RECYCLING OF DUST FROM ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES--A CASE STUDY

E. Radha Krishnan, P.E., and William F. Remner

PEI Associates, Inc.
Cincinnati, Ohio

Dust generated from electric arc furnaces (EAF's) employed in steelmaking plants is currently listed as a hazardous waste because of its toxic
metgllic constituents, i.e., lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), and hexavalent chromium
(Cr 6). Disposal of the waste at controlled landfills is not only expensive,
but also has associated long-term liability concerns. Recycling of pelletized
electric arc furnace (EAF) dust from carbon and low-alloy steel production
was evaluated through a comprehensive, experimental program at a participating
steel plant. Equipment for pelletizing the dust was evaluated, and a
3-foot-diameter disc pelletizer with an 8-inch-diameter pin mixer was
selected for the pilot trials. The experimental design was comprised of
two separate blocks of testing. Block I focused on the effects of recycling
fresh pelletized EAF dust on power consumption and other important variables,
whereas Block I1 focused on conducting a fate analysis of zinc and other
heavy metals under continuous recycling conditions.
The tests demonstrated the feasibility of pelletizing and recycling
EAF dust. Power consumption increased approximately 4 percent during
recycling. No significant change occurred in the tap-to-tap heat time. An
increase in coke consumption was noted during recycling. Because plant
operating conditions precluded the availability of high zinc-bearing scrap
for the Block I1 tests, the zinc content of the dust was almost 50 percent
lower than that in Block I. despite some degree of recycle. The zinc
content of the dust, however, increased from 9 weight percent to 15 weight
percent during the short continuous recycling period. Preliminary economic
.,analyses show that the recycling option may be a favorable one for many
steel plants.
The EAF dust recycling technology is immediately applicable; it requires only specific engineering design for a given steel plant installation and the resolution of specific permitting requirements.

89

pP &-

Introduction
Each year the electric arc steelmaking industry generates approximately 500,000 tons of dusts containing valuable metallic resources such as
iron. zinc, lead, and chr0mium.l These electric arc furnaces (EAF's) are
becoming increasingly popular for the production of carbon and low-alloy
steels and currently account for about 35 percent of total steel production. EAF dust is currently listed as a hazardous waste because of the
leachability of its toxfc constituents, i.e., lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), and
hexavalent chromium (Cr 6 ) . Its EPA-assigned hazardous waste number is
K061. Disposal is becoming costly as disposal sites become more scarce and
remote from the point of origin. Disposal costs (including transportation)
of $100 per ton of dust are quite common. Furthermore, even with current
standards of environmentally acceptable disposal, long-term liability is a
concern. This has led the steelmaking j-dustry to look to other viable
options for handling the dust.
Alternatives to the landfilling option for EAF dust management include
chemical fixation, regional recovery processes, and onsite recycling. The
major shortcomings of the various processes suggested for recovering metallic values from EXF dust have been the high capital cost of the equipment
and the need for large quantities of dust for the processes to be economical. Furthermore, the recovery processes require dusts with zinc contents
greater than 20 percent to be economical. The zinc and lead contents of
EXF dusts from carbon and low-alloy steel production typically range from
10 to 35 percent and 1 to 5 percent, respectively. FAF dust is generally
not amenable to regional recovery processes because it is generated i n
small quantities at a large number of locations, distant from industrial
centers where regional recycling might occur.
Pelletizing and recycling to the furnaces is a logical alternative for
managing EAF dust. The recycling operations should result in the generation of a dust enriched in volatile elements such as zinc and lead; this
blowdown dust stream could be removed for sale to zinc smelters. The main
advantages of the recycling process are its low capital cost, relative
insensitivity to EAF dust composition, and applicability to both mini-mills
and large mills.
An experimental program was designed to obtain data under controlled
conditions for investigation of several critical issues for the commercial
application of recycling: 1) the partitioning (upon recycling) of heavy
metals such as zinc, lead, and cadmium between the slag and the dust generate
2) the effect of recycling on energy consumption; 3) the effect on steel
quality; and 4) the economics of recycling. The tests were conducted at
the Green River Steel EAF shop in Owensboro, Kentucky, during the summer of

1985.

Green River's Owensboro site has two 65-ton electric arc furnaces
rated at 24,000 kVA each (370 kVA/ton). The furnaces produce low-alloy and
specialty carbon steels. Oxygen is injected with hand-held pipes, lime is
injected pneumatically. Three to four charges of scrap are used per heat.
The furnaces are equipped with side-draft hoods, and canopy hoods in the
roof vented to a 14-compartment baghouse that discharges into screw conveyThese conveyors ultimately join into one cross conveyor that disOKS.
charges into a flexible tube. The dust then falls about 6 feet through the
tube into a large sealed rolloff box situated on the ground. After being
filled, this box is hauled to a hazardous waste facility.

