United States Office of Air Quality EPA 450/3-83-018b
Environmental Protection Planning and Standards March 1984
Agency Research Triangle Park NC 27711
__ - -
Review of
New Source
Performance
Standards for
Primary Copper
Smelters
Appendices
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REVIEW OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
FOR
PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS
Prepared by:
J6ck R. Farmer ~~ /(Date)
Director, Emission Standards and Engineering Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
1. Existing standards of performance for primary copper smelters were
promulgated in 1976. Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7411),
as amended, directs that the Administrator periodically review promul-
gated standards.
2. Copies of this document have been sent to the following Federal depart-
ments: Labor, Defense, Interior, Health and Human Services, Agriculture,
Transportation, Commerce, and Energy; EPA Regional Administrators- and
other interested parties.
3. For additional information contact:
Dr. James U. Crowder
Industrial Studies Branch (MD-13)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Telephone: (919) 541-5601
4. Copies of this document may be obtained from:
U.S. EPA Library (MD-35)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
m
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY 1-1
1.1 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES 1-1
1.1.1 Reverberatory Smelting Furnace Exemption 1-1
1.1.2 Control of Reverberatory Furnace Particulate
Matter Emissions 1-2
1.1.3 Expansion 1-2
1.1.4 Fugitive Emissions 1-3
1.2 IMPACTS 1-3
INTRODUCTION 2-1
2.1 BACKGROUND AND AUTHORITY FOR STANDARDS 2-1
2.2 SELECTION OF CATEGORIES OF STATIONARY SOURCES 2-5
2.3 PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE ... 2-7
2.4 CONSIDERATION OF COSTS 2-9
2.5 CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 2-10
2.6 IMPACT ON EXISTING SOURCES 2-11
2.7 REVISION OF STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE 2-12
THE PRIMARY COPPER SMELTING INDUSTRY: PROCESSES AND POLLUTANT
3-1
3-1
3-3
3-4
3-11
3-28
3-37
3-39
3-44
3-44
3-44
3-46
3-57
3-62
3-62
3-64
3-64
3-79
3-81
3-81
3-82
3.5 SUITABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR PROCESSING
HIGH-IMPURITY FEEDS 3-83
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
GENERAL
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
3.2.1 Roasting and Drying
322 Smelting
3.2.3 Converting
324 Fire Refining
3.2.5 Continuous Smelting Systems .
EMISSIONS FROM PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS
331 General
332 Process Emissions
3.3.3 Fugitive Emissions
3.3.4 Summary of Fugitive Emissions
EXPANSION OPTIONS FOR EXISTING FACILIT
3.4.1 Multihearth Roasters
3.4.2 Fluid-Bed Roasters
3.4 3 Reverberatory Furnaces . .
3 4.4 Electric Furnaces
3.4.5 Outokumpu Flash Furnaces. . .
3.4.6 Noranda Reactors
3.4.7 Converters
Data
IES
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (con.)
