Nitrate 8.77 6.10 6.50 5.37
Fluoride <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Phenol <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Total Nitrogen 10.5 7.5 21.0 6.9
Boron <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Chloride 301.14 136.60 302.75 146.88
Sulphate 116.00 77.25 90.83 122.00
Bicarbonate 389.2 380.3 499.6 181.2
Cyanide <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Calcium 209.75 81.76 82.56 82.83
Magnesium 39.20 44.64 76.96 12.16
Manganese 0.11 <0.03 <0.03 0.10
Zinc 1.91 1.47 0.06 1.90
Aluminium <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006
Iron 1.52 0.74 0.30 1.73
Chromium (Hexavalent) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Copper <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Mercury <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Cadmium <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Sodium 81.67 92.33 183.33 101.67
Arsenic <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Lead <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03
Bacteriological (CFU/100ml)
Total Coliform nil nil nil nil
Faecal Coliform nil nil nil nil
The total hardness (TH) and total dissolved solids (TDS) content in ground water were found to
be in the range 210 - 1,506 mg/l and 689 - 2,936 mg/l respectively at the selected locations as
against the allowable standards of 300 mg/l for TH and
500 mg/l for TDS. Chromium, lead, arsenic and other heavy metals are found to be below
detection limit (bdl).
26
The recorded Noise level for the period October 2014 - January 2015 is given below:
Table - Recorded Noise Level in Koppal Study Area
Recorded Values (Leq)
Sampling Station
Day Time
Night Time
dB (A) dB (A)
Industrial Area:
Hospet Steels Limited, Main gate 68 61
Kirloskar Ferrous Industries, Bevanalli village. 67 61
Residential Area:
Guddanahali village 52 44
Hosa Kankarpur village 57 46
Commercial Area:
Koppal Market area 64 57
Ginigera Market 62 47
Silence zone:
Koppal District Hospital 61 51
Primary school, Kunikeri village 54 46
In the industrial areas noise level were recorded to be about 68 dB (A) during day time and 61
dB (A) during night as against the Regulatory standard of 75 dB (A) and 70 B (A) respectively.
On the other hand, in the residential areas like Guddanahali & Hosa Kankarpur villages, the day
time Leq were recorded in between 52-57 dB(A) and night time Leq around 46 dB(A) as against
allowable limit of 55 dB(A) and 45 dB(A) respectively. The daytime Leq for sensitive areas like
Koppal District Hospital & Primary school, Kunikeri village was recorded to be between 54-61
dB(A) and 46-51 dB(A) during night, however regulatory stipulations being
50 dB(A) and 40 dB(A) respectively. Thus, both for residential and sensitive areas, both day
time and night time Leq have been recorded to be above the stipulations
27
3.5 Recent baseline data from M/s Mukand Ltd2 (Generated for period Apr
2016 - June 2016)
The ambient air quality (AAQ) data for the following eight (8) stations for the Monitoring period
1st April – 30th June 2016 as submitted by M/s Mukand Ltd. is present in table 1 & 2 below:
Sample ID Name of the location Distance & Direction Latitude & Longitude
AAQ1 Project Site - 15°20'7.01"N, 76°15'22.58"E
AAQ2 Kanakapur 0.92 km, NNE 15°20'4.24"N, 76°15'38.62"E
AAQ3 Ginigera 2.80 km, NNW 15°21'4.87"N, 76°14'56.70"E
AAQ4 Bevinhalli 3.97 km, ENE 15°20'0.16"N, 76°17'25.36"E
AAQ5 Agalkera 7.30 km, ENE 15°20'19.30"N, 76°19'41.58"E
AAQ6 Halwarti 5.29 km, WSW 15°19'19.21"N, 76°12'36.04"E
AAQ7 Hirekhasankandi 3.75 km, SSE 15°17'58.35"N, 76°16'12.03"E
AAQ8 Allanagar 1.59 km, WSW 15°19'33.93"N, 76°14'44.38"E
2 Ref. link: http://environmentclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/EIA/23062018F4O8I4KSAnnexure-EIAEMPdocuments.pdf
28
29
Table: Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Results (24-hour average)
30
Table: Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Results
31
The Ambient Noise Quality is presented below:
32
The ground & surface water quality for the following stations are presented below:
33
Table: Surface Water Quality Monitoring Results
34
The total hardness of all surface streams as reported in the aforementioned Tables
ranges from 40 - 112 mg/l. The average BOD level ranges between 6 - 8 mg/l. Total coliform
count ranges from 79 - 140 MPN/100 ml across various surface water sampling locations. It has
been observed that the Faecal coliform is alsoon the higher side and hence, not fit for
human consumption without disinfection.
