-------
The secondary metal industry 75 years ago consisted of a group of in-
dependent scrap dealers who gathered and sold scrap to a variety of mar-
kets. Some of these dealers remelted their scrap to increase their pro-
fits. However, the demand for a higher grade of product gave the industry
impetus to improve its technology. It was not until World War I and copper
shortages that the use of large quantities of secondary metals gained gen-
eral acceptance. This resulted in rapid growth in the industry and during
World War II growth was boosted once again.3
Since the middle 1960's, secondary copper production has been very
cyclical. It is a volatile industry, easily influenced by national eco-
nomic recessions. Because of this, it is difficult to forecast more than 1
or 2 years into the future. Quantitative information on production is pro-
vided in the next section.
Secondary copper foundries were not included in the study for one rea-
son: they do not refine copper scrap, but carry out only melting and cast-
ing operations. Their scrap charge consists predominantly of No. 1 and
No. 2 copper scrap, which are the highest two grades. Alloying industries
will add a particular metal during the melting operation to make a copper
alloy. Emissions from these industries are considerably lower than emis-
sions from the secondary copper smelting and refining industry, and emis-
sion control problems are 'not as difficult to deal with. This is because
they only perform melting and casting operations. The number of secondary
copper foundries was not determined, but some emissions data are available.
4.2 INDUSTRY PRODUCTION
In this section, secondary copper production is discussed, and the
future demand is projected. Current and past market conditions are also
discussed and an estimation of industry expansion is made.
4.2.1 Secondary Refined Copper Production
Secondary copper production in 1979 is estimated by MRI to be 323,000
Mg (356,000 tons) based upon a telephone survey of the indstry. Precise
production data for the past are unavailable. The statistical series from
the Copper Development Association (CDA) does not distinguish primary from
secondary production and the Bureau of Mines classifies the industries in a
different way from that used in this study. The CDA statistics on copper
recovery from scrap list the copper content smelted from scrap and refined
from scrap and the copper content of scrap which is consumed directly in
brass mills and other industries. The total production of smelted and re-
fined copper from scrap consists of four parts: (a) smelted at primary
plants, (b) smelted at secondary plants, (c) refined at primary plants, and
(d) refined at secondary plants. The secondary copper industry as defined
here consists of b and d.
To establish the trend of secondary copper production since 1966, the
production of refined copper from scrap was used as a surrogate. This figure
from the CDA statistical series4 equals b+c+d, because the CDA production
11
-------
figure for copper smelted from scrap consists only of production from pri-
mary smelters (a) while the total production equals a+b+c+d. Thus the pro-
duction statistics in this section are overstated by an amount equal to c.
The magnitude of c is unknown but is small enough for the use of b+c+d as a
surrogate for b+d to be valid. A comparison of the industry survey with
CDA and Bureau of Mines statistics5'6 shows that as a percent of total pro-
duction of smelted and refined copper from scrap (a+b+c+d), b+d is more than
80 percent in 1979 while b+c+d is never more than 87 percent in the 1966 to
1978 period.
The estimated production of the secondary copper industry for 1966-1979
with a projection to 1989 is shown in Figure 4-1. By the reasoning above,
the historical series should be accurate to within + 10 percent.
4.2.2 Projection of Secondary Refined Copper Production
The projection of secondary refined copper production was based on a
regression on time, the total consumption of copper in the United States,4
and the index of durable manufactures.7 The index of durable manufactures
represents the demand for copper, 85 percent of which was consumed in build-
ing and construction, transportation, industrial machinery and equipment,
or electrical and electronic products in 1978.4 Total copper consumption
was used as a quantitative indicator of the supply of copper scrap, since
the source of scrap is copper which was consumed in the past. The new cop-
per scrap, in fact, comes immediately from the copper-using industries. On
the other hand, there is usually a considerable time lag between copper con-
sumption and its recovery as old scrap. The data base for the projection
is shown in Table 4-2. A trilinear regression of secondary copper produc-
tion on the year, the index of durable manufactures^ and the total U.S. cop-
per consumption yeilded the equation:
S = 14.732.4 - 7.48049 y + 0.0421744 c + 2.03111 m
where S is the secondary copper production in thousand short tons, y is
the year (1966 to 1978), c is the total U.S. copper consumption in thousand
short tons, and m is the Federal Reserve Board index of durable manufactures
(1967 = 100). The index of determination, R2, is 0.42, so the independent
variables "explain" 42 percent of the variation in secondary copper produc-
tion. This shows only a moderate degree of correlation between the vari-
ables, and it means that estimates based on them are of "ballpark" preci-
sion.
Five projections of secondary copper production were calculated from
the regression equation, using a forecast of the index of durable manufac-
tures and five forecasts of total copper consumption.
The 1979 and 1980 forecasts of the index of durable manufactures are
the Predicasts'Composite Forecasts:8 146 in 1979 and 142 in 1980. The Pre-
dicasts annual growth rate for 1976 to 1990 (4.3 percent) was used to pro-
ject the index through 1989. The projected 1989 value is 207. The index
is presented in Figure 4-2.
12
-------
o
CS
CO
o
CO
LU
o
•o
CN
Q
Z
LU
O
a.
3
in
O
U
i.
0)
Q-
Q_
O
U
a
o
o
u_
"D
a
O
0)
i»
CQ
C
O
-o
ID
C
O
tL
D
i/)
O
U
u.
0)
Q.
Q-
O
U
o
V)
D
U
o
u_
U
c
o
O
QQ
CQ
en
-t->
O)
co
S- •
Q.
Q.
O
O
o
o
(D
CO
a>
M-
o
o
•a
o
«*r "d
O)
o
(D
C
DV
o -i-
s- c
Q. T-
4-
-a a)
E S-
(O
-a
4-> C
CO (O
ns
Q_
•=1-
d)
o
o
IO
o
o
o
o
CO
O
o
_J
O
in
CO
oo
o
CN
CN
puosnouji) uoi.pnpo.ij
13
-------
TABLE 4-2. DATA BASE FOR SECONDARY COPPER GROWTH PROJECTION4'8
Total U.S.
copper
consumption
Year .
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Gigagrams
3053.9
2581.8
2555.0
2892.1
2671. 9
2693.1
2976.1
3177.7
2873.1
2059.0
2611. 0
2832. 9
3115.2
Thousand
tons
3366.3
2852.6
2816.4
3188.0
2945.3
2968.6
3280.6
3502.8
3167.0
2269.7
2828.1
3122.7
3433.9
Index of durable
manufactures
1967=100
99
100
106
110
102
102
114
127
126
109
122
130
140
Secondary
copper
production
Gigagrams
324.5
292.9
287.4
358.2
361.7
276.1
286.9
332.3
366.9
255.9
272.3
274.9
340.2
1 nousand
tons
357.7
322.9
316.8
394.8
398.7
304.3
316.3
366.3
404.4
282.1
300.2
303.0
375.0
14
-------
o
o
Os
o
00
CO
S-
o
03
-------
The five forecasts of total U.S. copper consumption are presented in
Table 4-3. The series labeled "Bureau of Mines and ITA" is based on 1979
and 1983 forecasts from the U.S. Bureau of Mines and the Industry and Trade
Administration.9 These forecasts were extended to the other years as fol-
lows. The consumption in 1980 is assumed to equal the 1979 consumption be-
cause of the present state of the economy. The average annual growth rate
which is necessary to reach 3,447 Gg (3,800,000 short tons) in 1983 from
3,175 fig (3,500,000 short tons) in 1980 is 2.8 percent. This 2.8 percent
rate was used to forecast consumption in 1981 and 1982 and to extrapolate
the forecast to 1989.
The other four forecasts are from the exercise of a detailed model of
the world copper industry constructed by Charles River Associates (CRA).10
CRA forecast prices, production and consumption of copper through 1985 under
four scenarios involving each combination of rapid or moderate growth rates
for the world economy and rational disposition or rapid disposition (blow-
out) of the present world copper stocks. The rapid growth scenario assumes
the 4 percent economic growth which is forecast by most macroeconomic fore-
casting services and models. This moderate growth scenario assumes a 3 per-
cent economic growth, "which appears more consistent with recent economic
experience."16
Copper production generally exceeded demand in the mid-1970's. Con-
sequently there is a large overhang of refined copper stocks, approximately
1.3 Tg (1.4 million short tons) of excess copper stocks in the world at the
end of 1977.10 This is approximately 20 percent of annual world production.
The rational stock disposal assumption is that holders of stocks will dis-
pose of them in a manner which will maximize their rate of return. Realis-
tically, deviatians from this pattern of stock disposal would occur because
of imperfections in the ability of stockholders to predict future price
movements and the price responses to different rates of stock disposal.
Also the holders of the stocks may have other objectives than maximizing
return. For example, an earlier inflow of cash may be needed. The stock
blow-out scenario assumes that the excess stocks are disposed of rapidly.
The stock blow-out depresses prices and stimulates consumption in the short
run, but results in higher prices and lower consumption after the excess
stocks have been depleted. The CRA forecasts were extrapolated to 1989 by
assuming continuation of the average 1979 to 1985 growth rate.
These five forecasts of total U.S. copper consumption can be compared
in Figure 4-3. For the historical data base used with the Bureau of Mines
and ITA forecast, MRI used the statistical series from the Copper Develop-
ment association.4 CRA used the series from Metal Statistics, an annual
publication of Mettalgesellschaft, A.G. The two are in exact agreement prior
to 1975 and are in general agreement from 1975 to 1977. The forecast by
MRI, the Bureau of Mines, and ITA is probably the most accurate for 1979
and 1980, since it was made significantly closer to the time of the events
being forecast. For 1981 to 1985, the growth trend of the CRA forecasts is
probably more accurate since these forecasts resulted from a more detailed
examination of the relevant factors. The CRA forecast for 1978 is below
the actual 1978 results.
16
-------
TABLE 4-3. TOTAL U.S. COPPER CONSUMPTION4'9'10
(GIGAGRAMS)
Year
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
Bureau of
Mines and
ITA
3054
2588
2555
2892
2672
2693
2976
3178
2873
2059
2611
2833
3115
3175a
3175
3266
3357
3447
3547°
3638
3737
3846
3955
4064
Charles River Associates
Stock:
Rapid
growth
3054
2588
2555
2892
2672
2693
2976
3178
2873
2048
2563
2810
2951a
2951
3089
3062
3059
3046
3004
3039.
3054°
3069
3084
3099
Blow-out
Moderate
growth
3054
2588
2555
2892
2672
2693
2976
3178
2873
2048
2563
2810
2951a
2892
3011
3012
3039
3034
2984
2992,
3009°
3026
3044
3061
Stock:
Rapid
growth
3054
2588
2555
2892
2672
2693
2976
3178
2873
2048
2563
2810
2951a
2937
3052
3030
3064
3097
3092
3127.
3160°
3193
3227
3160
Rational
Moderate
growth
3054
2588
2555
2892
2672
2693
2976
3178
2873
2048
2563
2810
2951a
2880
2979
2963
2996
3032
3034
3079.
3113°
3148
3183
3219
Forecast begins.
Extrapolation begins.