Page
3.5.1 Background 3-83
3.5.2 Impurity Behavior During the Smelting Process . . . 3-85
3.5.3 High-Impurity Feed Processing Experience with
Outokumpu Flash Furnaces 3-100
3.5.4 High-Impurity Feed Processing Experience with
Inco Flash Furnaces 3-103
3.5.5 High-Impurity Feed Processing Experience with
the Mitsubishi Process 3-104
3.5.6 High-Impurity Feed Processing Experience with
Noranda Reactors 3-104
3.5.7 Conclusions 3-107
3.6 BASELINE EMISSIONS 3-111
3.6.1 Process Source's 3-111
3.6.2 Fugitive Sources 3-117
3.7 REFERENCES 3-118
4. EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES 4-1
4.1 GENERAL 4-1
4.2 SULFURIC ACID PLANTS 4-3
4.2.1 Summary 4-3
4.2.2 General Discussion 4-6
4.2.3 Design and Operating Considerations 4-8
4.2.4 Acid Plant Performance Characteristics 4-13
4.3 SCRUBBING SYSTEMS 4-20
4.3.1 Background 4-20
4.3.2 Calcium-Based Scrubbing Systems 4-22
4.3.3 Ammonia-Based Scrubbing Systems ..... 4-44
4.3.4 Magnesium-Based Scrubbing Systems ... 4-58
4.3.5 Citrate Scrubbing Processes 4-68
4.3.6 Conclusions Regarding Flue Gas Desulfurization
Systems 4-84
4.4 INCREASING THE S02 STRENGTH OF REVERBERATORY FURNACE
OFFGASES 4-90
4.4.1 Elimination of Converter Slag Return 4-91
4.4.2 Minimizing Infiltration , 4-92
4.4.3 Preheating Combustion Air 4-93
4.4.4 Operation at Lower Air-to-Fuel Ratio 4-94
4.4.5 Predrying Wet Charge 4-95
4.4.6 Oxygen Enhancement Techniques 4-95
4.4.7 Summary of Operating Modifications Useful for
Increasing Offgas S02 Concentrations 4-117
4.5 GAS BLENDING. . / 4-120
4.5.1 Converter Scheduling as a Means of Facilitating
Gas Blending 4-120
4.5.2 Weak-Stream Blending as Applied to a New Smelter
that Processes High-Impurity Ore Concentrates . . . 4-120
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (con.)
4.5.3 Partial Weak-Stream Blending as Applied to
Existing Smelters 4-121
4.6 PARTICULATE MATTER CONTROL FOR REVERBERATORY FURNACES .... 4-123
4.6.1 Important Factors Governing the Specification
of a Participate Control Device for Reverbera-
tory Furnace Offgases 4-123
4.6.2 Venturi Scrubbers 4-128
4.6.3 Fabric Filters 4-130
4.6.4 Electrostatic Precipitators 4-136
4.6.5 Conclusions Regarding Particulate Removal From
Reberberatory Furnace Offgases 4-143
4.7 CONTROL OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM PRIMARY COPPER
SMELTERS 4-145
4.7.1 General 4-145
4.7.2 Local Ventilation 4-146
4.7.3 General Ventilation 4-149
4.7.4 Control of Fugitive Emissions From Roasting
Operations 4-150
4.7.5 Control of Fugitive Emissions From Smelting
Furnace Operations 4-153
4.7.6 Capture of Fugitive Emissions From Converter
Operations 4-161
4.7.7 Summary of Visible Emissions Data for
Fugitive Emissions Sources 4-181
4.7.8 Removal of Particulate Matter From Fugitive
Gases 4-193
4.8 REFERENCES 4-197
5. MODIFICATIONS AND RECONSTRUCTION 5-1
5.1 SUMMARY OF 40 CFR 60 PROVISIONS FOR MODIFICATION AND
RECONSTRUCTION 5-1
5.1.1 Modification 5-1
5.1.2 Reconstruction 5-2
5.2 APPLICABILITY TO PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS 5-3
5.2.1 General 5-3
5.2.2 Modifications 5-3
5.3 REFERENCES 5-9
6. MODEL PLANTS AND ALTERNATE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES. 6-1
6.1 INTRODUCTION 6-1
6.2 REVERBERATORY FURNACE EXEMPTION 6-2
6.3 FUGITIVE EMISSION CONTROL 6-17
6.4 EXPANSION OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES. . . . 6-22
6.5 REFERENCES 6-36
VII
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (con.)