35
Table: Ground Water Quality Monitoring Results
36
Ground water was found to be fit for human consumption only after adequate treatment. The
Total Hardness were found to be in the range of 212 to 690 mg/L at he select locations as
against the allowable standard of 600 mg/L.
37
The Soil monitoring for the following stations are presented below:
It is observed from the analysis report that taxonomically soils are mostly sandy loam.
pH ranges from 7.5 to 7.70, which means soils are moderately alkaline in nature. Organic carbon
ranges from 1.2 to 3.2mg/kg. Total Kjelhahl nitrogen ranges from 189 to 282 mg/kg.
38
4 - IMPACT ASSESSMENT
4.1 Results of impact assessment made with respect to Air Environment in the
EIA as per Existing EC
Air dispersion modeling using BREEZE ISC Suite (ISC-ST3) was done to predict the ground level
concentrations (glcs) of respirable suspended particulate matters of size below 10 microns
(PM10), SO2 and NOx respectively, from the emission figures, the site recorded meteorological
recordings and the relative disposition of stacks. The glcs have been interpreted and the relative
impacts for setting up the brown field project have been assessed for various locations in the
study area and presented below.
Table 4-3 - Predicted pollution level of ambient air during Operational stage (24 hrs
average)
Zone outside the
Plant boundary
Pre-project
status
(Baseline)
Predicted
Post-project status
mcg/cu m mcg/cu m ● Up to 2 km PM10 82.7-84.2 88.7-93.2 SO2 8.3-8.8 9.3-11.3 NOx 31.4-33.5 34.4-38.5 ● 2 km to 5 km PM10 83.9-84.8 92.9-96.8 SO2 7.7-8.6 9.2-10.6 NOx 24.9-33.7 28.9-38.7 ● beyond 5 km PM10 71.9-83.8 77.9-86.8 SO2 7.3-8.7 8.3-10.2 NOx 23.7-36.6 26.7-37.6
From the above Table, it appears that though PM10, SO2 and NOx levels in the ambient air during
operation of the plant would rise, but would remain within the allowable limits of PM10, SO2
and NOx of 100 mcg/cu m, 80 mcg/cu m and 80 mcg/cu m respectively as per the latest
Notification on National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by MoEFCC on 16th November
2009.
39
Fig. - Predicted 24-hrly average glcs of PM10 in mcg/cu m for the proposed expansion to
1.4 MTPA capacity of Steel Plant at Koppal during Winter
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
meters
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
mete
rs
40
Fig. - Predicted 24-hrly average glcs of SO2 in mcg/cu m for the proposed expansion to
1.4 MTPA capacity of Steel Plant at Koppal during Winter
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
meters
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
me
ters
41
Fig- Predicted 24-hrly average glcs of NOx in mcg/cu m for the proposed expansion to 1.4
MTPA capacityof Steel Plant at Koppal during Winter
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
meters
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
me
ters
42
4.2 Absolute emissions calculations for Non-recovery Coke Oven with heat
recovery
The stack data for heat recovery type coke oven is as follows:
4.3 Results of impact assessment made with respect to Air Environment
considering recent baseline data from M/s Mukand Ltd3
Air dispersion modeling using BREEZE ISC Suite (ISC-ST3) was done to predict the ground level
concentrations (glcs) of respirable suspended particulate matters of size below 10 microns
(PM10), SO2 and NOx respectively, from the emission figures, the site recorded meteorological
recordings and the relative disposition of stacks for the revised configuration. The glcs have
been interpreted and the relative impacts for setting up the brown field project have been
assessed for various locations in the study area against the recent AAQ data from M/s Mukand Ltd’s EIA report and presented below.