17
_
-------
TABLE 4-3. TOTAL U.S. COPPER CONSUMPTION4'9'16
(THOUSAND TONS)
Charles River Associates
Year
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
Bureau of
Mines and
ITA
3366
2853
2816
3188
2945
2969
3281
3503
3167
2270
2828
3123
3434a
3500a
3500
3600
3700
3800.
3910°
4010
4130
4240
4360
4480
Stock:
Rapid
growth
3366
2853
2816
3188
2945
2969
3281
3503
3167
2258
2825
3097
3253a
3253
3405
3375
3372
3358
3311
3350.
3366°
3383
3400
3416
Blow-out
Moderate
growth
3366
2853
2816
3188
2945
2969
3281
3503
3167
2258
2825
3097
3253a
3188
3319
3320
3350
3344
3289
32%b
3317°
3336
3355
3374
Stock:
Rapid
growth
3366
2853
2816
3188
2945
2969
3281
3503
3167
2258
2825
3097
3253a
3237
3364
3340
3377
3414
3408
3447b
3483°
3502
3557
3594
Rational
Moderate
growth
3366
2853
2816
3188
2945
2969
3281
3503
3167
2258
2825
3097
3253a
3175
3284
3266
3303
3342
3344
3394.
3432°
3470
3509
3548
a
.Forecast begins.
Extrapolation begins.
18
-------
CO
•
co
-O
•
co
-*
•
co
evi
•
co
o
•
co
ex)
•
es
>0
•
CN
CM
CN
O
•
CM
O
ON
ON
8
0
o
CO
Os
UJ
3
to
O
O
03
Q.
O.
O
O
if)
CO
O)
S-
C7)
ON
GO
NO -M
^t T)
1- CM O f^
C -* -^ co
lO
CO
su
?ry """.
CO CO
01 UOI||IW
ON
*
CM
NO "TJ" CM
CM CM CM
O
CM
19
-------
Five projections of the production of the U.S. secondary copper smelt-
ing and refining industry were made using the regression equation, the pro-
jected index of durable manufactures, and the five forecasts of total U.S.
copper consumption. The results are shown in Table 4-4 and Figure 4-1.
The four projections which use the CRA forecasts are nearly the same, and
Figure 4-1 shows their range. The average annual compound growth rates
from 1978 to 1989 range from 1.0 to 1.9 percent.
As Figure 4-1 shows, the industry is extremely volatile. As an illus-
tration of the pitfalls in forecasting the copper industry, Battelle Columbus
Laboratories, in a classic 1972 study on solid waste,11 wisely discounted
the 4 to 4.5 percent annual growth commonly mentioned in the press litera-
ture and estimated a 2 percent annual growth for total copper consumption
through 1979. The actual growth for 1972-1979 was 0.9 percent, but the rate
for 1971-1978 was 2.1 percent. This is partly because 1971-1973 was a period
with rather high growth in copper consumption, but primarily it reflects
the general volatility of the industry. In the same study, the total cop-
per recovered from scrap was projected to grow at 2.15 percent annually for
1969-1979. The actual shrinkage rate for 1969-1979 was 0.1 percent, but
the 1968-1978 period averaged a 0.9 percent compound annual growth.
For comparison, the consumption of copper scrap is forecast to in-
crease at a 2.4.percent- annual rate for 1978-1987.12
4.2.3 Past, Present, and Future Market Trends
When examining production and growth of the secondary copper smelting
and refining industry, it is important to consider other metals and mate-
rials that compete with copper for the existing market and to consider the
scrap market itself. Copper markets have undergone assault from the alumi-
num industry in the past, but on the whole, copper has been able to hold
its own in the competition. However, in certain industries such as the
automobile industry, the use of copper in manufacturing has steadily de-
creased over the years. The use of copper in automobiles has decreased
from 15 kg (34 Ib) per car in the 1975 model year to 13 kg (29 Ib) per car
in the 1979 model year, and it is expected to be 11 kg (25 Ib) per car in
1985.13 This is an annual shrinkage rate of 3.0 percent, but the number of
cars produced is expected to grow at an annual rate of 2 to 2.5 percent.14
There has also been a trend toward the use of lower grade copper and
copper alloys where pure copper was used before. This results in a lower
grade of copper-bearing scrap becoming available for the secondary smelters
to process and in higher processing costs.
Competition for scrap can also be one of the limiting factors to in-
creased production by a plant. Secondary copper smelters compete for scrap
with secondary brass smelters, primary copper producers, and overseas buyers.
Figure 4-4 is a simplistic schematic of the flow of copper-bearing scrap in
the United States. Figure 4-5 shows a breakdown of the copper scrap consump-
tion and secondary refined copper production in the United States.1 The
market was made even more competitive by the removal of telephone scrap by
Western Electric for processing in Nassau Recycling Corporation s new plant
in South Carolina.
20
-------
TABLE 4-4. PROJECTED PRODUCTION OF THE SECONDARY
COPPER SMELTING AND REFINING
INDUSTRY (GIGAGRAMS (THOUSAND TONS))
Year
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
Bureau of
Mines and
ITA
338 (373)
324 (357)
332 (366)
340 (375)
350 (386)
360 (397)
370 (408)
383 (422)
395 (435)
407 (449)
420 (463)
Stock:
Rapid
growth
328 (362)
320 (353)
323 (356)
327 (360)
333 (367)
337 (371)
•345 (380)
354 (390)
362 (399)
371 (409)
379 (418)
Blow-out
Moderate
growth
327 (360)
317 (349)
321 (354)
327 (360)
333 (367)
337 (371)
343 (378)
352 (388)
360 (397)
369 (407)
377 (416)
Stock:
Rapid
growth
328 (362)
318 (351)
322 (355)
327 (360)
336 (370)
341 (376)
348 (384)
358 (395)
367 (405)
376 (414)
386 (425)
Rational
Moderate
growth
326 (359)
316 (348)
319 (352)
325 (358)
333 (367)
338 (373)
347 (383)
357 (394)
366 (403)
375 (413)
385 (424)
Annual growth rate 1978 to 1989:
1.9% 1.0%
1.0%
1.2%
1.1%
21
-------
C!DJO$
in
0)
oo
•o
OJ
52
0)
5
I
(3
1
o
8.
5"
=:
8
ca cp u-
in c
>• «
o .2
"c a> -a
o S- c
8 §-§
CO (J U-
X
o
V)
L-
0)
8 g §1
0) t- i- t
to en CQ to
fO
o
o
t/)
1/1
•=c
a.
o
"a;
O)
a
OJ
a.
a.
o
.o
s-
a>
a.
(O
S-
o
s-
0)
Q.
a.
o
o
q-
o
cu
s-
CD
- 2
g .
^E Q. (!)
O)
o
3
O
oo
22
-------
f
5
c
1
V
4-
a
k
T
>
3
3
'
»
3
.
>
3
I
(
r
N ^J
•o ^
— *«.
*t
&
. 1_ -4—
_£ «
"i: -o
Oc
—
D 2Z
%
CN
-q
o
rv
—
—
w
o
-a
E
re
to
0
—
(gigagrams
OJ
4J
re
oo
QJ
•r—
E
•r- Q-
re s-
•r- O
o to
0
l/> S-
W (D
•< 0-
0
4-J O
E 0
O)
Q. E
o re
i —
> OJ
-------
The industry survey indicated that there were seven major plants op-
erating at an average capacity of 84 percent in 1979. Of the major plants,
no plans for expansion of any kind were revealed and industry and trade as-
sociation personnel seem very cautious about even considering expansion.
In the past 10 years, statistics from the Bureau of Mines show that there
have been no plant closings and only one plant addition in the secondary
copper fire-refining industry.16 Bureau of Mines statistics also show that
there were nine plants refining secondary metals that stopped producing
secondary refined copper and copper alloy (other than brass and bronze)
between 1968 and 1979. Production from each of these plants was usually
never more than 454 Mg/year (500 tons/year). The new major plant that was
opened belonged to Nassau Recycling Corporation, a subsidiary of Western
Electric, which is a major producer of telephone and electrical equipment.
The demand for copper comes mostly from the manufacturers of durable
goods. Because of this, the copper market is volatile and very sensitive
to national economic recessions. Demand also rises sharply during wars
because of the use of copper in ammunition and military equipment. Typi-
cally, the copper industry expands to meet wartime demand and is in a state
of over-capacity during peacetime.
Copper prices in the United States are set by the primary producers at
a level which they believe will give them a reasonable long-term profit
without encouraging excessive imports or excessive substitution of other
metals. Copper demand is first met by that scrap which can be collected
and processed at a cost below the cost of primary production. The remain-
ing demand is filled by primary copper. During copper shortages, the
domestic primary producers usually ration their sales instead of raising
the price. When the price of scrap increases, the copper scrap supply in-
creases. This is because lower quality and more dispersed scrap can be
gathered and processed at a price copper consumers are willing to pay in
order to meet that part of their needs which the primary industry is not
filling. This process is limited by the cost of imported copper, which is
well above the domestic price during times of shortage. During normal times,
the primary producers have considerable excess capacity, as they have had
since 1975.1?21
4.2.4 Estimated Expansion
If the secondary copper industry grows in the next decade at the higher
rate forecast in Figure 4-1, it will reach 90 percent of present capacity
in 1983 and 100 percent in 1986. This would indicate the need for addi-
tional production capacity of approximately 82,000 Mg/year (90,000 tons/
year) over the 1979 production capacity by 1989. Compared to the primary
copper industry, the secondary copper industry is characterized by relative
ease of entry and relatively short lead times for expansion of capacity.
Also, the volatility of the copper industry gives every incentive to delay
decisions to expand as long as possible, and because the industry has been
so volatile in the past, growth projections of more that a couple of years
must be looked upon with skepticism.
24
-------
Another problem in making an expansion estimate is that current (1979)
plant capacities are not easy to assess. For example, one plant could easily
double its fire refining capacity without any capital investment but is
limited by its electrolytic refining capacity, by fuel supply costs, and by
scrap availability. Thus, the plant is really operating at capacity now,
but under the right conditions it could greatly increase production without
adding a new source of emissions, if there were a market for the copper
anodes the plant produced. With some capital investment, the plant could
modify its existing facility to increase its electrolytic refining capacity
and consequently its overall production.
One outside influence that would strongly influence the secondary copper
industry is an oil embargo or other action restricting oil supplies. The
secondary smelters are more energy efficient than primary producers and would
be better able to immediately meet the copper demand. This would also de-
pend on their being able to obtain an adequate supply of copper scrap, a
requirement that could be eased through government incentives to keep scrap
from being shipped overseas to foreign markets.
There is some potential for additional plants, but expansion is unlikely
to occur for the following reasons:
1. The industry can meet increased demand by expanding electrolytic
refining capacity without adding a significant new emissions source.
2. The industry is reluctant to expand because of the volatility of
the market.
3. The anticipated growth in production is too low to place strong
expansionary pressure on the industry.
4. The industry survey did not reveal any plans for expansion.
4.3 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The first step in secondary copper smelting involves scrap prepara-
tion. Most of the secondary plants in this study do little preparation of
scrap other than some sorting and possibly some, baling. A couple have in-
cinerators to burn off insulation from copper wire, but the majority of the
plants buy their scrap from dealers who do much of the preparation work.