7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 7-1
7.1 GENERAL 7-1
7.1.1 New Greenfield High-Impurity Smelters--
Process Emissions 7-1
7.1.2 New Greenfield High-Impurity Smelters--
Fugitive Emissions 7-3
7.2 AIR POLLUTION IMPACT 7-3
7.2.1 S02 Controls for Reverberatory Smelting Furnaces. . . 7-3
7.2.2 Fugitive Particulate Emissions 7-7
7.2.3 Expansion Scenarios 7-7
7.3 WATER POLLUTION IMPACT 7-9
7.3.1 Gas Cleaning and Conditioning Systems 7-11
7.3.2 FGD Absorbent Purges 7-11
7.4 SOLID WASTE IMPACT 7-16
7.4.1 Calcium Based FGD's 7-17
7.4.2 Gas Cleaning Purges 7-17
7.4.3 Particulate Control on Reverberatory Smelting
Furnaces 7-18
7.5 ENERGY IMPACT 7-20
7.5.1 New Greenfield Smelters—Process Emissions 7-20
7.5.2 New Greenfield Smelters—Fugitive Emissions 7-20
7.5.3 Expansion Scenarios 7-20
8. COSTS 8-1
8.1 INTRODUCTION 8-1
8.2 CONTROL OF WEAK S02 STREAMS FROM NEW REVERBERATORY
FURNACES 8-3
8.2.1 Capital Costs 8-5
8.2.2 Annual ized Costs 8-17
8.3 COSTS FOR FUGITIVE EMISSION CONTROL 8-29
8.3.1 Capital Costs 8-29
8.3.2 Annualized Costs 8-33
8.4 COST OF CONTROLLING PROCESS PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
FROM REVERBERATORY FURNACES IF THE REVERBERATORY
EXEMPTION IS RETAINED 8-35
8.4.1 Capital Costs 8-35
8.4.2 Annualized Costs 8-36
8.5 PROCESS COSTS 8-38
8.5.1 Capital Costs ...... 8-38
8.5.2 Annualized Costs 8-38
8.6 EXPANSION SCENARIOS 8-38
8.6.1 Incremental Capital and Annualized Process
Costs for Expansion Scenarios 8-40
8.6.2 Incremental Capital and Annualized Costs
for Control 8-46
8.6.3 Summary of Expansion Scenario Incremental Costs . . . 8-50
vm
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (con.)
8.7 COST-EFFECTIVENESS 8-50
8.8 REFERENCES 8-59
9. ECONOMIC IMPACT g-1
9.1 INDUSTRY ECONOMIC PROFILE 9-1
9.1.1 Introduction 9-1
9.1.2 The Copper Smelters—Ownership, Location,
Concentration 9-2
9.1.3 The Copper Refiners 9-7
9.1.4 Domestic Supply 9-9
9.1.5 Flow of Copper from Mines to U.S. Smelters 9-11
9.1.6 Copper Production Costs 9-17
9.1.7 U.S. Copper Resources 9-21
9.1.8 Smelter Capacity Growth 9-24
9.1.9 Trends in U.S. Productivity 9-26
9.1.10 U.S. Total Consumption of Copper 9-29
9.1.11 Demand by End Use 9-29
9.1.12 Copper Prices 9-33
9.1.13 Substitutes 9-44
9.1.14 World Production and Consumption of Copper. . . 9-45
9.2 ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT 9-48
9.2.1 Introduction 9-43
9.2.2 Methodology of Impact Analysis 9-49
9.2.3 Price Elasticity of Supply 9-53
9.2.4 The Price Elasticity of Demand 9-55
9.2.5 Analysis 9-57
9.2.6 Findings g-71
9.3 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT ', \ g-76
9.3.1 Executive Order 12291 9-75
9.3.2 Regulatory Flexibility 9-79
9.4 REFERENCES .' 9-79
APPENDIX A EVOLUTION OF THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT A-l
APPENDIX B INDEX TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS B-l
APPENDIX C EMISSION SOURCE TEST DATA C-l
APPENDIX D (Not Used)
APPENDIX E USE OF COAL IN THE OUTOKUMPU FLASH FURNACE AT THE
TOYO SMELTER E-!
APPENDIX F COST ANALYSIS TO ESTIMATE THE INCREMENTAL INCREASE IN
CAPITAL COST INCURRED BY INCREASING SULFURIC ACID PLANT
GAS-TO-GAS HEAT EXCHANGE CAPACITY F-l
IX
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (con.)