Table 4-4 - Predicted pollution level of ambient air during Operational stage (24 hrs
average)
Zone outside the
Plant boundary
Pre-project
status (Recent
Baseline)
Predicted
Post-project status
(considering recent
Baseline)
mcg/cu m mcg/cu m ● Up to 2 km PM10 80.36-89 85.36-98 SO2 8.2-9.9 9.7-12.9 NOx 28.13-32.99 29.93-37.99 ● 2 km to 5 km PM10 71.7-87.3 74.7-96.3 SO2 7.89-9.67 9.49-12.87 NOx 24.38-32.24 26.18-35.75 ● beyond 5 km PM10 89 91-95 SO2 9.04-9.24 9.94-10.84 NOx 30.79-32.78 32.49-33.58
From the above Table, it appears that though PM10, SO2 and NOx levels in the ambient air
during operation of the plant would rise, but would remain within the allowable limits of PM10,
SO2 and NOx of 100 mcg/cu m, 80 mcg/cu m and 80 mcg/cu m respectively as per the latest
3 Ref. link: http://environmentclearance.nic.in/writereaddata/EIA/23062018F4O8I4KSAnnexure-EIAEMPdocuments.pdf
Sr.
No.
Plant No. of
Stacks
Stack Code Type of
Flue
Height Exit
Temp
Dia Gas Qty Pollution Loading
SPM SO2 NOx
(m) (°C) (m) (Nm3/hr) mg/Nm3 kg/hr mg/Nm3 kg/hr mg/Nm3 kg/hr
1 Coke Oven Heat Recovery 1 COB#1-1 C 70 200 4.16 140,000 20.00 2.80 50.00 7.00 150.00 21.00
1 COB#2-1 C 70 200 4.16 140,000 20.00 2.80 50.00 7.00 150.00 21.00
1 COB#3-1 C 70 200 4.16 140,000 20.00 2.80 50.00 7.00 150.00 21.00
43
Notification on National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by MoEFCC on 16th November
2009.
44
Fig. - Predicted 24-hrly average glcs of PM10 in mcg/cu m for the proposed expansion to
1.4 MTPA capacity of Steel Plant at Koppal for revised configuration
45
Fig. - Predicted 24-hrly average glcs of SO2 in mcg/cu m for the proposed expansion to
1.4 MTPA capacity of Steel Plant at Koppal for revised coonfiguration
46
Fig- Predicted 24-hrly average glcs of NOx in mcg/cu m for the proposed expansion to 1.4
MTPA capacityof Steel Plant at Koppal for revised configuration
47
4.4 Comparison of air dispersion modeling results
The table below presents the comparison between the predictive values of air dispersion
modelling as per existing configuration & revised configuration
Table 4-5 – Comparison of predicted air pollution load (24 hrs average)
Zone outside
the Plant
boundary
Recent
Baseline*
Predicted
Post-project status
(As per Existing EC)
Predicted
Post-project
status
( As per
Proposed
Amendment)
NAAQS
(16th
November
2009)
mcg/cu m mcg/cu m mcg/cu m mcg/cu m
Up to 2 km
PM10 80.36-89 86.36-98 85.36-98 100
SO2 8.2-9.9 9.2-12.1 9.7-12.9 80
NOx 28.13-32.99 31.13-37.99 29.93-37.99 80
2 km to 5 km
PM10 71.7-87.3 80.7-99.3 74.7-96.3 100
SO2 7.89-9.67 9.39-13.67 9.49-12.87 80
NOx 24.38-32.24 28.38-37.24 26.18-35.75 80
beyond 5 km
PM10 89 92-95 91-95 100
SO2 9.04-9.24 9.74-10.04 9.94-10.84 80
NOx 30.79-32.78 31.79-35.78 32.49-33.58 80 *From M/s Mukand Ltd’s EIA report
From the above Table, it appears that PM10, SO2 and NOx levels in the ambient air during
operation of the plant for the existing EC proposal and the revised proposal would remain
within the allowable limits.