Scrap is charged to a blast or cupola furnace at plants that carry on
smelting operations. Charged with the copper bearing scrap are low sulfur
coke fuel and fluxes. The copper bearing scrap usually ranges from 30 to
50 percent copper. The product of the smelting operation is black copper,
a low grade copper ranging from 75 to 88 percent copper. The black copper
might be cast into convenient shapes for later use; shapes can be in the
form of shot, pigs, sows, or any mold shape available. Contaminants in the
black copper can be common alloying elements such as tin, lead, zinc, nickel,
and iron phosphorus, or sometimes precious metals such as gold, silver, and
platinum.
25
-------
During the cupola and blast furnace processes, metallic constituents
melt, while the limestone and iron oxides fuse in the smelting zone to form
a molten slag. Coke reduces the copper compounds. The molten materials
flow downward through the coke bed and are collected in a crucible below.
After a period of time, the molten slag and metal form separate layers and
are tapped.
A typical slag from a blast furnace has the following approximate com-
position:^2
FeO
CaO
Si02
Zn
Cu
Sn
Percent
29
19
39
10
0.8
0.7
Flow rates and exhaust temperatures from cupola furnaces vary from plant
to plant depending on furnace capacity and process design. An example for
one cupola is a flow rate of 944 m3 STP/min (33,000 scfm), gas temperature
(at the baghouse) of 93°C (200°F), and 16.0 Mg/hr (17.6 tons/hr) total charge
rate.
Unless the black copper is the secondary copper smelter's salable product,
the material must undergo further smelting. This is accomplished in furn-
aces called converters; most commonly used are the reverberatory and rotary
furnaces. These furnaces produce blister copper, a semirefined copper.
The off gases containing lead, tin, and zinc oxides are collected with a
hood, cooled, and sent to a baghouse for recovery of the oxide dust. This
dust, like the cupola dust, is sold principally for its zinc and tin con-
tent. Typical operating rates for a reverbtratory furnace at one plant are:
716 m3 STP/min (25,294 scfm) gas flow rate; 73°C (163°F) gas temperature;
9.1 Mg/hr (10.0 tons/hr) total charging rate. Typical operating rates for
a rotary furnace at one plant are: 1,133 m3 STP/min (40,000 scfm) gas.flow
rate; 127°C (260°F) gas temperature; 1.9 Mg/hr (2.1 tons/hr) total charging
rate.
One plant uses Kaldo furnaces instead of cupola and converter furnaces.
The scrap charge to the Kaldo averages about 50 percent copper. Anode cop-
per is the end product from the furnace. Typical operating data for the
Kaldo furnace are: 734 m3 STP/min (25,924 scfm) gas flow rate; 68°C (155°F)
gas temperature; and 12.3 Mg/hr (13.5 tons/hr) operating rate.
Molten blister copper in some plants is conveyed to an anode furnace
where it is fire refined. If blister production is out of phase with the
fire-refining operation, the molten copper can be cast into any available
mold shape. Fire refining is accomplished in a reverberatory or rotary
furnace. .The process removes most metallic oxide impurities that are un-
desirable in high purity copper. Most of these impurities are trapped in
26
-------
the slag cover. Once the slag cover is removed, the refined copper is de-
oxidized with green wood poles under a charcoal or coke cover. The molten
deoxidized copper is cast into anodes for electrolytic refining or into cop-
per billets, wire bar, etc. Emissions from the anode and fire-refining
operations are not as substantial as those from the smelting operation.
The anodes are taken to electrolytic refining tankhouses where they
are placed into cells in an alternating fashion with thin copper starter
sheets. The electrolytic deposition on the sheets produces cathodes of re-
fined copper. No significant emissions were identified from this opera-
L- I on •
The cathodes are melted in shaft or reverberatory furnaces and the re-
fined copper is cast into the desired product shapes such as cakes, billets
and wirebar as well as ingots. '
The shaft furnace, which uses natural gas as a fuel and operates on
the principle of the cupola furnace, continuously melts cathodes, with re-
duction accomplished by poling or charcoal in a small reverberatory holding
furnace before casting. The particulate emissions from this operation are
not substantial and can be controlled by any of a number of control systems.
Throughout the smelting and refining operation, the slags generated
are sent to landfills, sold, or (depending on metals content) recycled
Recoverable particulates captured in emission control systems are recycled
or sold for their metals content. Figure 4-6 is a flow diagram for the
materials and products of the secondary copper smelting and refining industry
27
-------
Depleted Slag
(Sell or Landfill)
LOW GRADE SCRAP
BLAST OR CUPOLA
MELTING FURNACE
Residues to
Low Grade Scrap
INTERMEDIATE GRADE SCRAP
Total = 37 Classification,e.g.
Red Brass, Yellow Brass,
Auto Radiators
Sludges to Prec.
Met. Recov, Low
Grade Scrap, or
Sell
/4\ fNo. 1 Copper Wire
^^ X No. I Heavy Copper
®f No. 2 Copper Wire
v No. 2 Heavy Copper
(2) Light Copper
SHIP
FIRE REFINED
COPPER INGOTS,
& BILLETS
Residues to Low Grade Scrap
Figure 4-6. Raw material and product flow diagram of the secondary
copper industry.
28
-------
REFERENCES:
1
Section 4.
2.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Background Information for
Proposed New Source Performance Standards: Asphalt Concrete Plants,
Petroleum Refineries, Storage Vessels, Secondary Lead Smelters and
Refineries, Brass or Bronze Ingot Production Plants, Iron and Steel
Plants, Sewage Treatment Plants; Volume 1, Main Text. Research
Triangle Park, Publication No. APTD-1352a. June 1973.
p. 61.
Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio. Development Document for
Interim Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Proposed New Source
Performance Standards for the Secondary Copper Subcategory of the
Copper Segment of the Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Point Source
Category. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Publication No. EPA 440/1-75/032-c. February 1975. 221 p.
3. Reference 2, pg. 11.
4. Copper Development Association, Inc. Annual Data 1979.
NY. 35 p.
New York,
5. U.S. Bureau of Mines. Minerals Yearbook. Copper chapter, various
issues, Washington, D.C.
6. U.S. Bureau of Mines. Mineral Facts and Problems. Bulletin 667.
Washington, D.C. 1975. pp. 293-310.
7. Levy, Y. Copper: Red Metal in Flux. Federal Reserve Bank of San
Francisco. Monthly Review, Supplement for 1968.
8. Predicasts. Issue No. 77. Cleveland, OH, October 29, 1979.
pp. A-21, A-33, B-l, B-107, B-108, and B-113.
9. U.S. Department of Commerce, Industry and Trade Administration.
Copper. Quarterly Report, Winter 1978/1979. pp. 8-10.
10. Charles River Associates. Lead, Copper and Zinc Price Forecasts to
1985. Vols. I and II. CRA No. 410. Boston, MA. August 1978 and
December 1978. pp. 42-76 and 50-153.
11. BatteHe Columbus Laboratories. A Study to Identify Opportunities for
Increased Solid Waste Utilization. Vol. Ill: Copper Report.
EPA-SW-40 D.2-72. Distributed by National Technical
Information Service. Springfield, VA. PB-212730. 1972. 63 p.
12. Mighdoll, M. J. In: America Metal Market. Fairchild Publications
. (New York). July 27, 1979. p. 10.
13. Wards Communications, Inc., Detroit. Wards Auto World. August 1979.
p. 54.
29
-------
14. Reference 8.
15. Reference 4.
16. Telecon. Carrico, L., U.S. Bureau of Mines. Nonferrous Metals Section.
Number of plants producing secondary copper, 1968 to 1979. January
22, 1980.
17. Reference 7.
18. Charles River Associates, Inc. Economic Analysis of the Copper
Industry. Distributed by National Technical Information Service.
PB-189927. Springfield, VA. March 1970. 335 p.
19. Charles River Associates, Inc. An Econometric Model of the Copper
Industry. Distributed by National Technical Information Service.
PB-196529. Springfield, VA. November 1970. 100 p.
20. Charles River Associates, Inc. The Effects of Pollution Control on
the Nonferrous Metals Industries: Copper. Distributed by National
Technical Information Service. Springfield, VA. Part I.
pp. 40-59, 86-92, and 95-97. PB-207161. Part III. pp. 145-149.
PB-207163.
21. Bonczar, E. S., and J. E. Tilton. An Economic Analysis of the
Determinants of Metal Recycling in the United States: A Case Study
of Secondary Copper. Pennsylvania State University, prepared for the
U.S. Bureau of Mines. OFR79-75. Distributed by National Technical
Information Service. PB-245832. Springfield, VA. May 1975.
80 p.
22. Reference 2, p. 24.
30
-------
5. AIR EMISSIONS DEVELOPED IN THE SOURCE CATEGORY
5.1 PLANT AND PROCESS EMISSIONS
This chapter identifies the types and quantities of emissions from
several potential emission points within secondary copper smelting and re-
fining plants. Emission test data were requested from all local and state
control agencies having jurisdiction over existing secondary copper smelt-
ing and refining plants. Data were also requested for several secondary
copper alloying industries and several secondary copper foundries from the
control agencies. The agencies for the States of New York, Pennsylvania,
Illinois, and Georgia, the City of Philadelphia, and the South Coast Air
Quality Management District of California furnished data for this study.
In many cases, the data were fragmentary and the study was generally
hampered by a scarcity of good, current data.
Available emission data from the above agencies and from the National
Emission Data System (NEDS) Point Source Listing were used to develop emis-
sion factors for an uncontrolled plant and a typical plant controlled to
meet requirements of a typical State Implementation Plan. These plants are
hypothetical in that each of the major plants studied is different in some
respect in their secondary copper processing operations. For instance, some
plants do not have blast or cupola furances, another does no fire-refining.
5.1.1 Particulate Emissions from the Source Categories
The cupola furnace is the first step in the smelting of low grade cop-
per bearing scrap. The emission rate from this source is the highest of
any operation in the smelting and refining process. The emissions consist
of metal oxide fumes as well as particulate matter from dusty charge mate-
rials, limestone, or fluorspar, and coke ash or coke breeze. The metal
oxides, especially zinc oxide, are very small in particulate size (usually
less than 1 urn (0.00004 in.). Some fine particulate is also produced from
combustion of coke and organic wastes in the charge materials. The follow-
ing is a typical composition of the collected dusts:
Zn
Pb
Sn
Cu
Sb.
Cl
Percent
58-61
2-8
5-15
0.5
0.1
0.1-0.5
31
-------
As an example of the quantity of emissions from a cupola, at one plant
5.4 to 6.4 Mg/day (6 to 7 tons/day) of particulates are removed by the pol-
lution control system. This cupola furnace produces approximately 2.2 Mg/day
(2.4 tons/day) of black copper. Controlled particulate emissions from this
operation are approximately 4.8 kg/hr (10.5 Ib/hr). The amount of_particu-
lates removed depends on several factors including the amount of fine mate-
rial in the scrap charge, the composition of the scrap charge, and the ef-
ficiency of the pollution control device. In addition to emissions from
the cupola stack, there are also fugitive emissions that many plants
occasionally have trouble controlling. These occur primarily during tap-
ping of the furnace and are in the form of fine particulates or steam con-
taining particulates when the molten copper is poured into a shot pit.