APPENDIX G ANALYSIS OF CONTINUOUS S02 MONITOR DATA AND
DETERMINATION OF AN UPPER LIMIT FOR THE INCREASE IN
S02 EMISSIONS DUE TO SULFURIC ACID PLANT CATALYST
DETERIORATION G-1
APPENDIX H SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSION TEST RESULTS FOR SINGLE-STAGE
ABSORPTION SULFURIC ACID PLANTS PROCESSING METALLURGICAL
OFFGAS STREAMS FROM PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS H-l
APPENDIX I ANALYSIS OF DUAL-ABSORPTION SULFURIC ACID PLANT
CONTINUOUS S02 MONITORING DATA 1-1
APPENDIX J EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS MODEL PLANT OPERATING PARAMETERS ... J-l
APPENDIX K MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR ESTIMATING POSTEXPANSION
REVERBERATORY GAS FLOW AND S02 CONCENTRATION FOR OXYGEN
ENRICHMENT AND OXY-FUEL EXPANSION OPTIONS K-l
APPENDIX L METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE
DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS L-l
APPENDIX M DETAILED COSTS FOR GREENFIELD SMELTERS M-l
APPENDIX N FUGITIVE EMISSION CONTROL COSTS N-l
APPENDIX 0 DETAILED COSTS FOR EXPANSION SCENARIOS 0-1
APPENDIX P METHODOLOGY UTILIZED TO DETERMINE THE COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH SULFURIC ACID PLANT PREHEATER OPERATION P-l
-------
FIGURES
Number
3-1 The conventional copper smelting process 3-5
3-2 Types of roasters 3-3
3-3 Reverberatory smelting furnace 3-14
3-4 Electric smelting furnace 3-18
3-5 Inco flash smelting furnace 3-22
3-6 Outokumpu flash smelting furnace 3-26
3-7 Peirce-Smith Converter 3-30
3-8 Copper converter operation 3-31
3-9 Hoboken converter 3-36
3-10 Noranda continuous smelting 3-41
3-11 Mitsubishi continuous smelting 3-43
3-12 Fugitive emissions sources for primary copper smelters. . . 3-48
3-13 Methods of oxygen addition 3-69
3-14 Converter elimination of arsenic as a function of
matte grade 3-98
3-15 Converter elimination of antimony as a function of
matte grade 3-98
3-16 Converter elimination of bismuth as a function of
matte grade 3-99
4-1 Contact sulfuric acid processes 4-7
4-2 Calcium-based scrubbing processes 4-24
4-3 Effect of pH of calcium sulfite-bisul fite solution on S02
equilibrium vapor pressure 4-29
4-4 Flow diagram of the lime/gypsum plant at the Onahama
smelter 4-38
4-5 Ammonia scrubbing process with sulfuric acid
acidulation 4-48
4-6 Ammonia scrubbing process with ammonium bisulfite
acidulation 4-50
4-7 Magnesium oxide (MAGOX) scrubbing process . . 4-60
4-8 Bureau of Mines citrate scrubbing process 4-71
4-9 Flakt-Boliden citrate scrubbing process 4-73
4-10 Typical absorber configuration 4-88
4-11 Methods of oxygen addition 4-97
4-12 Conventional copper reverberatory smelting furnace that
has been converted to an oxygen sprinkle smelting
furnace 4_100
4-13 Oxy-fuel burner locations in Reverberatory Furnace No. 3
at the Caletones smelter 4-102
4-14 Plan and elevation of Reverberatory Furnace No. 3 4-103
XI
-------
FIGURES (con.)