4.5 Mitigation measures
4.5.1 By-product Recovery Coke Ovens
There would be HPLA and land based emission control system to capture the fugitive emissions
that would occur during coal charging and coke pushing as envisaged during project conceptual
stage, even then there would be emissions of particulates, volatile organic carbon (VOC) from
door, lids and off-take leakages. Some of the mitigation measures and preventive maintenance
programmes that would enhance reduction of fugitive emission have been outlined below:
Frequent cleaning of goosenecks and the main collecting passages to prevent any
obstruction
Monitoring the pushing force to discover cracks in walls and oxythermic welding of the
cracks and holes
Installation of spring loaded flexible sealing doors has to be explored to minimise door
emissions
Careful cleaning of the door and its frame at each coke push
Exploring use of high pressure water jet door cleaning at intermittent cycles
48
Checking that the coke mass is fully coked to prevent emissions of VOC and combustible
products
Water sealed ascension pipes
Maintenance of proper temperature profile in the ovens
NOx emission would be due to under-firing of coke oven battery using clean coke oven gas. NOx
would be minimised by controlling excess supply of air, stage supply of combustion air and
waste gas recirculation. During coke pushing there would be particulate emissions from the
battery doors, which would be captured by land based fume extraction system with an
integrated hood on coke transfer machine. The extracted fume would pass through fabric filters
to clean particulate dust and the clean gas would be released into the atmosphere by a stack of
adequate height.
The proposed by-product recovery type coke ovens would be provided with on-main charging
with high pressure liquor aspiration (HPLA) for extraction of oven gas. Leak proof oven doors,
hydraulic door and door frame cleaner, water sealed AP caps and charging and pushing side
emission control device would be provided to control the VOC emission. In order to reduce SO2
emission from coke oven gas, the project envisages desulphurization of COG to a level below
500 mg H2S/N cu m.
4.5.2 Heat-Recovery type Coke Ovens
The ovens are operated under negative pressure (-3mm to -5mm wg), hence there are no
fugitive emissions from doors and other openings. In addition, the volatile matter from coal is
completely combusted inside the oven by introduction of primary, secondary & tertiary air. The
following pollution control measures would be adopted for adhering to the existing regulations
and for cleaner operation:
i) Improved heating control system to ensure no leakage of un-burnt hydrocarbons into the atmosphere through stack.
ii) Maintaining improved draught inside oven for ensuring total combustion of gasses before it is let out into the atmosphere after waste heat recovery in the boilers.
iii) Adequate stack height to ensure proper dispersion.
iv) Arrangement of water sprinkling facility in the yard.
v) Installation of dust suppression system for coal handling unit and dust extraction system for coke screening unit.
vi) Installation of Modified Wet Quenching system with grit arrestor and other accessories, to ensure minimum dust emission.
Wet desulphurisation using lime solution has been envisaged for desulphuring flue gas for the
proposed project. In this process, lime solution is sprayed counter current to the flow of flue gas,
after recovery of sensible heat in WHRB. The oxides of sulphur present in the flue gas, react with
the lime to produce gypsum which settles down at the bottom of the desulphurisation tower.
49
5 - ALTERNATIVES OF TECHNOLOGY
5.1 Alternatives in comparison to EIA for coke plant
As per the existing EC, KSL had proposed to install by-product Recovery type coke ovens with
the following configuration:
i) 2 X 45 ovens, 4.3 m tall ii) Stamp charging iii) 0.6 MTPA gross coke capacity iv) CDQ
As explained earlier, KSL proposes change in Coke Oven Configuration as follows:
a. Phase 1: 0.20 MTPA Heat Recovery coke oven with Modified Wet Quenching with 25 MW
WHR Power Plant
b. Phase 2: 0.40 MTPA Heat Recovery coke oven with Modified Wet Quenching with 50 MW
WHR Power Plant
Further, KSL requests for deletion of 1 x 0.5 MTPA DR Plant based on Coke Oven Gas (COG) as
reductant.