90

Evaluation of Pelletizing Equipment

Prior to plant selection, fresh dust was obtained from two operating
EAF shops representing low-alloy medium carbon steels (Plant A) and plain
carbon steels (Plant B).
Manufacturers of pelletizing equipment were
contacted for conducting pelletizing tests. (The agglomerating of EAF dust
with water is often called greenballing. In this paper, however, we
refer to the product as pellets and the process a s pelletizing.) Based on
the bench-scale test results a 3-ft.-diameter disc pelletizer and hopper
with a 8-in.-diameter pin mixer and a 3-ft live bin feeder was selected
for conducting the pilot-plant studies.
Characterization of EAF Dusts
PEI performed Bahco analyses for analyzing partire size distribution
The results showed that the EAF dusis were composed of
fine particles and that approximately 5 0 percent of the dust was below 5
microns.
of two EAF dusts.

The variability of important metallic constituents in the dust is

illustrated in Table I . The EAF dust analysis varies from heat to heat and
during a heat, depending on the materials charged, stage of the heat, and
other factors. Consequently, the recycling technique must be relatively
insensitive to changes in both the chemical and physical characteristics of
the dust.
Pelletizing Operation
The pelletizing process flow diagram for the Green River installation
is illustrated i n Figure 1. The temporary storage hopper, which is completely enclosed, receives the EAF dust from the baghouse. The pelletizing
operations were enclosed in a temporary shelter. The pellets produced were
stored either in cardboard drums or wooden boxes lined with polyethylene,
All the pellets produced were transferred and stored in a covered warehouse
before charging into the furnaces. These arrangements met the necessary
regulatory requirements.
Dust composition appears to be the most important parameter affecting
pellet quality. Fortunately, variations in size ( < 1 / 4 in. to
> 3 / 4 in.) did not affect the efficacy of recycling.
The initial arrangement of the system included the pin mixer, which
was believed to offer the advantage of premixing water with the dust to
start the slaking of the lime in the dust before it entered the pelletizer.
After several trials, however, the pin mixer became clogged with wetted
dust, which hindered the process; therefore the mixer was removed. Even
though the Green River EAF dust varies from 10 to 20 percent lime, the
pellet quality was not noticeably different without the pin mixer.
The moisture content of the pellets was approximately 15 percent.
Pellet strength tests were mostly qualitative. i.e., the pellets were
squeezed by hand. In some cases, however, a flat strip was used to press
the pellets on a scale, and the pellets showed breaking strength of 9 to 10
lb. (green strength). Pellets from the pelletizer a s made were strong
enough to withstand shoveling and/or dropping into the container. After
aging for 24 hours, the pellets increased in strength. Tests on three
different batches (of different sizes) showed a crush strength of 1 8

91

to 25 lb. The same batches showed a crush strength of 35 to >80 1b after

48 hours of aging. The strength of the pellets was adequate for conveying
and charging to the furnaces.
Recycling Operation
Transportation of pellets to the furnace and the timing of their
charging are important for a successful recycling program. Preferably, the
pellets should be charged into the furnace through the use of a separate
box or skip pan. They should be charged while a slag layer I s present on
the molten metal from the meltdown of scrap charged earlier. This facilitates quick assimilation of the pellets into the bath and reduces flash off
as dust. The scrap backcharge can take place immediately after the pellets
are charged. Another variation in charging consists of "sandwiching" the
pellets between the scrap in the charging bucket.
At Green River, the recycling operation involved moving the
crated pellets by a forklift to a warehouse area and then to the
floor, where they were dumped into a skip pan. The skip pan was
and emptied into the furnace by crane. The pellets were charged
the second charge of scrap (first backcharge).

