Record Display for the EPA National Library Catalog

RECORD NUMBER: 1 OF 6

OLS Field Name OLS Field Data
Main Title Evaluation of the Technological Feasibility, and Cost of Selected Control Alternatives Necessary to Meet the Proposed Ohio SO2 Regulations for Industrial Boilers and Processes. Volume I. Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, Campbell Works - Coke Oven Gas Desulfurization.
Author Hall, Robert R. ; Stanley, Walter T. ; Sahagian., James ;
CORP Author GCA Corp., Bedford, Mass. GCA Technology Div.;Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, Ill. Air and Hazardous Materials Div.
Year Published 1976
Report Number GCA-TR-76-14-G-Vol-1; EPA-68-01-3155; EPA-905/2-76/005-a;
Stock Number PB-268 954
Additional Subjects Boilers ; Air pollution control ; Coking ; Sulfur dioxide ; Ohio ; Feasibility ; Combustion products ; Industrial wastes ; Regulations ; Oxidation ; Absorption ; Plant location ; Sites ; Design criteria ; Cost analysis ; Capitalized costs ; Operating costs ; Process charting ; Performance evaluation ; Vacuum carbonate process ; Sulfiban process ; Firma Carl Still process ; Diamox process ; Wet methods ; Takahax process ; Holmes-Stretford process
Holdings
Library Call Number Additional Info Location Last
Modified
Checkout
Status
NTIS  PB-268 954 Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy. NTIS 06/23/1988
Collation 47p
Abstract
This report presents an evaluation by the GCA Corporation, GCA/TEchnology Division, of the technological feasibility and cost of complying with the proposed Ohio sulfur dioxide regulation (40 FR 52410, November 10, 1975) at Youngstown Sheet and Tube's Campbell Works. The final USEPA Sulfur Dioxide Strategy for the State of Ohio Technical Support Documents, Vol. I and II, (EPA 905/2-76-002) may be obtained from NTIS. The Campbell Works was an example of a by-product coke oven facility. After collecting necessary site and source specific data by means of a plant visit, the technical feasibility of the vacuum carbonate, Dravo Firma, Carl Still, Sulfiban and Holmes Stretford processes were evaluated. Capital and operating costs are presented for the latter three systems.