The salient features of comparison between two types of ovens are presented in the table below:
Table: Comparison between by-product Recovery vs Heat Recovery Type Coke ovens
The Process Heat Recovery By-product Recovery
Type of Battery Generally Horizontal Vertical ovens available
All Vertical
Coke Quality Good Good
Coke Mean Size 55mm-60mm 45mm-50mm
Coke Yield 72%-74% 74%-76%
Process Coal burnt partially to supply heat for carbonization
Walls are heated separately by in-built burners. Fuel used either coke oven gas/lean gas
Burning loss 1%-2% ~0.5%
Units installed Batteries, Waste Heat boilers, Turbines,
Batteries, By-product plant,
Implementation period
18-24months 36-60 Months
Oven Pressure -3mm to -5mmwg 7mm to 14mmwg
Power generation
Possible to recover waste heat from flue gasses
Possible to generate power from Coke oven gas
Capital Cost Less for similar capacity of by-product type (<0.8 MTPA)
More for similar capacity (<0.8 MTPA)
A review with respect to pollution load for by-product type and heat recovery type coke is
presented in the table below.
50
Heat recovery type By-product recovery type
Air
Fugitive emission
- Leakages from doors, lids, off takes
No leakage since the oven operates under negative pressure and the organic content is completely combusted inside
Yes Emission of dust and PAH (BaP) due to leakages
- Coal charging No Yes
- Coke pushing No Yes
Stack emission
- Under-firing No Emission of PM, SO2 & NOx
- Flue gas from carbonisation
The desulphurized gas after recovery of heat is vented off to the atmosphere. The flue gas would mainly contain CO2 & NOx.
The gas is collected after recovery & desulphurization of by-product and used as fuel and/or to produce power. The flue gases from end users would mainly contain CO2 & NOx and would be vented off through stack at the respective consumer end.
Water
- Wastewater from primary gas cooling
No wastewater stream is generated. There would be generation of wastewater from Modified Wet Quenching coke, which would be treated for removal of suspended solids and recycled back to the system for quenching purpose.
Yes The water used for primary gas cooling mainly contains cyanide & phenol and need to be treated in BOD plant. The treated water from BOD plant would still contain cyanide & phenols, the outlet concentration of which should conform to the Effluent standards laid down in Iron & Steel Notification (GS.R.277(E) dated 31st March,2012)
- Wastewater from equipment cooling
Yes, the wastewater from cooling circuit is treated and reused
Yes, the wastewater from cooling circuit is treated and reused
Solid waste
- Coal tar sludge & BOD sludge
Not generated These sludge are considered hazardous and generally reused by blending with coal feed to the coke ovens leading to accumulation of pollutants like cyanide in the process
The coke pushed out from the oven is around 1050°C to 1100°C. This coke need to be quenched
immediately to prevent combustion of coke. There are two proven processes available for
quenching of hot coke namely Wet Quenching or Dry quenching.
Comparative analysis between Modified Wet Quenching (which is derived from conventional
Wet Quenching) and Dry quenching is presented below.
Items Modified Wet Quenching Dry Quenching
Possible Capacity Possible for all capacities Justifiable above a capacity beyond 0.8 MTPA for obtaining full benefits
of the system
Air Pollution & Baffles for grit arresting required for DE system necessary to control
51
Emission control of particulate emission particulate emission
Water Pollution Effluent containing coke particles needs recycling after settling. The settled particles are removed with
grab bucket.
No for CDQ operation. DM backwash in WHRB which needs
treatment
Water Consumption Around 0.5ton/ton of coke Nil for CDQ operation. Water for WHRB for power generation.
Burning loss of coke Nil 1%-2%
Execution Period Less More
Operating Principal Simple Complex
Coke Moisture 3% min 0.3%max
Coke Handling Normal Heat resistant belt conveyor Requires elaborate arrangement for preventing dust emission of bone
dry coke.
Storage Can be stored even in the open yard. Highly Hygroscopic. Requires bunkers or silos for coke storage
Fire Hazard No major precautions required Precautions required during storage.
Handling of Breeze/dust
Can be handled by grab crane, /pock lain/loader etc.
Dust is transported pneumatically to storage bunker from where it can be transported in covered wagons
after wetting.
Breeze /Dust Handling
Can be loaded in open wagons/truck for transportation.
Fine dust requires special covered carrier for transportation.
Usage of dust/breeze
Coke breeze from Modified Wet Quenching can be used for sinter
making after drying.