drummed or
melt shop
weighed
prior to

Results
Results of pellet recycling were analyzed by comparison with collected
baseline data to determine the effects on heat time, power consumption,
yield, steel quality, carbon and electrode consumption, and lime and ferroalloy consumption.
The tests were conducted in two blocks. The main objective of the
Block I tests was to determine the effect of recycling fresh once-through
pellets on power consumption and other furnace variables, whereas the
primary objective of the Block I1 tests was to determine the fate of heavy
metals under continuous recycling conditions. Table I1 summarizes the data
for the heats with pellet charging In Blocks I and 11. Because the shop
operation was not continuous during the experiments, some heats were made
after the furnace had sat idle for an entire turn, whereas others were made
Immediately after the previous heat. This situation affects apparent power
use in kWh/ton and heat time regardless of pellet use. The heats are
therefore divlded into these two categories ("first heat", i.e., cold
furnace versus "not first heat", i.e., continuous operation), for more
accurate analysis. Table I11 summarizes similar data for baseline heats,
i.e., heats without pellet charging. The data for these heats were largely
obtained from the plant's heat log sheets.
During the Block I test period, both furnaces operated 16 hours per
day. During the night turn, the furnace roof was kept open and the furnaces
were allowed to cool down. The data collected during the Block I and Block
I1 tests include a variety of heats representing the normal product mix.

The Block I1 tests were limited to 4 days of continuous recycling

because of the plant operating schedule. The duration of the Block I1
tests was not long enough to determine blowdown dust requirements. During
the Block I1 test period, pellets were made directly from the baghouse
catch and recycled to the furnace. Two furnaces operated 16 hours per day
during this period. Slag and dust samples were collected to evaluate the
fate of zinc. Table IV presents the EAF dust analysis for the Block I and
Block I1 tests.

92

The composition of the dust generated was fairly consistent during

Block I due to the intermittent nature of these tests. In the Block I
tests, the zinc content of the dust generated varied between 20 and 28
percent based on composite samples.
A long shutdown occurred at the plant prior to the Block I1 experiments. Because of Uncertain business conditions, inventory was reduced by
consuming all available scrap in the plant during the Block I1 tests without regard for a balanced scrap mix. The zinc content of this cleanup
scrap was significantly lower than that of the scrap usually used. No
high-zinc scrap was observed during the Block I1 testing; consequently, the
zinc content of the recycled dust was lower than that previously observed
in Block I despite the recycling. An increase in the zinc content of the
dust from 9 weight percent to approximately 15 weight percent, however, was
observed during the continuous recycling period. No concomitant increase,
however, was observed for the other volatile metals (e.g., Pb. Cd) in the
dust. This is probably due to the very low levels of Pb and Cd in the
Green River EAF dust. The zinc and lead content of the slag was less than
0.01 percent in all samples for both the Block I and Block I1 tests.
Results of pellet charging on heat time are inconclusive. Heats with
pellets on a cold furnace took longer while heats with pellets during
continuous operation were shorter. In neither case, however, are these
differences statistically significant.
Power consumption for heats on a cold furnace was about ten percent
higher than during continuous operation whether pellets were used or not.
The use of pellets caused an increase in power use of about 4 percent; this
was consistent for both cold furnace heats and continuous operation but the
test of statistical significance is conclusive only for continuous operation. This increase in power consumption is consistent with results reported in previous research.2
Average total yield for the heats to which pellets were added was not
significantly different than that for the baseline heats (no pellets added).
It should be noted, however, that several factors other than pellet addition
affect yield.
To assess the effect of recycling on steel quality, the plant kept a
special vigil and followed all the heats charged with pellets from the
ingot stage through finishing. Recycling had no deleterious effects on the
steel quality. This is based on the results of extensive quality control
tests conducted by the plant to determine hardness, internal cleanliness,
and content of residual metals in the steel.

Because the plant operators were concerned about carbon loss with
pellets, they compensated for this by making carbon additions exceeding the
theoretical requirements for the pellet recycling trials. Coke consumption
during continuous operation was about 33 percent (260 lbs) higher for heats
with pellet charging although the difference does not meet the test of
statistical significance (at 5 percent level). A large portion of this
additional carbon was recovered in the bath. Electrode consumption data
were collected for the period when pellets were used in the Block I experiments and compared with the electrode consumption of the previous month.
Electrode consumption increased slightly during pellet recycling (by about
0.26 lb/net ton of steel produced).

93

In the Green River operations, pea size lime is blown into the furnace
pneumatically near the top of the furnace, above the bath line. An average
of 1.2 lb of extra lime was consumed per ton of steel produced. Comparison
of ferroalloy consumption data did not indicate any significant differences
between heats with and without pellets after adjusting for differences in
aim specifications. Observations did not reveal any noticeable change in
dust or slag generation rates due to the addition of pellets.
Economics
Table V presents the capital and annualized costs developed for three
hypothetical EAF units of different sizes. Dust generation rates for the
small, medium, and large plants were postulated to be 1,000, 3,000, and
9,000 tons per year, respectively. The economic analyses presented herein
are preliminary in nature, and must be refined for each specific plant
site. When compared to landfilling costs of $100/ton dust, the economic
analysis indicates recycling to be attractive, especially for larger plants.
Conclusions
This research has proved the concept of pelletizing EAF dust with
water only and recycling it to the furnace. The following original objectives underlying PEI's philosophy for EAF dust management have largely been
met:

'

Use of a simple process design

Use of existing, proven, low-cost equipment
Use of EAF dust only, with no additives other than water

Use of

process with no residual pollution streams

Use of a process with a high turndown ratio and capable of

processing widely varying dust compositions
References
1.