Between the cupola and converter operations, some plants have a hold-
ing furnace which keeps the black copper from the cupola in a molten state
until it is loaded to the converter. Emissions from this furnace are fugi-
tive, metal oxide fumes which occur during tapping of the furnace. One
plant with a holding furnace taps the furnace approximately 12 times during
a converter cycle and averages two converter cycles a day. Fugitive emis-
sions can also be emitted from the furnace's emergency slagging hole and
primary slagging hole.
One plant sends its cupola melt to a settler where slag and molten cop-
per are allowed to separate. The copper rich slag is sent to an electric
arc furnace where coke and limestone are added and the slag is cleaned to
recover its copper content. The molten copper layer in the settler and the
copper from the arc furnace are tapped and this black copper is sent to the
converter. Emissions from the electric arc furnace are similar to those
from the cupola. The fugitive emissions occurring during tapping are metal
oxide fumes.
Exhausts from converters contain metal oxides of all of the metals pres-
ent in the molten copper and other pollutants. Included are copper, zinc,
sulfur, and phosphorus. Emissions are less than those from the cupola.
However, the amount of particulates emitted depends on the converter used
and composition of the melt. For the above plant, 0.9 Mg/day (1 ton/ day)
of particulates are removed by the control system on a rotary converter
producing approximately 34 Mg/day (37 tons/day) of blister copper. Con-
trolled particulate emission data for this operation were not available.
Fugitive emissions from the converters also can be a problem at the con-
verter outlet and charge door.
Reverberatory and rotary furnaces doing fire-refining of blister cop-
per for casting into anodes or billets produce fumes of metal oxides when
the molten metal is blown with air to remove metallic impurities, or when
green wood poles are inserted into the furnace to deoxidize the melt. Fine
particulate due to incomplete combustion can be produced, particularly if
oil-fired furnaces are used or if the charge is not pretreated to remove
organic wastes. An example of controlled and uncontrolled particulate rates
for a reverberatory anode furnace are 1.7 kg/hr (3.7 Ib/hr) and 54 kg/hr
(119 Ib/hr), respectively. Production rate from this furnace is approxi-
mately 55 Mg/day (61 tons/ day). Fugitive emissions can come from the
charge doors during poling operations.
32
-------
A natural gas fired shaft furnace or reverberatory furnace is most com-
monly used to melt cathode copper so that it can be cast into wirebar, billets,
or cakes. Particulate emissions from this operation are low, however, some
form of control, is often employed.
Emissions from the above operations are summarized for a typical plant
on Table 5-1. The emission rates were obtained from industry furnaces of
comparable size to those in the typical plant.
5.1.2 Sulfur Emission from the Source Category
Sulfur emissions from the secondary copper smelting and refining in-
dustry do not pose a particularly large problem. The sulfur content of the
scrap or copper bearing charge is very low, the sulfur having been removed
during primary metal refining. Sulfur emissions may become a problem when
moderate to high content sulfur fuels and coke charges are used in smelting
and refining operations.
Sulfur emissions are generally highest during the cupola and converter
operations for two reasons: these operations use more fuel or charge than
subsequent operations and any sulfur in the copper bearing charge is removed
in these operations. Fuel consumption in the anode and fire-refining furn-
aces is less and consequently sulfur emissions are less. Sulfur emissions
from the shaft furace melting cathode copper are not a problem as natural
gas is the fuel most commonly used in this operation. See Table 5-1 for
typical plant uncontrolled and controlled emissions.
5.1.3 Other Emissions from the Source Category
Other minor emissions from the smelting and refining process opera-
tions include nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide, but very
few measurements have been made, and no measurements are available for some
types of furnaces. Table 5-2 presents the available data. Information on
the sources of these data are presented in Chapter 7. These emissions were
either not considered a problem by the state regulatory agencies, or were
ot covered by a state regulation.
Some plants that perform scrap preparation have an incinerator to burn
insulation from scrap wire. Emissions from this operation can be in the
form of hydrocarbons and other organics and chloride compounds; however,
proper operation of the incinerator (temperature) should keep these emis-
sions at a minimum. Also in the area of scrap preparation is the possibil-
ity of dust emissions during various crushing and size reduction processes.
However, of the plants questioned during the study none were found to be
carrying on scrap preparation operations other than sorting, baling, and
some incineration.
One operation with potential emissions is the crushing of slag that is
sold, sent to a landfill, or smelted (if the copper content is high). How-
ever, this is only a source of emissions if dry crushing operations are con-
ducted; of the plants questioned, all were using a wet crushing process.
33
-------
CO
UJ
1
• ^
i^J
)_<
CO t—
CO Z
»— i ^;
^g* i
UJ Q-
Q CU
UJ Z
1 1 — 1
™""^ I™
0 £•<
(_ UJ
Z! C£
0
o o
Q "' f%^
O UJ
0 OL.
Z Ou
=> O
o
o
z >-
co a
z z
o o
»-« CJ>
eC. CO
O
IH «=C
I-H O
O HH
1 1 1 p
CU >-
CO H-
O UJ
Z 3=
P1"
gg
UJ U.
o
1
in
UJ
CO
&
CU
+J 0
4- 03
(d E
J= S-
} S-
i- =3
o t-
03 CD
S- E
CU «r-
1-1 c
S- 'I-
CU M—
> CU
O) S-
QC
CU
t.
l{I
CM
>> CD
s- z:
0
4-> CU
03 O
S- 03
CU E
<*^ SM
S- 3
CU M-
^t
CU CU
p^ *1J
o
£Z
n3
f»
*
>i O
s- z;
o
+-> CU
03 0
S- 03
CU E
XJ S-
S- 3
CU H-
^>
CU CU
C£ "O
O
E
03
S-
CU
03 CU
O E
C£ 0
o
03
*O
Q.
0
O 0
co o
•3- o
«d" CD
LO IO
o "o"
r*^. ^^
O CD
cn o
^— ^
o CD"
CO O
(O CD^
CM LO
CM CM
^•—•*
O O
CO O
vo o
CM LO
CM CM
**mmi*
CD "S"
CO CD
IO CD
CM LO
CM CM
'
O 0
CO 0
vo o
CM LO
CM CM
4->
E '"•-.
CU CO
tl^f C"
E O
E 0 -P
00 — '
•i —
4-> 3 S-
O O 03
3 CU ^~-
-a -4-> >» s-
O CU ~^ 03
S- E CD CU
Q- --^s: >>
LO i—
• •
10 r~~_
i— CM
r^ i
^^*
LO O
«3- LO
V *
LO O
«3- LO
^ ^
co co
CM O
• •
co cn
CU
03 o3 E
S- .E 0
O 4-*
CO •• — *
CU 03 S-
O 4-1 -E
0 0 --^ — ~
ct^^JE
0
0
CO
o
o
n
CO
0
0
CM
**
l!d"
o
o
CM
ft
"*
. 0
0
CO
0
0
CO
o
s-
3 E
0 0
J= T-
r— 03
03 i-
+3 CU
o a.
t— 0
0 0
co o
r--. oo
LO
CXI
IO O
IO CD
LO O
ft
o
CM
^~^
CM O
CO 0
**
^3"
CM
*1*"^'
CM CD
CO O
CD i ~
ft
CM
^ ^
CM O
CO O
r— O
ft ft
r— O
co o"
cn o
vo o
r-^ CD
•S-
, — ,
1 1
0
+J CO
CU
3 E
«f- E
CU Q-
CU H-
CO 4-> CO
03 tOCO
crs s- E
t~~ vo r-- LO
«^t~ t — • i~— LO
CM •* •> —
^^
co co r-~ LO
t^^ 1^ i — LO
*^-^*
^.^^
CO CO !-- LO
t-^ f-~. r— LO
^"^
*~-^ ^*^
co co r--. LO
r-. r~- r— LO
„ s , — ,
1 — O CO LO
CM VO CNJ l~-
r— CM •— -
CO O CO LO
CJ} O CM [~~-
CM »— '
1 4^
S_ CD
(D •!-
O. CU
cu tir ' —
4-> 0 ^. 4->
CU •~-' 0 t-
co S- (O •• — •
03 3 O 4->
CS 4-> 0 CO E
03
S- CO
3 03
03
E
CO
o3
CD
1 —
•p- 1
o to
s_
i— 3 CU
CU -P -^
3 03 O
q- E o
•
i — CM CO
CO
CD
^ 03
O S-
3 CU
, t ^ x^/
CU 03 O
3 E 0
•
i — CM CO
CO
CD
p^
O 03
r— 3 CU
CU 4-> -^
3 03 O
H- E O
i — CM CO
1
^
o
CU
3
**"
CU
Q
o
CU
CD
s_
ff-t
to
^=
o
0
3
U-
34
-------
^— •*
-o
CD
3
E
*r—
•4-3
E
O
O
f
T™~
|
in
LU
_J
CQ
>=t
H-
OJ
4-3 0
q- re
re E
J=. S-
tO 3
q-
O)
o
re
E
>, s-
S- 3
o q-
4_>
re 01
S- E
O) ••-
.0 E
S- T-
> o
s- z:
0
re o
t- re
CD E
.a s-
S- 3
cu q—
>
OJ CL)
o: -o
0
E
re
r-
>> o
s- 2:
o
4-3 QJ
re o
s- re
a E
-Q S-
J- 3
a> q-
O) O)
rv -Q
O
E
re
s-
O)
^> 4-^
S- S-
re QJ
4^ ^
O E
o; o
o
re
i—
o
a.
3
0
'
^^-^
r--. LO
CM en
CM i—
*^— * ^-^
CM CO CO
CM CM CM
• • •
r— O 0
CM t--. CO
•* CM CO
• • •
r- O O
r— CM CO
*-~-N *— X X— X
CM CO 00
CM CM CM
* * •
r- 0 0
CM 1-^ CO
«3- CM CO
• • •
i— O O
• • •
i— CM CO
^"•«» x—^ ^~««*
CM CO CO
OJ CM CM
• • •
r— O O
**— " ^.^^ ^^-^
CM r-. co
«d" CM CO
r-^ CD CD
• • •
r— CM CO
**-^
CTl CO
O1 •*
• •
CO CO
^^
, ,
LO CO
•^J [
• •
CO CD
CM CM
N^^
1 4-3
O> E E
4-3 O CD
re 4-3 4-3
S- -^ E
3 O
01 4-> O
E CQ
•r- a> 3
E S<£> O
-S- ^ O
3 "-D •— q-
CQ CD ^ * O
LO CD ,_ C^ j "^T*
° ^Z> CM LO . i— CM
*~^* *~*\ ' *-~-N
O O CM CO LO O
CM <=t CM •* •
^— * ^-^ CD ^~
^w'
•**~* <*~^
CM ^f "^ cy» *~**
i— CM LO r— CO O
^~^ r^- • •
"**—* r*~ *^~
*^_^
^-^^ « — ^
CM «* •=!- CD - — -
i — CM LO i — CO O
N^^* p— • •
^—^ H"~ l!xl'
^.^
^— ^ «^— s
CM LO LO I~> - —
CM >^- t~~ LO CO O
^_^ t-~ • •
CM LO
**^*
r~~ co LO CD
i— CO CO CD *-*>
*- — ^ r— CO r— CD
*• — *» ^~* • •
E ^}- CTi
O »
C 4->
10^.
re to i—
Q- to
•r— * — ^ *~^
T3EO) -O to S- IO£-
CU re-Q
S-4-> S- S- 3 •— • .— 3>—
4-3res-re 4-3O oo
£=r— O-E E-r-S- S-'i-S-
O34-3CJ O4-3J^ 4-34-3^:
000 OS-\ ES-^.
E-i-req- Erecn oreoi
ro4-3q-o ^3 o.±i cj a_ ^^
o
^— *N
CO O
I— <^f
s»_ *
7-
X— ^
LO O
• r~
^- s^_*»
X — %
LO O
• r—
^d" ***-^
**— «s
CO CZ>
CM LO
«» *•
*^-^
to o
• •
CO OO
^— -*
s-
-C
^^^
Ul -Q
o •^•
S- •!-
3 01 S-
q- 01 .E
^~ •?— *^^
3 E CD
OO
-------
CM
O
oo 01 i£> o
O O O rH
<3- •=*• CO LO
0000
CM
CM CM
O O
CM
O
LU
O
O O
co
co
LU
cu
X
CO
co
CM
CT)
Lf)
LO
UD
O
co
CO
CM
CO
co
CO
LU
a>
CO CM
UD . . .