Number Page
4-15 Reverberatory furnace temperatures in the vicinity of
the furnace roofs with and without oxygen-undershooting
at Inco smelter 4-115
4-16 Typical collection efficiency curves for several types
of particulate removal devices 4-124
4-17 Venturi scrubber 4-129
4-18 Typical relationship between fractional collection
efficiency and particle size for venturi scrubbers 4-131
4-19 Baghouse with mechanical shaking 4-133
4-20 Baghouse with reverse flow cleaning 4-134
4-21 Baghouse with cleaning by jet pulse 4-134
4-22 Electrostatic precipitator 4-139
4-23 Illustration of null point formation 4-148
4-24 Spring-loaded car top and ventilation hood,
ASARCO-Hayden 4-152
4-25 Typical hooding for a matte tapping port 4-155
4-26 Schematic of a typical fugitive emissions control system
for matte tapping operations 4-156
4-27 Typical sectional launder covers 4-157
4-28 Launder hoods utilized at the Phelps Dodge-Morenci
Smelter for the capture of fugitive emissions generated
during matte tapping operations 4-158
4-29 Schematic of the matte tapping and ladle hoods at the
ASARCO-Tacoma Smelter 4-160
4-30 Schematic of the slag skimming (plan view) fugitive
emissions control system at the ASARCO-Tacoma Smelter . . . 4-162
4-31 Controlled airflow from a heated source 4-164
4-32 Uncontrolled airflow from a heated source 4-164
4-33 Inlet-outlet openings in converter building at ASARCO-
El Paso 4-167
4-34 A typical fixed secondary converter hood 4-171
4-35 Retractable-type secondary hood as employed at ASARCO-
Hayden 4-172
4-36 Entrained flow diagram 4-175
4-37 Converter air curtain/secondary hooding system as employed
at the Onahama and Naoshima smelters 4-176
4-38 Schematic diagram of the converter housing/air curtain
system at the Tamano smelter 4-178
6-1 Model plant for new "greenfield" smelter processing
high-impurity materials 6-1
6~2 Model smelter converter operating schedule 6-8
6-3 Model Plant I for expansion of existing smelters 6-28
6-4 Model Plant II for expansion of existing smelters 6-29
6-5 Model Plant III for expansion of existing smelters 6-30
6-6 Model Plant IV for expansion of existing smelters 6-31
6-7 Model Plan V for expansion of existing smelters 6-32
XT 1
-------
FIGURES (con.)
Number Page
8-1 Capital cost of a DC/DA sulfuric acid plant 8-6
8-2 Capital cost of an MgO FGD system 8-9
8-3 Capital cost of an ammonia FGD system 8-12
8-4 Capital cost of a limestone FGD system 8-14
8-5 Capital cost of an SC/SA sulfuric acid plant 8-47
9-1 Principal mining States and copper smelting and
refining plants, 1978 9-3
9-2 U.S. sources and uses of copper 9-10
9-3 Comparison of copper price index and mine and mill
capital cost index 9-19
9-4 U.S. copper smelter production 9-25
9-5 Quarterly price movements for copper wirebars
(1973 to 1981) 9-36
9-6 U.S. copper price 9-37
9-7 Annual recoverable copper available from domestic deposits
over a copper price range of $1.10 to $1.30/kg 9-41
9-8 Costs for smelting and refining in Japan vs. costs at
new smelters in the United States 9-69
9-9 Costs for smelting and refining in Japan vs. costs
at expanding smelters in the United States 9-70
xm
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1-1 Expansion Scenarios Selected for Economic Analysis. . . . 1-4
1-2 Impacts of S02 Regulatory Alternatives of a Typical
New Greenfield Smelter (Multihearth Roaster,
Reverberatory Smelting Furnace, Converter) Processing
High-Impurity Materials (All Impacts are Long Term
Unless Otherwise Noted) 1-5
1-3 Impacts of Particulate Matter Regulatory Alterna-
tives of a Typical New Greenfield Smelter (Multi-
hearth Roaster, Reverberatory Smelting Furnace,
Converter) Processing High-Impurity Materials
(All Impacts are Long Term Unless Otherwise Noted). . . . 1-6
3-1 Domestic Primary Copper Smelters 3-2
3-2 Major Copper-Bearing Minerals 3-2
3-3 Emissions Factors for Uncontrolled Major Process
Sources 3-45
3-4 Potential Sources of Fugitive Emissions 3-47
3-5 Summary of Fugitive S02 Emissions Factors for Primary
Copper Smelting Operations 3-58
3-6 Summary of Fugitive Particulate Emissions Factors for
Primary Copper Smelting Operations 3-59
3-7 Maximum Acceptable Impurity Levels in Anode Copper, and
Corresponding Levels in Blister Copper Produced at the
ASARCO-Tacoma Smelter 3-86
3-8 Assays of Various High Impurity Materials Processed at
ASARCO-Tacoma 3-87
3-9 Distribution of Impurity Elements in Conventional
Smelting When Processing High-Impurity Feeds 3-90
3-10 Distribution of Impurity Elements in the Noranda
Process (Matte Production Mode) 3-95
3-11 Distribution of Impurity Elements in the Noranda
Process (Blister Copper Production Mode) 3-96
3-12 Impurity Assays of Feed Materials Processed in the
Outokumpu Flash Furnace at the Kosaka Smelter 3-101
3-13 Maximum Impurity Levels Recommended for the Outokumpu
Flash Furnace 3-102
3-14 Range of Impurity Concentrations Tested in the Inco
Miniplant Flash Furnace 3-105
3-15 Maximum Impurity Levels Processed in the Mitsubishi
Process 3-106
3-16 Maximum Impurity Levels Recommended for the Noranda
Process (Matte Production Mode) 3-108
xv
-------
TABLES (con.)