Dust has no use inside integrated steel plant and sold externally.
Maintenance requirement
Simple arrangement. Requires simple maintenance like lubrication
and dusting.
Complicated arrangement. Requires thorough maintenance for smooth
operation regularly.
Coke size Lumpy Smaller due to high soaking.
Manpower Requirement
Nil (Total automation) 6-8 Trained Personnel required for (Total automation).
Additional factors for coke production in Heat Recovery coke ovens are as follows:
1. Heat Recovery type ovens offsets the CO2 generation by generating steam and subsequently
power in WHRB, which in turn saves fossil fuel use for generating equivalent power for
conventional Thermal PP.
2. Heat Recovery type coke oven produces larger coke size which results in increasing yield of
hard coke.
In CDQ with Heat Recovery coke oven the run-off-oven coke has to be reduced in size in
order to charge into the CDQ chamber. This size reduction involves another process and
increases generation of under size of coke which is not operationally desired.
3. In HR type coke ovens the coking time is around 50-67 hours whereas in recovery type coke
ovens it is from 19-24 hours. Hence, the pushings are more for recovery type ovens which
results in continuity in steam generation and has an effect in pressure as well as
temperature, whereas for HR ovens, in order to keep the continuity of hot coke charge in the
52
CDQ chamber, the capacity has to be increased beyond 0.8 MTPA for generation of HP
steam.
It may be inferred that heat recovery type coke oven has the following advantages over by-
product recovery type coke ovens:
i. For a production of 0.6 MTPA gross coke, the specific requirement of make-up water for by-product recovery type coke oven is much higher at about 1.9 cum/ton as against 0.72cum/ton of water requirement for heat recovery type
ii. There is no net discharge of waste water as the wastewater generated within the plant is treated and recycled. BOD plant is not required and there would be no cyanide & phenolic effluent generation.
iii. Since non-recovery ovens work under negative pressure, there is no fugitive emission from the ovens during operation.
iv. Organic compounds (VOCs) are fully oxidised during carbonisation, thereby eliminating its release to the atmosphere.
v. Efficient utilisation of energy to produce low cost electrical power reducing sourcing of the same from external sources.
vi. Production of gypsum during desulphurisation, which can be used for various sealing purposes of the oven and may be sold off to cement manufacturers
vii. Reduction of pollution load due to deletion of DRI plant which includes DRI exhaust emission and reduction of pollution load due to raw material and DRI handling in DRI circuit.
Regarding Quenching of hot coke, we wish to submit that CDQ may be considered for minimum
capacity beyond 0.8 MTPA coke production, but in any case there would be some loss of coke
due to burning in air for the purpose of breaking the coke cake into suitable size for charging
into CDQ chamber. It is therefore suggested that for HR type coke ovens, Modified Wet
Quenching (described in 2.3.2 of this document) may be considered as the best possible option.
53
5.2 Alternatives for pollution control equipment etc.
The pollution control measures for heat recovery coke oven are:
a. Improved heating control system to ensure no leakage of un-burnt hydrocarbons into the atmosphere through stack.
b. Maintaining improved draught inside oven for ensuring total combustion of gasses before it is let out into the atmosphere after waste heat recovery in the boilers.
c. Adequate stack height to ensure proper dispersion. d. Arrangement of water sprinkling facility in the yard. e. Installation of dust suppression system for coal handling unit and dust
extraction system for coke screening unit. f. Installation of Modified Wet Quenching system with grit arrestor and other
accessories, to ensure minimum dust emission. g. Desulphurisation of flue gas with lime spray h. Closed conveyors for all material handling conveyors
The above mentioned pollution control equipment/measures are well established for heat
recovery type coke ovens and are standardized internationally. Therefore, alternatives for these
pollution control equipment were not explored further.
As mentioned earlier, there are two options for coke quenching viz. Coke Dry Quenching and
Modified Wet Quenching. The two options are almost similar with respect to pollution potential
with CDQ having the additional benefit of energy recovery from hot coke. However for the
proposed capacity, as shown earlier, Modified Wet Quenching is the techno-economically
feasible option.
54
6 - ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAMME
Environmental Monitoring should be carried out during construction and operation phase of the
project.