. r~> r^« cn
O rH rH rH
CO rH rH r^-
O CO* 00 OO'
s LO
CO CD i-( CM
. co co CM
CUCUCUCUCUtt-
OCOOC^QiCliOiQiCO
O)
c
•r- O O O
-a -a TS -a
a. i— i—.
(0
O O
-P -p
S- S-
O)
-------
/*""N
"Q
CU
3
C.
•r—
-P
C
o
u
^
CM
1
LT>
LU
1
CO
1 —
to
o
+J
C.
o
u
ra
•^
-P
tn
•r-
X
CO
-C
•P
2j
tn
c
o
•r—
to
to
's
LU
^^
i.
-C
JD
v^/
S-
.e
•x^
cr
^
<4_.
O
CU
Q
1^
o
o
o
1C
X
o
•z.
04
o
to
t/5
CO
.p
10
r— -
3
U
•r—
£_
10
Q-
Ol
o
to
C
. S-
, 3
4-
[ i
r~
to
Q_
/^"^
<••> ^^
/~s . O
O O •
• 0 0
CO tO LO
^•^ '*"**«' ^- j
tO t^ fO
t f\ f~*l f^^
• • •
CO CM CM
r- CM
CM
/*"*N ^~N/**N
/*™^i^"*N CD ^t" tO
O O • • •
. .0 co to
en LD i— i co to
t—l CO LD i—l CM
«3- CM -Sf LO C3
i-H CO
^> ^* ^>
S- i- S-
o o o
-p -p -p
i- fO fO fO
CO i- S~ 5-
-P CU CO CO
rO S- J2 jQ XJ
r- CD S- S- S-
O > > >
3 O CO CO CD
o c_> oi ce: Q-:
o>
C
•r-
^«
o
^>J
u
CD CO
s- Q;
•r-
3s 3
f* (^j
^-> to
3 tn
O IO
to iz.
^
r—
to
E -c: 01
i- 01-
o to o
C CO it-
CD
V5 ** (*^
c >>
o to to
•r- -a T-
-P to
to i. >»
S- CO i—
CO Q- tO
a. c
o to to
3s
CU O CO
tn r— o
IO
10 E
.a -P to
T3 CZ
C (0 >,
fO i— -Q
•P Q.
to T3
CO CO
CT ^: c
C -P •!-
tn "• i.
3 3s co
0 -P
CO i— CO
to
10 CO
in i-
c s- to
o o
•r— 4— tO
•P C
to at o
S- -P ••-
at to in
Q. s- in
0 '<-
C E
C O CO
CO T-
^: to eg
3= to o
•i~ tO
S- £
0 CD
4-
CM C.
00 O •!-
i- to E •
tO CD
CO CD i—
to D>CT) U
•P «0 •>,
C S- 0 U
CU CU -P
E > S-
00 03 O 00
S- CO -P
3 CO S-
(0 .C E 00
(0 . -P O >
cu to s- c
E to to 4- O
O5-r- O
C O)
o i— co c to
•i- 18 S- •!-
tO 1- 3 -P S-
tn 3 D) tn CO
•I- .p .r- tO -P
E 10 4- .— 4-
00 C 10
to 3s
eg CO v- O T3
O to ^= i— c:
tO 3 1— ^2 tO
tO <"^
37
-------
5.1.4 Typical Secondary Copper Smelting and Refining Plant
This section describes a typical plant that is meeting the require-
ments of a typical State Implementation Plan. The plant is typical only in
the sense that all smelting and refining operations described previously
are employed in the production of refined copper. It should be noted that
none of the plants surveyed have identical processes to those employed by
the typical plant. In addition, only two plants of those surveyed have all
the processes employed by the typical plant in their own production scheme.
The others employ only certain of the processes; for instance, one plant
has only the cupola and converter operations.
Two operations not shown are a holding furnace and electrolytic refin-
ing. The plant also has no scrap preparation other than sorting and baling.
The table shows two anode furnaces, but only one furnace is operating at a
time because electrolytic refining capacity is 45,300 Mg/year (50,000 tons/
year). Therefore, the plant capacity could be increased by adding electroly-
tic capacity. This is a situation that exists with at least two plants.
Operating time is based on 24 hr/day, 50 weeks/year or 8,400 hr/year.
Entry of scrap copper into the production flow is based upon its copper
content. Copper production is 9,070 Mg/year (10,000 tons/year) of fire-
refined copper and 54,430 Mg/year (60,000 tons/year) of cathode copper, a
total of 63,500 Mg/year (70,000 tons/year) of finished copper. Sulfur
emissions were not controlled, but use of low sulfur fuels was assumed.
Figure 5-1 is a production flow diagram of the typical plant.
The typical plant specifications will be used in Chapter 8 to sum-
marize the state and local emissions regulations that apply to new and
modified sources in the source category.
The uncontrolled particulate emission factor was calculated by divid-
ing uncontrolled particulates in kilograms per hour (pounds per hour) by
the process weight rate (total charge) in megagrams per hour (tons per hour).
*The process weight includes all metal bearing charge, solid fuel charge,
and other materials that are fed into a furnace.
5.2 TOTAL NATIONAL EMISSIONS FROM SOURCE CATEGORY
Total potential nationwide emissions for the secondary copper smelting
and refining industry are shown in Table 5-3. Only particulate emissions
are shown because there were insufficient data to determine a national sul-
fur emission estimate. Sulfur emission data were available for only one
plant. In addition, fuel consumption data were not available from which
the quantity of S02 emissions could be estimated.
Total controlled particulate emissions is the sum of existing or esti-
mated particulate emissions for each emission source based on data obtained
from the NEDS, state regulatory agencies, or local regulatory agencies.
Emission data had to be estimated for Nassau Recycling Corporation's cupola
and converter furnaces because these operations were not on line the entire
year in 1979. Emissions data from a plant with similar cupola and converter
capacity were substituted for the missing data. Nassau's cupola and converter
38
-------
Low Grade Scrap; -
Copper Rich Slag
23(25)
~T r
Cupola Furnace
- Coke
Fluxes
i
Black Copper
Holding Furnace
Fluxes
Rotary Converter
Intermediate Grade Scrap;
No. 2 Copper Scrap
18(20)
Blister
23 (25)
Reverberator/
(Anode)
Furnaces 1 & 2
Anodes
45 (50)
f
Electrolytic
Refining
Shaft Furnace
I
Cast and
Cool Wirebar
54(60)
•Outside Blister
13(15)
•Air and Oil
Air and Oil
Reverberator/
(Fire Refining)
Furnace
I
Cast and
Cool Ingot
9 (10)
•No. 1 Copper Scrap
900)
Figure 5-1. Production flow from the typical copper smelting and
refining plant (Gg/year (thousand tons per year)
net copper content).
39
-------
TABLE 5-3. NATIONWIDE POTENTIAL EMISSIONS FROM THE SECONDARY COPPER
SMELTING AND REFINING INDUSTRY, FOR 1979 ASSUMING
COMPLIANCE WITH SIP'S (Mg/year (tons/year))
Process source
Control devices
Particulates
Cup!as
Converters
Fire refining and
anode furnaces
Shaft furnaces
Other3
Total
Fabric filters
Fabric filters
Fabric filter or wet scrubber
Settling chamber or none
Fabric filter, wet scrubber, or
none
253 (279)
83 (92)
592 (652)
45
259
(50)
(285)
1,232 (1,358)
Slag cleaning furnace, Kaldo furnaces, and holding furnaces.
4Q
-------
furances are expected to be operating full time in 1980. Therefore, the
total national emissions for 1979 really represents the approximate emis-
sions from all sources assuming they were operating full time (or at plant
capacity). Nassau also had no controls on its fire-refining and anode fur-
naces, which is the reason total emissions from this source are so high.
The plant will probably install controls in the near future.
In other cases where emission rates from a plant process had to be esti-
mated, enough data about the source (e.g., flow rates, charge rates, etc.)
were available to make an emissions estimate. The category, "other," contains
holding furnaces at two plants, a slag cleaning furnace, and three Kaldo
furnaces. The three Kaldo furnaces contribute 209 Mg/year (230 tons/year)
to the emissions total for the "other" category.
41
-------
REFERENCES: Section 5.
1. Kusik, C. L., and C. B. Kenahan. Energy Use Patterns for Metal
Recycling. U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 8781.
Washington, D.C. 1978. pp. 31-56.
2. Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio. Development Document for
Interim Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Proposed New Source
Performance Standards for the Secondary Copper Subcategory of the Copper
Segment of the Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Point Source Category.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Publication
No. EPA 440/1-757 032-c. February 1975. 221 p.
42
-------
6. EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
6.1 CURRENT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES
Several sources of information were used to obtain data on the types
and operation of commonly used control systems for each emission source at
each plant. These were primarily telephone contacts with plant personnel
and state and local control agencies. The usual process emission points
where controls were applied were cupolas, converters, anode and fire-refin-
ing furnaces, and shaft furnaces. Other sources included Kaldo furnaces,
holding furnaces and incinerators and were found in only one or two plants
in the industry.
6.1.1 Cupola Emission Control Systems
The pollutant of concern in this process is particulates. Of the four
plants that had a cupola furnace, all use fabric filtration to control par-
ticulate emissions. Information obtained on three of the four installa-
tions showed that the fabric filtration system (baghouse) was of the shaker
variety. The filter bags consist of graphite/silicon treated fiberglass.
The periodic shaking of the bags gradually breaks the glass fibers and
causes higher maintenance costs. However, the glass bags are capable of
withstanding higher temperatures than conventional wool, cotton, and syn-
thetic fiber filter media.1
The gases from the cupola are cooled before reaching the fabric fil-
ters by an indirect water cooling system. All systems provided adequate
control to easily meet requirements of a typical State Implementation Plan
(SIP).