Number
3-17 Summary of Experience Processing High-Impurity Feeds
in Alternative Smelting Technologies 3-110
3-18 Sulfur/Sulfur Dioxide Emission Limitations by State . . . 3-113
3-19 Particulate Emission Limitations by State 3-115
4-1 Estimated Maximum Impurity Limits for Metallurgical
Offgases Used to Manufacture Sulfuric Acid 4-15
4-2 Composition of Scale From the Onahama Lime-Gypsum
Process 4-31
4-3 Major Domestic Utility-Related FGD Installations That
Use the Limestone-Scrubbing Process 4-33
4-4 Lime/Limestone FGD Systems That Have Achieved S02
Removal Efficiences of 90 Percent or Greater on
Offgases Generated by Coal-Fired Steam Generators .... 4-36
4-5 Summary of Emission Test Data for the Duval Sierrita
Lime Scrubbing System, 1977-1980 4-37
4-6 Performance Data on the Cominco-Type Ammonia-Based
Scrubbing Units at Trail, British Columbia 4-56
4-7 Flue Gas Desulfurization Processes Assessed for
Application to Reverberatory Furnace Offgases 4-85
4-8 Efficiency and Reliability Data for the FGD Processes
Being Considered in the NSPS Revision for Primary
Copper Smelters 4-86
4-9 General Specifications of the Type of Oxy-Fuel Burner
Employed at the Caletones Smelter 4-104
4-10 General Specifications of the Type of Oxy-Fuel Burner
Employed at the Onahama Smelter 4-106
4-11 Typical Reverberatory Furnace Operating Data Before
and After the Use of Oxy-Fuel Burners at the Onahama
Smelter 4-107
4-12 Summary of Experience Involving the Use
of Oxygen in Reverberatory Smelting Furnaces 4-118
4-13 Typical Fractional Collection Efficiencies of
Particulate Control Equipment 4-125
4-14 Summary of Particulate Test Data for the Spray
Chamber/Baghouse at the Anaconda Smelter 4-137
4-15 Summary of In-Stack/Out-of-Stack Particulate Matter
Test Results at Reverberatory Furnace ESP Outlets .... 4-142
4-16 Summary of Particulate Test Data for the Spray
Chamber/Roaster-Reverberatory ESP at the ASARCO-
El Paso Smelter 4-144
4-17 Function of Air Curtain and Secondary Hood System
During Various Modes of Converter Operation at Tamano
Smelter 4-179
4-18 Summary of Design Data for the ASARCO-Tacoma
Converter Secondary Hooding/Air Curtain System 4-182
xvi
-------
TABLES (con.)