Center for Metals Production, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Electric Arc

Furnace Dust Disposal, Recycle and Recovery. Report No. 85-2.
Project No. RP-2570-1-2. (1985).

2.

J. D. Lynn. Electric Furnace Fume Greenball Recycling--A Technical

and Economic Evaluation. Presented at the Symposium on Iron and Steel
Pollution Abatement Technology for 1983, Chicago, Illinois. (October
18-20, 1983).

..
.

94

Table I. Elemental concentrations in electric

arc furnace dusts (wt. percent)
Steel plant
~

Element

Caa

9.17

Fea
Znb

16.7

32.1

32.9

28.2

26.9

20.9

20.6

12.9

Pbb
a

2.24

3.18

2.81

3.85

14.71

5.08

Analyzed by ASTM Reference Method 3682.

Analyzed by ASTM Reference Method 3683.

95

0.83

Comparison of data for heats with pellet charging in Blocks I and 11.

Table 11.

TOTAL OBSKRVATIONS:

14

TAPTAP
N OF CASES
MINIMU4
MAXIWIM

MBAN
STANDARD DBV

TOTAL OBSERVATIONS:

N OF CASES
MINIMU4
MAXIMlEl

MEAN
STANDARD DBV

-ED

RRS

?MI/"

14
4.830
9.670
7.319
1.217

14
536.950
670.740
616.919
40.442

TOTYIELD

NETYIELD

OPBNCRBN

14
85.550
93.800
89.909
2.752

14
79.500
93.600
86.693
3.734

14
0.070
0.471
0.270
0.120

14
0.150

NETYIBLD

OF'KNCRBN

FNAURBN

APAURBN

0.480
0.352
0.113

CoRBClwd
LBS
14
0.
3200.000
1132.143
799.425

PLLTcBllG
LBS
14
91o.oO0
2180.000
1129.286
322 .OW

24

TAPTAP
RRS

N"

24
4.500
8.000
5.872
0.953

24
493.830
672.500
560.903
37.725

PURUSW

x
24
82.500
98.900
91.231
3.656

24
65.500
93.900
85.788
5.494

Variable names are as follows:

TAPTAP = Tap-to-tap heat time (in hours).
PWRUSEO = Power used (in kilowatt-hours/ton),
TOTYIELD = Yield of steel as tappped as percentage of total metallic charge
including scrap, ferroalloys, and pellets.
NETYIELD = Yield of prime steel as poured (in percentage).
GPENCRBN = Opening carbon in bath (in percent).
FNALCRBN = Ftnal tap carbon in bath (in percent).
CGKECHRG = Coke charged (in pounds).
PLLTCHRG * Pellets charaed (in oounds).

24
0.050
0.860
0.349
0.203

24
0.160
0.470
0.338
0.112

CoHlcIlRO

LBS
24

1oo.oO0
2000.000
1050.000
521.703

PLLTCmG
LBS
24
100.000
2155.000
1083.542
328.019

Table 111.

TAPTAI'

N OF CASES
MINIMUM
CUXIERM
MEAN

STANDARD DBV

WTAL OBSRRVATIONS:

Comparisons of dqta for baseline heats.

PWRUSBD

HRS

IwH/"

28
4.670
9.083
6.777
1.211

483.220
766.090
592.898
74.942

28

T0TYIBI.D

NEMIBLD

OPBNCRBN

28
03.400
97.100
90.118
3.438

28
73.000

ToTllIBLD

FNALCRBN
%

4.799

27
0.060
1.170
0.348
0.295

27
0.110
1.070
0.381
0.271

NBTYIBLD

OPBWCRBN

FNNCRBN

96.600

87.172

coI(BcHRG

LBS
28
0.
2500.000
1078.57 1
654.532

BRS
W OF CbSBS
MINIMIM
I(AxIMIw
HEAN

STANDARD DBV

36
4.083
9.250
6.093
1.204

PWRVSBD

IR1L?/m
35
466.440
634.440
540.882
37.959

35
85.000
96.600
91.180
2.712

35

35

71.000
95.600
87.397
4.290

0.090
1.040
0.336
0.257

35
0.100
1.060
0.350
0.203

co1[BcIIRD

LBS

28

0.
0.
0.
0.