Problems with fugitive emissions usually occur at the charging door
and at the tapping port of the cupola. Plants that have the best system of
control provide hooding over the tapping port with ducts to carry emissions
to the baghouse. One plant that has problems with fugitive emissions at
its charge door is committed to installing a "double door-evacuated chamber
charging system" to eliminate the problem.2 This appears to be the most ad-
vanced technology in the industry for control of fugitives from the cupola
furnace.
Sulfur emissions apparently are not a serious problem as no violations
of existing state standards were identified. For the plant in South Carolina,
there was no applicable sulfur emission standard.3 The other three plants
with cupolas use low to moderately low sulfur fuels to meet state sulfur
emission standards.
43
-------
6.1.2 Converter Emission Control Systems
The same four plants that have cupolas also have converter furnances.
Again, all operations were controlled by baghouses. Of three plants sur-
veyed, two had shaker baghouses. All four plants were meeting state stan-
dards for particulates and would easily meet requirements of a typical SIP.
Fugitive emissions from converter operations are not a big problem.
Indications from state control agencies were that problems with fugitive
emissions do sometimes occur, particularly during the charging operations
of the converting cycle and again during discharge of the molten blister.
Fugitive emission rates must be estimated and only one state, Georgia, had
an estimate; 4 kg/cycle (8 Ib/cycle) with approximately 2 cycles/day. The
state does not think this quantity of emissions is a problem.
The uncontrolled sulfur emissions from the converter furnaces are higher
than those from the cupolas (two plants had only incomplete sulfur emission
data). Any sulfur in the black copper is released during the converting
processes. One of the plants had a scrubber following its baghouse system
that is apparently operating efficiently. Old data (NEDS 1975) show a con-
trolled emission rate of 11 Mg/year (12 tons/year) of S02 with 153 Mg/year
(169 tons/year) allowed.
6.1.3 Anode and Fire-Refining Emissions Control Systems
Five of the seven plants have anode and/or fire-refining furances.
Three of those plants have baghouse systems on their operations; one was
installed within the last year. These plants had particulate emission
rates that are well below a typical SIP.
One of the five plants has no air pollution control on its fire-refin-
ing and anode furnaces. Available emissions data show that the plant is in
violation of state standards.4 The plant indicated that they were consider-
ing fabric filtration as the method of control of their particulate emissions.
Preliminary uncontrolled emissions for this plant are 30.2 kg/hr (66.6 Ib/hr)
for their fire-refining furnace and 15.1 kg/hr (33.4J.J3/hr) for their anode
furnace. Allowable rates are 8.3 kg/hr (18.4 Ib/hr) and 13.6 kg/hr (30.0
Ib/hr), respectively.
The fifth plant has a gas quencher, high energy venturi scrubber with
mist eliminator control system on each of its anode furnaces and is achiev-
ing a 97% reduction in particulate emissions. The plant also has a medium
energy venturi scrubber with mist eliminator on its fire-refining furnace
and is obtaining 87% control efficiency.5 Its controlled emission rate also
meets the requirements of a typical SIP.
Fugitive emissions are a potential problem; however, indications from
the plants surveyed and from the state control agencies are that these emis-
sions appear to be minimal. No data on fugitive emissions from these pro-
cesses were uncovered during the study.
44
-------
Sulfur emissions are not a serious problem during fire-refining and
anode production operations unless a high sulfur fuel is used. None of the
plants surveyed indicated usage of a high sulfur fuel in any of their opera-
tions. No information was obtained on the plant in South Carolina with re-
spect to the type of fuel it was using.
6.1.4 Shaft Furnace Emission Control System
Four plants have shaft furnaces to melt their cathode copper and cast
the final product. Emissions from this source are not usually a problem.
In fact, only one of the four furnaces has any form of control. In order
to comply with state standards in New Jersey, U.S. Metals Refining installed
a settling chamber to partially control particulate emissions from its shaft
furance. The system operates at a listed efficiency of 58.6% and controlled
emissions are listed at 1.5 kg/hr (3.3 Ib/hr). The allowable rate is 6.0
kg/hr (13.3 Ib/hr) (1976 NEDS data).
There are no sulfur emissions from the shaft furances.
6.1.5 Miscellaneous Operations Emission Control Systems
6.1.5.1 Kaldo Furnace Emission Control. CHEMETCO in Illinois uses
three Kaldo furances in its refining operations. Each furnace is equipped
with a gas quencher, high energy venturi scrubber, and mist eliminator con-
trol system. Illinois EPA has estimated that CHEMETCO is achieving a 99.5%
reduction in emissions with these systems.6
No data on fugitive emissions or sulfur emissions from the Kaidos were
available.
6.1.5.2 Holding Furnace Emission Control System. No emission control
systems were found on holding furnaces.Although average hourly emission
rates on these furnaces are low, fugitive emissions can be substantial when
the furnace is tapped. The Southwire plant in Georgia has committed to hood
the tapping hole of its holding furnace and duct the emissions to a baghouse.
This is the only pollution control system on a holding furnace that was en-
countered in the study.7
No sulfur emission data were available on holding furnaces. However,
emissions should be very low because this is not a refining step. One plant
is using natural gas to fire its furnace, thus eliminating the main source
of potential sulfur emissions.
6.1.5.3 Incinerator Emission Control Systems. Only one plant sur-
veyed had an incinerator operating which burned insulation from scrap wire.
Emissions were controlled with an afterburner. No current emission data on
the afterburner were available. There is potential for problems with emis-
sions when PVC is incinerated which would emit HC1 and possibly chlorinated
hydrocarbons;, thus, some type of control of chloride compounds would be
necessary.8
45
-------
6.2 ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TECHNIQUES
The process steps that could be considered for NSPS investigation are
the cupola, converter, anode/fire-refining, shaft, Kaldo, and holding fur-
nace emission points. The methods of control for these processes are listed
in Table 6-1 as alternatives. All the alternatives address only particu-
late control since this was the major pollutant emitted and also one for
which data exist. Sulfur control alternatives are only low sulfur fuel usage
or a sulfur scrubber.
Because so many combinations are possible, all process/control alterna-
tive combinations are not listed, but such combinations can be selected from
Table 6-1.
6.3 "BEST SYSTEMS" OF EMISSION REDUCTION
The plants that are candidates for initial consideration as "best sys-
tems" are listed below with plant location and contact indicated.
Southwire Company
Box 1000
Carrollton, Georgia 30117
Mr. William Burson
404-832-5130
Cupola
Fabric filter -
evaculted
chamber on
charge door
Holding
Hooded tapping
hole - fabric
filter
Converter Anode/Fi re-Refi ni ng Shaft
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
None
Comments: This plant was not visited but its, planned controls are the most
advanced in the industry. Double door-evacuated chamber on cupola charge
door and hood on holding furance tapping hole have not been installed yet.
Cupola controlled by two'baghouses in parallel.
Cupola emissions: Approximately 4 kg/hr (9 Ib/hr) particulate not includ-
ing fugitives; S02 emissions approximately 3.6 kg/hr (8 Ib/hr) when furnace
is on standby fuel oil.
Holding: No estimate on fugitive emissions.
Converter: Approxiamtely 2.3 kg/hr (5 Ib/hr) particulate not including fugi-
tives (estimated at 3.6 Kg/cycle (8 lb/cycle)); S02 emissions approximately
272 kg/blow (600 Ib/blow) and blow lasts about 45 min, 2 blow/day.
Anode: Approximately 4.5 kg/hr (10 Ib/hr) particulate. S02 emissions ap-
proximately 22.7 kg/hr (50 Ib/hr) when furance on standby oil fuel.
Shaft: No estimate; in compliance.
46
-------
>_
OL
O
O
o
LU
CO
LU
•
_u
z. >-
I — i rv*
1—
CO CO
CO ZD
LU O
0 ^
O »-i
a:
a. cr
in 1—1
o z:
LU Li!
UJ
D; a:
o
1 1 f—>
co • cr
1 — i "Z.
I— i-i
>=C 1—
a; UJ
UJ 21
1— co
^C *"**
UJ
_1 D-
o a.
D: o
H- 0
o
O
* •
P~"
1
VD
LU
,_ ]
jy*}
^£
i—
re
en
0
"o
E
JZ
o
CU
1—
I—
o
s~
E
O
cr.
C,
•i—
-o
i —
0
o
-o
1 —
NX
4^
t-
t —
co
cr.
E
•r—
E
CU £
"T3 CU
0 J-
ea: cu
•I—
C{ —
cu
$-
cu
>
c
o
re
P— -
o
Q.
3
CU
E
Lu O 1 I
LU "Z.
u.
CO
U. 1
LU CO LU
^— * ^^
^^ —1 ^_
1 1 1
u_ co LU co
cu
E 1 1
0 O
CO Z
LU
^F"
lit
LU CO
U- >•
co
1 1 I
Lu U-
1 I 1 1
0
UJ
1
U_ LU
co co cj>
_J _I LU
1 1 1
•—= Lu Lu Lu Lu
Lu LU U. Lu
r— CM CO •=!-
cu cu cu cu
> > > >
'p 'p 'j~^ '[^
re re re . re
E E E E
S- S- i. S-
cu cu cu cu
5555
JD
3
^.
o.
CO
1
CO
iT si
o cu
C3 , ^)
-D E
re
CU .C
cr. o
£_
re en
.E E
O -i-
E 4J
O -t-5
cu
S- CO
cu
rf") 1
E
re «-3
JE CO
0
•o L
cu o
re re
0 ••-
re E
cu i—
cu
1 +->
O CO
LU •!-
E
CU •»-»
3 *r-"
M- S
S- S-
3 CU
t)- J3
p '" ^^
3 3
CO S-
O
"3- co
0
S-
1 3
•*->
LU E
CO CU
\ >
" ** ^>
t- CTJ
CU S-
+J CU
i— E
•r- CU
o cr.
•1— •»—
S- .E
f^i
re i
LU
i s:
i
Lu CO
Lu >
re
47
-------
U.S. Metals Refining
400 Middlesex Avenue
Carteret, New Jersey 07008
Mr. M. J. Mauser
Plant Metallurgist
Mr. Tony Filiaci
Director of Environmental
Metallurgical Control
201-541-9600
and
Cupola
Settler
Arc Furnace Anode/
(Slag Cleaning) Converter Fire-Refining Shaft
Fabric Fabric filter
filter hooded tapping
hole
Fabric filter Fabric
hooded tapping filter
hole
Fabric filter
Settling
chamber
Comments: Cupola controlled by two baghouses in parallel. Sulfur emis-
sions are not a problem because of usage of low sulfur fuels. 1976 NEDS
data particulate emissions.
Cupola: 142 Mg/year (157 tons/year)
Arc: 43 Mg/year (47 tons/year)
Converter: 24 Mg/year (27 tons/year)
Anode/Fire-Refining: 2.7 Mg/year (3 tons/year) to 39 Mg/year (43 tons/year)
Shaft: 13 Mg/year (14 tons/year)
Franklin Smelting and Refining Company
Castor Avenue and Richmond Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19134
Mr. Walter Pickwell
Plant Engineer
215-634-2231
Cupola
Afterburner and
fabric filter;
hooded tap
Converter
Fabric filter and
scrubber
Incinerator
Afterburner
Comments: Emissions from the cupola baghouse must be estimated because of
the difficulty in testing. No current emissions data on the converter bag-
house since it is new. No data on the incinerator.