Number
4-19 Summary of Visible Emission Observation Data for
Capture Systems on Fugitive Emission Sources at
ASARCO-Tacoma 4"184
4-20 Visible Emission Observation Data for Reverberatory
Furnace Matte Tapping Operations at the Phelps Dodge-
Morenci Smelter 4-186
4-21 Visible Emission Data for Reverberatory Furnace
Matte Tapping Operations at the Phelps Dodge-
Morenci Smelter 4-187
4-22 Visible Emission Observation Data for Reverberatory
Furnace Slag Skimming Operations at the Phelps Dodge-
Morenci Smelter 4-188
4-23 Visible Emission Observation Data for Converter
Secondary Hood System During Matte Charging at the
Tamano Smelter 4-191
4-24 Visible Emission Observation Data for Blister
Discharge at the Tamano Smelter 4-194
4-25 Summary of Emissions Testing Performed on the
Converter Building Evacuation Baghouse at ASARCO-
El Paso 4-195
4-26 Summary of Emissions Testing Performed on the Calcine
Discharge Baghouse at Phelps Dodge-Douglas 4-196
6-1 Model Plant Charge Composition and Sulfur Elimination
for Greenfield High-Impurity Smelter 6-5
6-2 Model Plant--Greenfield High-Impurity Smelter Repre-
sentative Converter Offgas Stream Profile 6-10
6-3 Model Plant, New Greenfield High-Impurity Smelter
Control Alternatives 6~12
6-4 Parameters for Particulate Control Alternatives--
Primary Offgases from Dirty Reverberatory Furnaces. . . . 6-18
6-5 Summary of Fugitive Particulate Emissions Capture
and Control Systems 6-20
6-6 Smelting Configuration/Expansion Scenarios 6-24
6-7 Model Plant Configurations and Existing U.S. Smelters . . 6-26
6-8 Model Plant Expansion Scenarios: Exit Gases,
Composition, and Flow Rate 6-33
6-9 Model Plants for Expansion Options: Representative
Feeds, Matte Grades, and Sulfur Elimination Rates .... 6-35
7-1 Evaluated Control Options for Control of Process S02
Emissions at a Greenfield Copper Smelter (Multihearth
Roaster-Reverberatory Smelting Furance-Converter)
Processing High-Impurity Materials 7-2
xvn
-------
TABLES (con.)
Number
7-2 Evaluated Alternatives for Control of Fugitive Particulate
Emissions at a Greenfield Copper Smelter Processing
High-Impurity Materials (Multihearth Roaster-
Reverberatory Smelting Furnace-Converter) 7-4
'7-3 Evaluated Alternatives for Control of Fugitive
Particulate Emissions at a Greenfield Copper Smelter
(Flash Furnace-Converter) 7-5
7-4 Air Pollution Emission Impact of S02 Control Alter-
natives for a New Greenfield Smelter, Multihearth
Roaster-Reverberatory Furnace-Converter 7-6
7-5 Air Pollution Fugitive Particulate Emission Impact
for Each Source and Control Alternatives—New
Greenfield Smelters 7-8
7-6 Air Pollution Fugitive Particulate Emission Impact for
Expansion at Existing Smelters 7-10
7-7 Estimated Production Rate of Solid and Liquid
Effluents Requiring Disposal From Gas Cleaning and
Conditioning Equipment, Greenfield Smelters 7-12
7-8 Estimated Incremental Increase in Effluents
Requiring Disposal From Gas Cleaning and Conditioning
Equipment, Expansion Options 7-13
7-9 Estimated Production Rate of Solid and Liquid
Effluents Requiring Disposal from FGD Systems
Associated With Greenfield Smelter Models 7-14
7-10 Estimated Production Rate of Solid and Liquid
Effluents Requiring Disposal from FGD Systems
Associated With Expansion Options 7-15
7-11 Estimate of Emission Reduction Due to Particulate
Control of Reverberatory Smelting Furnace Primary
Offgases--High-Impurity Greenfield Smelter 7-19
7-12 Energy Impact—Process S02 Control Alternatives for
New Greenfield Smelter, Multihearth Roaster-
Reverberatory Furnace-Converter 7-21
7-13 Incremental Energy Impact—Fugitive Emission Control
Alternatives for New Greenfield Smelters 7-22
7-14 Energy Impacts—Expansion Scenarios for Existing
Primary Copper Smelters 7-23
8-1 Control Alternatives 8-2
8-2 Input Data to Cost Estimation, New High-Impurity
Smelter 8-4
8-3 Labor and Utility Unit Costs 8-18
8-4 FGD Raw Material and Utility Usage Rate 8-22
8-5 Evaluated Alternatives for Control of Fugitive
Particulate Emissions from a New Copper Smelter (Multi-
hearth Roaster, Reverberatory Furnace, Converter or
Flash Furnace-Converter) Processing High-Impurity
Materials 8-30
xvm
-------
TABLES (con.)