PLLTCERG
LES

35
0.
2300. 000
788.571
546.447

V a r i a b l e names are as follows:

PWRUSEO
TDTYIELD

LBS

35

TAPTAP

TAPTAP

PLLTCmG

--

= Tap-to-tap heat time ( i n hours).

Power used ( i n k i l o w a t t - h o u r s l t o n ) ,
Y i e l d of s t e e l as tappped a5 percentage of total m e t a l l i c charge
i n c l u d i n g scrap, f e r r o a l l o y s . and p e l l e t s .
NETYIELD = Y i e l d o f prime s t e e l as poured ( i n percentage).
OPENCRBN = Opening carbon i n bath ( i n percent).
FtlALCRBN = Flr.al t a p carbon In b a t h ( i n percent).
COKECHRG
Coke charged ( i n pounds).
PLLTCHRG P e l l e t s charged ( i n pounds).

--

I.

0.
0.
0.
0.

Table IV.

balysis of EAF dust generated in Block I and Block I1

experiments. (wt. percent)
Date (1985)
6/12

712

8/26

8/27

Block I

Constituents

Range of
daily
composite
averages

8/28

8/29

Block I1

Arithmetic
mean

Daily composite averages

Phosphorus

NDa

ND'

0.03

0.03

0.04

0.02

Sulfur

0.44-1.00

0.57

0.50

0.47

0.63

0.48

Cadmium

0.01-0.02

0.02

0.01

0.02

0.02

0.02

Calcium oxide

13.4-17.5

Chromium (+3)

0.23-1.80

0.53

0.58

0.44

0.57

0.62

Chromium (+6)

NDa

N D ~

0.00

0.006

0.003

0.002

Copper

0.07-0.10

0.09

0.09

0.08

0.13

0.10

Iron

16.7-21.1

Lead

0.47-0.70

0.66

0.66

0.58

0.65

0.65

Magnesium

1.76-2.02

1.88

3.63

2.29

2.64

2.77

Manganese

2.60-3.30

3.10

5.0

3.5

4.5

4.4

Molybdenum

0.05-0.80

0.35

0.14

0.16

0.37

0.33

Nickel

0.12-0.17

0.14

0.29

0.24

0.27

0.27

Potassium

0.70-1.00

0.80

1.0

1.0

1.2

1.1

Silica (SiO,)

1.50-3.20

2.00

3.1

2.8

3.0

3.1

Sodium

0.50-0.60

0.58

0.5

0.5

0.7

0.7

<0.01

co.01

<0.01

co.01

c0.01

12.4

12.3

14.7

Vanadium
Zinc

CO.01

20.1-27.9

19.0

15.3

18.3

24.4

24.8

9.0

a Not detected.

98

. . . - ,. .. ,

. ,.

. I C * ,

15.1

21.2

18.1

26.7

16.1

28.5

Table V .

Capital and annualized costs f o r selected EAF recycling units.

Costs per Operating unit,

Medium

Fixed capital costs

130.000
19.500

200.000

33,280

0
33,28G

0
66.560

2.000

6.000
75c

38,OOC

13.000
3,000

20,000
9,000

22,500

41,700

64,220

2.100

3.900

6.000

8,400

17.370

14.000

28,950

Total capital

Manufacturing costs

Raw material

CLW labor (includes

onsite supervision &
clerical)
(2060 hlylperson @ 16/h
burdened)

1I

Uti 1 i t ies
Electricity
Uater
06M supplies (10: of FCl)
Lab charges (Illton)
T o t a l Manufacturing costs

25C

7.000

.___

-1 . m

2.25G

43.500

Fixed charges
Equipment payments
(5 yr loan @ 14'1)
includes working capital
Local taxes 1 insurance
(3% of FCl)

Office Management
and Administration

HOm

(2% of mfg. costs)

Other
-

Credit for sale of high

Freight

10.000
85.500

Total Annualized Cost

Unit Cost for Dust
processed, Siton

i
85.50

99

90.000

232.500

41.33

30.000
124.000

25.83

BAGHOUSE

FLEXIBLE
TUBE

.......................
TEMPORARY SHELTER

I
I

EX IST I NG
ROLLOFF
BOX

Figure 1.

Dust pelletizing process f l o w schematic for Green River Steel installation.