Cupola: 1975 data - 40 Mg/year (44 tons/year)
No change in system since 1975; estimates are constant.
48
-------
REFERENCES: Section 6.
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Pollution Engineering Manual.
2nd Edition. Compiled and edited by J. A. Danielson. Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. May 1973. pp. 279-282.
2. Letter and attachments from Cutrer, E. A., Jr. Air Pollution Compliance
Program, Georgia Department of Natural Resources to M. K. Snyder, MRI.
January 7, 1980. p. 3. Response to request for emission and emission
control data on Southwire Copper Division.
3. Telecon. Culler, William. Bureau of Air Quality Control, Department
of Health and Environmental Control, South Carolina. November 28, 1979.
Emission data on Nassau Recycling Corporation.
4. Reference 3.
5. Letter and attachments from Montney, W. A., Division of Air Pollution
Control, Illinois EPA, to M. K. Snyder, MRI. December 27, 1979. Sur-
veillance report for CHEMETCO and Cerro Corporation.
6. Reference 5.
7. Reference 2.
8. Telecon. Scott, Robert. Air Management Services, Philadelphia. January 4,
1980. Process and emission data on Franklin Smelting and Refining Company.
49
-------
7. EMISSION DATA
7.1 AVAILABILITY OF DATA
The emission data obtained from state and local control agencies and
the_National Emission Data System during the conduct of this study are iden-
tified in Table 7-1. The data were incomplete for most of the plants. In
some instances, particulate emission data were available for one plant process
but not for another. Availability of uncontrolled emission data was poor.
Good process rate information for the various smelting and refining opera-
tions was difficult to obtain. Sulfur emission data were available for only
one plant, although an estimate was available for another plant.
7.2 SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
EPA Method 5 is an applicable standard method for sample collection
and analysis of particulates emitted from secondary copper smelting and re-
fining processes. Information on the test methods used to collect data ana-
lyzed in this study was not obtained. The adequacy of available test methods
for fugitive emissions needs to be studied further.
50
-------
oo
^—
1
~~^
to
UJ
o:
I—
00
LU
0
i— <
to
to
1 — 1
1 1
CD
^_
r-
i— i
_J
i— i
CQ
3
S
CO
o.
•'
to
LU
o
C£
- O
to
LU
1
_»J
o:
**">
f—
*£
|j
o
i—
LU
fV
g^
EX.
LU
O
1
S- CM
CO C3
O- 00
CU
t/)
3
0
o^
CO
CQ
CO
Q.
3
0
CT5
C^
en
*s ^
J= O
•4-> S-
3 S-
O CO
CU
CO
i —
3
O
•r—
+3
S- CM
CO O
Cu 00
CU
3
O
CT,
CO
CQ
S-
cu
s-
O)
E
0
CJ
en
^
en
^^
CD
jT
CU O
t- •»->
"S r—
-c o
is f
3 S-
0 CO
00 S-
3 S-
O CO
CO CO
T3
CU
CL
E
CO
V)
^-3
O
4j
fl^
^^
CU
E
O
CU
o
CO
s-
3
CT:
c
•^_
F"— •
o
z:
CT)
C^.
en
CO
4J
S- X
CO O CJ O
Q- -z. or o
CD
^
O
i—i
I—
UJ
o
Q_
_1
•z.
LU
S
O
00
I—I
CD
S- S-
O) O
J2 +J
X2 (O
3 E
S- ••-
O £
c/i i—
CU
UJ •!-
S- S-
cu o
J3 +J
-Q CO
3 £=
S- '«-!
O E
"QJ
cu
S •«->
LU -i—
CD
O
C
CU
I
CU
cri
o
o
D- 10
CU
o.
o •
O -l->
oo
o
S- +->
s- 10
CU CO
O LU
o
3 _I
-a •-<
D- CO
•r-
S- 3
CU O
0 -- 1
Q.
O
O +•>
00
O
S- -)-»
S- trt
CU CO
O LU
51
-------
**—"•*
•o
0)
3
E
•r-
E
O
O
r—
1
Ul
|
CQ
J—
^^
"4^-0
E CU
ro r—
4-i o.
3 E
r- ro
r— 10
0
O-
OJ
CL
•J—
3
cr
O)
r—
O
s-
4J
E
O
O
CU
o
s-
3
0
t/1
tfl
to
cu
0
o
S-
o.
0)
rO
Q
•r—
O
"O
E
ro
U)
1—
o
Q_
_J
r-
z:
Ul
^*
•z.
o
Di
i— i
>•
UJ
1
CO
1^^
o
1— 1
1 — 1
to
O)
(O
"3
O
-J3
S- X
ro O O O
a. z. n: o
cu
E
O
4-5
({ —
rO
00
CD
f--
O
V)
4-5
O
3 _I
•a i— i
0
s- «
Q- if)
s- '3
CU o
Q |
cx
o •
C-3 4-5
CO
o
S- 4->
s- w
a> to
o ui
O)
CO
r—
3
O
•r—
4-5
S-
ro
ex.
i
s- s-
O) O
JD to
3 E
S- -r-
0 E
t/5 T-
r—
4-5 CU
O)
3 4-5
l/)
UJ -r-
2: E
,f—^
ro
**— ^»
0
-o
I—
ro
°*s
CD
!•-•
^
1
O 1-1
O
1— «•
Ul E
2: o
Ul 4-5
"T- i—
O eC
CU
rO
P—
3
O
•r-
4-5
S- X
ro O O O
o- z: 3: o
cu
0
cu
o
ro
E
S-
3
ij —
CD
E
•r—
-a
r—
o
'~T-
CT>
r--
^~
_i
O I-H
O
h- «
Ul E
2: o
Ul 4-5
3: i —
c_>
r8
3
O
(O
Q-
O)
4->
ro
*3
O
'-P
S_
ro
D-
00
a
ui
Ul
CO
CO
eC
CO
oo
O
I—I
et
cu
t/)
3
O
ro
ca
a>
t/>
3
O
SI
cr>
ra
CQ
a>
3
O
(O
CQ
ro
c—
o
a.
3
to
E
ro
CU
rO
CO
01
cu
-a
o
et
VD
en
E
a>
Di
U.S. Meta
Carteret,
USMR
Carteret,
USMR
Carteret,
52
-------
,^-*»
-o
CU
3
C
t —
^-3
E
O
O
I—
^
LU
i
CD
1—
CO
+J t3
C. CD
03 r—
+* O.
r— fQ
i — CO
O
Q.
E
CU
Q.
•r~
3
CT
O)
,
O
s-
d
O
O
CD
O
s-
3
O
(/)
CO
CO
cu
o
o
O-
0)
re
Q
>.
+J
o
•o
E
re
CU
^
re
E
1 ^
E
re
D-
^-^%
co
o
LU
•z.
LU
1—
CO
>~
CO
<£.
1—
•
0^
E
•r-
E
•i—
M-
CU
S-
I
CU
S-
•r-
U_
JO
01
*~D
s:
n
] ^
cu
S-
cu
2: s-
CO (0
~^> <-3
0)
re
P—B
3
o
•M
s_
rO
D-
S-
Ol
^-*
1
o
en
c:
*^-
r™
4-^
4-3
CU
CO
+J
C)
re
.E
CO
10
0>
•-3
"^^
f\
] >
CU
S-
cu
o: 4->
2: s-
co re
:r> o
CU
rO
r>-«
3
o
'P
5-
ro
D_
CO
CO
3
O
05
(C
en
rO
to
Q-
3
C_5
LO
01
01
£Z
•i—
E
C
CU
-o
E
re
o~
,l_t
QJ
E
oo
c:
•i—
r—
^y
^
(U
s-
LL.
,
CM X
O O 0 O
co z: 3i o
^^
Q-
«
(C
•r—
J=
Q-
"cu
-a
re
•r~ • '
C~'
Q-
_1
O
a:
i—
o
o
1
^~J
^—»
^^
LU
. s:
•z.
o
C£
I— i
LU
O
•z.
•sC.
DC
H-
_J
^^
LU
a:
Lu
O
£
LU
s:
i—
a:
o.
LU
Q
1
g
i— i
0
2
^c
1—
ra
czs
CO
cu
re
r—
3
0
*|"»
s_
re
a.
cu
E
O
•z.
cu
-o
o
•=£
cn
CM
^~
E
O
'43
re
s_
o
Q.
s-
0
0
02
E
r—
O
>^
O C_3
cu co
D;
ft
3 E
re O
CO -«->
CO CO
re re
•z. cc
cu
re
^~
3
O
'p
s-
rO
Q-
S
CU
E
O
•z.
O)
E
•i —
E
•i —
(|_.
CU
s-
1
cu
s-
•i—
u_
01
•^^
1
E
0
"43
re
s-
o
o.
S-
o
Ov
c
r— •
O
>-j
U
cu
cc:
3
rO
CO
CO
re
•z.
e 1
CO
A
E
0
CO
re
CJJ
53
-------
8. STATE AND LOCAL EMISSION REGULATIONS
State and local emission regulations that apply to new sources in the
secondary copper industry are summarized in this section. Only the regula-
tions of the five states where secondary copper plants are located were
examined. It is believed that these five states are representative of the
eastern United States where the secondary copper industry is concentrated.
(The supply of processible scrap is concentrated in the heavy manufacturing
areas.) These regulations were primarily taken from the Environment Reporter1
with supplemental information from contacts with state air pollution control
agencies.
The emission regulations are presented in Table 8-1. The allowable
emissions for each state are compared for a hypothetical plant, considered
typical of a new plant which might be built. The plant is described in Sec-
tion 5.1.4. It has six significant emission sources: a cupola, a rotary
converter, two reverberatory anode furnaces, a reverberatory fire refining
furnace, and a shaft furnace. Only one reverberatory anode furnace is op-
erated with the other on standby. All three reverberatory furnaces use the
same stack, but each of the other sources has its own stack. Table 5-1 lists
the plant parameters used to determine the state regulations which would
apply to this plant. The parameters for the reverberatory anode furnace
« apply to each anode furnace when it is operating.
To make this comparison, it is assumed that each state considers each
source to be a separate process. However, the reverberatory furnaces are
treated as a single process when the emission standard is based on stack
height or gas exit velocity. (Note that gas exit velocity is not the same
as the gas effluent rate. The gas effluent rate, as listed in Table 5-1,
is a volume of gas leaving the stack per unit of time. The gas exit velocity
is the gas effluent rate divided by the area of the stack opening.)
The major pollutant emitted from the secondary copper industry is par-
ticulates. Particulate emissions from the cupola, rotary furnace, and re-
verberatory furnace are typically controlled by fabric filters. Particulate
emissions from the shaft furnace are typically controlled by a settling cham-
ber.
Sulfur dioxide emissions are minor. The uncontrolled emissions from
the model plant do not exceed the emission limit of any of the five states
because the plant uses a low sulfur fuel.
There are some other regulations in the five states which would apply
to secondary copper plants with different configurations. Illinois limits
carbon monoxide emissions from cupolas to 200 ppm corrected to 50 percent
54
-------
co
z.