6.1 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
Besides on-line monitoring devices fitted with major stacks and effluent discharge, it is
proposed to have continuous monitoring of ambient air quality (AAQ) at four different locations
within the plant area. The pollutants to be monitored would include PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NOx, CO
and O3 as per the MoEF&CC Notification No. GSR 826(E) dated 16th November 2009.
The online stack monitoring devices, continuous AAQ stations and continuous effluent analysis
sensors would be directly connected to the central monitoring system. These permanent AAQ
monitoring locations would be suitably distributed based on coverage factor and exposure to
human settlements. A permanent meteorological station needs to be set up to record dry bulb
temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, wind direction and rainfall. The wind sensor shall
be preferably at 10 m height above the ground without any surrounding hindrances that may
affect free flow of wind.
KSL will monitor ambient air quality with respect to NOx, SO2, Particulate Matter (PM10 and
PM2.5) at around 4-6 locations in and around the project site through a reputed environmental
laboratory recognized by MoEF/NABL. Monitoring will be carried out for a period of 24 hours,
every month during construction phase and quarterly in operation phase.
6.2 Water Quality Monitoring
The water coming out from Modified Wet Quenching process will be taken to the multi-stage
settling pond where the coke particles are allowed to be separated and the clean water from the
decantation chamber is re-cycled with fresh make-up water.
The settled coke particles are taken out by crab bucket, air dried to reduce the moisture content
and then sent to other part of the plant (normally Sinter Plant) for recycling
KSL will monitor this recycled water along with effluent from Guard pond once a month on
parameters such as pH, TSS, TDS, Oil & Grease, Phenolic Compounds, Cynide, Hardness,
Chloride, and Heavy metals (Mercury, Chromium, Arsenic, Nickel, Iron), COD etc.
55
7 - ENVIRONMENTAL COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Following table shows comparison between Heat Recovery and By-Product Recovery Type Coke
oven on Capital Cost, Operating Cost, Power Generation, Water requirement and Carbon
Footprint.
Capital Cost Heat Recovery Type By-Product Recovery Type
Project Cost including Power Plant
Approx. Rs. 750 Cr.
Including
Heat Recovery Coke Ovens
Modified Wet Quenching
WHR PP
Approx. Rs. 850 Cr.
Including
By-product Recovery Coke
Ovens
Coke Dry Quenching
By-product Recovery Plant
CDQ based PP
Operating Cost
(Benchmarked)
Heat Recovery Type By-Product Recovery Type
Capacity Stamp Charged Top Charged Stamp Charged
0.6 MTPA 1.00 1.18 1.19
Production for Heat Recovery Coke Oven is lower than that of By-Product Recovery by ~15-18%
Power Generation Heat Recovery Type By-Product Recovery Type
For 0.6 MTPA Capacity
75 MW ~45 MW (from COG – if it is not used for any other purpose e.g. in DRI)
Water
Requirement
Heat Recovery Type By-Product Recovery Type
For 0.6 MTPA Capacity
49 M3/ Hr (additional 45 M3/ Hr for 75 MW WHR PP)
129 M3/ Hr
Carbon Footprint Heat Recovery Type By-Product Recovery Type
For 0.6 MTPA Capacity
92,258 TPA of CO2 (Considering 69.6 MW WHR PP (75 MW less 5.4 MW CDQ PP) from Flue Gas)
244,263 TPA of CO2 (Considering 45 MW PP from COG)
56
8 - CONCLUSION
Given the details submitted in this document, it may kindly be seen that the proposal for
amendment in configuration of coke ovens from by-product recovery type to heat recovery type
of identical production capacity would be beneficial.
There would also be no generation of wastewater containing toxic components like cyanide and
phenol, which may be considered as a major environmental advantage.
We also wish to submit that the Carbon footprint of the proposed configuration (Heat Recovery
Type Coke Oven with 75 MW WHR PP) is lower than that of By-Product Recovery Type Coke
Oven.
In view of the above, amendment of configuration in the EC dated 19th January, 2016 may
kindly be considered under clause 7 (ii) of EIA Notification 2006 & its subsequent amendments.