_J
D"
C£
UJ
o.
0-
o
o
>-
§£
f~*
z.
o
0
Ul
co
3
LU
yy
D;
0
u_
co
•z.
o
1— 1
CD
UJ
fy*
Z.
O
1 — 1
to
CO
f — 1
s:
UJ
u_
o
>—
D;
s:
ID
CO
.
r—
1
CO
UJ
1
•II 1
CO
1—
f
a>
u
to
£1
S-
3
q-
O)
-o
O
c:
(0
s-
o
:QJ
c£
S-
O)
J \
T— '
s-
o>
>
c
o
o
s-
+J
o
D;
(0
l__
o
O-
•"S
o
CD cr
i— O
•r- CO
CO CO
•I— •!—•
^> £
CD
i — CO
to in
S_ o
E O
fll —
CD 0.
S-
0)
ja M-
E O
^
S-
JC
*^
f-*>
1—
S-
^
0)
_:*:
5-
^Q"
^^
s-
^
CTJ
S-
•1*^,^
<"**
t
S-
-£
cn
"^
•r—
0
(O
Q.
0
^_3
C
O)
0
S-
(U
a.
03
C '
o
•1 —
•M
(O
O1
0)
S-
co
4^
f"
(O
1 ' '
Q-
O)
-> C O
a> ro s-
CO CO > CO
CO -I- S- r- C_3
•r- O O) >,
C7> C ""O CO JC
S- -i- C 4->
0 i— S S= 3
a> r— CO CO CM 1
o co r-- •>!-
CO i— i— LO 1
CM .
o 10 oj cn
cn cn co cn i
I**s, f—
f— i— • F*^ C~i
("* *i f~t
* *1 V.^ \mJ
r— CM O LO E:
co
03 T-
>> E "o
tu to s-
CO CO > CO
CO -i- S- i— C_>
•r- 0 OJ >,
cn c "-3 co jc
s- -i- c: •»->
O r— 3 C 3
CU n— <3J CD O
CD i— i S O- CO
55
-------
•a
cu
E
'•p
c
o
o
•
1
CO
LU
_J
CD
eC
K~
•
.
1 \
w
CO
M-
O
fll
VIJ
•p
to
o
cu
o
to
S-
,~
H~
M-
10
CO
cu
o
(O
s-
t?
O)
E
O)
cu
«
^~
f^
'
•^
5^
0
S
cu
s_
cu
cu
c
o
c/>
•r-
s-
s-
^
JO
5-
JC
05
s-
JC
jQ
5-
"OV
CU
•p
to
•p
CO
cu
•p
to
— \
0
•r—
to
O-
r-. oo
CT5 !*"•• CD P*>
r*^ CD cr> I**-* CT>
CD r-- i — CD i —
i — CD r—
*• r~ co « o
CT) "i — CD i—
CO
Q. ft5 fO CX, fO
e£ y y <£ 1-3
LO lO -3- CO LO
CO ,'E "o
cu to
lO T- J- i— 0
•i- o cu >,
CD E •"""> t/) JC
S- -r- E -P
O i — S E 3
CU r— CU CU O
CD t-i "Z. D- CO
OO CO
CD r-. cr> r-.
r^* CD CD r-- en
CD r-» i — CD r—
i— CD i —
r. '~ O " O
CD *• i — CD i —
CO
S_ >, CD S- C
Q- fO 3 Q- lO
ec s: =i «=c ro
to co LO co
LO r— Sf CM I
LO i —
O CO O OO
CO CO CM LO 1
CM
00 O
IT—
0 O
to to
E E
i. S-
3 3
q_ q_
CU CU
-a -o
0 O
E E
fO tO
JC JC
•r™ *r~
^ ^
-
-o -a
cu cu
•a -o
3 3
o o
E E
1— 1 H— 1
I— LO
CO •* 1
10
lO T-
>, E "o
cu to s-
t/1 tO > fO
fO •!- S- r— O
•i- O CU >,
CD E rD to JC
S_ -r- E -P
O r- S E 3
CU i— CU CU O
CIS H- 1 ^ D. CO
p
a.
Q.
,
o
o
o
to CM
to
CD It-
CD
•p
to E
3 3
10 . S
"x 'x
cu to
E
o
•i- CU
JD S-
3 • 3
O CU -P
o to
•a s- s-
s_ 3 cu
CO O O-
-a to E
E CU
CO E -P
•P O
to T- -P
S_ 00 X
CD 3 CU
a_ -o
E co
c/) O fO
E O CD
•r— E
tO O "O
S-. E E
CD tO
tO
E "
O JC
S- 0)
CU t — -r~
•P 10 CU
-p o JC
5 O
CU -P CO
4-> +J
CO to to
r?— Br~"
3 "
O CU . — •
•r- E 0
-P 30)
S tr— {/)
CO Q- •«--
0.. -P
ri. ft
tt- 0
. 0 S-
, — «• CU CU CO
• s- E E ex. cu
^-^ JC O 3 >> E
-^ E CO • > CU
JD. O S- -P JC
I— -P -P CU >5 -P >>
CU tf_ tl— •!—
" to CU O E T- O
E -P E E O O
O tO O -I- -r- -P i —
•r- S- 0 r— M- CU
tO -P CU JC -r- O
•r- JC •— ^CD E CD -P
CU -i— ' 03 CU S- II X
CU ^ JC CU CU
cu 3: o ex. Jc
i— r— ^£ tO
JD. tO i — O tO S- CO
fO to CO CO -P O CD
2 CU -P S- t-
O O II to CO E
i — o O- to o
i— S- q_ 00 CU
CO Q- O -r- II ••— "O
to r— CU
II II -^ II E D- ">
s- a. o- to
UJ Cu CD JC Q. eC CQ
CO J3 O
56
-------
excess air if the melt rate exceeds five tons per hour. Georgia limits ni-
trogen oxide emissions from general manufacturing processes. .Illinois also
limits emissions of H2S04 and S03. New Jersey limits emissions of all sul-
fur compounds. None of these other pollutants are known to be emitted in
sufficient quantities that would require the secondary copper industry to
install emission controls.
It should be noted that the crucible furnace, which is used in some
secondary copper plants, is an indirectly heated emissions source. There
are separate effluent streams from the combustion chamber and the melting
chamber. The former would be regulated as a fuel-burning source and the
latter as an industrial process.
The particulate emission limits are based on the process weight rate
in Georgia, Illinois, and South Carolina and on the concentration of par-
ti culates in the effluent gas in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The Illinois
and New Jersey limits are the most stringent. They are in rather close
agreement as applied to the model plant, although they have a different
basis for establishing limits. The Illinois limits are the most stringent
for the cupola, rotary converter, and fire refining furnace. The New Jersey
limits are the most stringent for the anode furnaces and the shaft furnace.
The Illinois limits are the most stringent for the plant as a whole.
There is more variation among the states in the basis for sulfur di-
oxide emission limits. Illinois and Pennsylvania limits are based on the
concentration of sulfur dioxide in the effluent gas. The Georgia limit is
based on stack height. The New Jersey limit is based on stack height, gas
exit velocity, and gas exit temperature, but there is also a concentration
limit which must not be exceeded. South Carolina does not regulate sulfur
dioxide emissions from secondary copper plants. The New Jersey limit is
the most stringent.
A Model IV calculation2 was made to estimate the impact of new source
performance standards in 1984 and 1989. The calculation was based on the
upper limit of the probable increase in capacity, so the result is an esti-
mated maximum impact. The new source performance standards were assumed to
equal the Illinois standards for particulates. The calculation was not made
for sulfur dioxide because the uncontrolled emissions meet the standards of
each of the five states. The particulate emissions under state regulation
were assumed to equal the state emission limits. The calculation was done
for each of the five states and the results were added to give an estimated
impact for the nation. The fractional utilization of existing industry ca-
pacity was assumed to be 1.00 for Georgia, Illinois, and New Jersey; 0.77
for Pennsylvania; and 0.67 for South Carolina. The baseline year produc-
tion capacity is 383 Gg (422 thousand tons) in 1979. The construction and
modification rate to replace obsolete capacity was assumed to be zero. The
construction and modification rate to increase industry capacity was assumed
to be 0.009. This is a decimal fraction of baseline capacity per year. If
the industry expands capacity so that it produces at 90 percent of capacity
and if the higher growth projection (1.9 percent) is realized, it would reach
57
-------
an annual capacity of 465 Gg (513,000 tons) in 1989 for an increase of 82
Gg (90,000 tons) the 10 years. Some of the new capacity, however, can come
from expansion of electrolytic refining capacity, without the introduction
of significant new emissions sources. Such latent capacity is at least 46
Gg (51,000 tons). Thus 36 Gg (40,000 tons) is the maximum likely expansion
which would result in new sources. A capacity growth from 383 (442,000 tons)
to 419 Gg (462,000 tons) in 10 years averages 0.9 percent per year (compound).
The results are an estimated national impact of 17 metric tons (19 short
tons) per year in 1984 and 35 metric tons (39 short tons) per year in 1989.
These impacts are not very large because the industry is rather small and
its expected growth rate is rather slow.
58
-------
REFERENCES: Section 8.
1. Bureau of National Affairs. Environment Reporter. State Air Laws.
Washington, D.C. .
2. Monarch, M. R., R. R. Cirillo, B. H. Cho, G. A. Concaildi, A. E. Smith,
E. P. Levine, and K. L. Brubaker. Priorities for New Source Performance
Standards under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. EPA-450/3-78-019.
Research Triangle Park, N.C. April 1978. pp. 9-13.
59
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-80-11
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESS IOC* NO.
4. TITLI AND SUBTITLE
Source Category Survey: Secondary Copper Smelting
and Refining Industry
5. REPORT DATE
May 1980
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
, AUTHOR{S)
M. K. Snyder
F. D. Shobe
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Midwest Research Institute
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-3059
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Emission Standards and Engineering'Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final (10/79 to 1/80)
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Prject Officer: Reid Iversen (919/541-5295)
16. ABSTRACT • ...
This report presents the results of a survey of the secondary copper smelting and
refining industry to determine the probable impact of the development of new source
performance standards under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. The surveyed industry
processes copper scrap to produce pure copper or copper alloy, other than brass and
bronze. Secondary copper foundries, which melt and cast high-quality copper scrap
without refining it, are excluded. Primary copper smelters and refiners, which
produce copper from ore, are also excluded, although they also process copper scrap.
Process, emissions, and economic data were gathered by literature searches, contacts
with representatives of the industry, trade associations, federal government agencies,
and state and Tocal air pollution control agencies, and visits to two plants. The in-
dustry's production processes, actual and allowable air emissions, and emission control
systems are described. State and local emission regulations are compared. Production
and capacity are projected to 1989 and the impact of new source performance standards is
assessed.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Secondary copper industry
Particulates
Sulfur dioxide
New source perfoormance standards
Air emissions
Air emission control systems
State implementation
plans
Air pollution
Smelting and refining
Recycling
Copper
13 B
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Available from National Technical Infor-
mation Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Sorinafipld. Virainia 22161
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
63
20. SECURITY CLASS /This pageJ
Unclassified
22. PRICE
6PA Fotm 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE50
-------