Number Page
8-6 Model Plant Expansion Scenarios 8-39
8-7 Input Data to Cost Estimations, Expansions Options. . . . 8-41
8-8 Summary of Incremental Costs Incurred Due to Acid
Plant Preheater Operation 8-51
8-9 Expansion Costs (Includes Cost of Controlling S02
Emissions from New Roasters and Converters as Required
by Existing NSPS) 8-52
8-10 Cost-Effectiveness: Control of Reverberatory Furnace
S02 Emissions in a New Copper Smelter (Multihearth
Roasters, Reverberatory Furnace, Converter) Processing
High-Impurity Materials 8-53
8-11 Costs for Control of Fugitive Particulate Matter
Emissions by Source, New Greenfield Smelter 8-54
8-12 Cost-Effectiveness of Expansion Scenairos 8-55
8-13 Cost-Effectiveness, Fugitive Particulate Matter Control,
Expansion Scenarios 8-56
8-14 Incremental Cost Data, Least Cost Expansion Scenarios . . 8-57
8-15 Incremental Cost Data, Fugitive Emission Control
Least Cost Expansion Scenarios 8-58
9-1 Smelter Ownership, Production and Source Material
Arrangements 9-5
9-2 U.S. Refining Facilities for Primary Copper 9-8
9-3 Flow of Copper From Mines to U.S. Smelters,
Mine Output 9-12
9-4 Flow of Copper From Mines to U.S. Smelters,
Smelter Sources 9-14
9-5 Smelting Cost Estimates 9-20
9-6 U.S. Copper Production by Mine (1977), Cents per
Kilogram and Production Capacity 9-22
9-7 Copper Resources of U.S. Companies 9-23
9-8 Productivity in the Copper Industry 9-27
9-9 Output and Productivity Indices 9-28
9-10 U.S. Copper Consumption 9-30
9-11 U.S. Copper Demand by Market End Uses 9-32
9-12 U.S. Shipments of Copper-Base Mill and Foundry
Products—Gross Weight 9-34
9-13 U.S. Copper Mine Capacity: Current and Potential .... 9-42
9-14 United States and World Comparative Trends in Refined
Copper Consumption, 1963-1979 9-46
9-15 United States and World Comparative Trends in
Copper Production: 1963-1979 9-47
9-16 Price Elasticity of Supply Estimates 9-54
9-17 Price and Income Elasticities of Demand Estimates .... 9-56
9-18 Cost Data for New High Impurity Greenfield Smelters . . . 9-58
9-19 Cost Data for New Greenfield Smelter Processing
• $ Clean Concentrates Using a Flash Furnace 9-59
9-20 Smelter Cost Data for Expansion Scenarios 9-61
9-21 Maximum Percentage Price Increase 9-72
xix
-------
TABLES (con.)
Number Page
9-22 Maximum Percent Profit Reduction 9-74
9-23 Summary of Selected Cases 9-75
9-24 Number of Employees at Companies That Own Primary
Copper Smelters 9-78
xx
-------
APPENDIX A
EVOLUTION OF THE REVIEW DOCUMENT
-------
APPENDIX A
EVOLUTION OF THE REVIEW DOCUMENT
This study to review the existing standard of performance for
primary copper smelters began in 1980, with Pacific Environmental
Services, Inc. (PES). In September 1980, responsibility for the
project was assigned to the Research Triangle Institute (RTI). Major
events since RTI was assigned responsibility are shown in Table A-l.
Initial RTI activities include a review of the PES draft work
plan and the preparation of the Phases II and III work plan. Discuss-
ions were held with PES and lERL/Cincinnati to identify and explicate
the issues and to gather information documents for detailed study at
RTI. In conjunction with EPA's Emission Monitoring Branch, a source
test plan was prepared in June 1981. However, due to funding problems,
source testing did not start until November 1981 with completion in
January 1982. Radian Corporation performed the tests with RTI personnel
observing.
Numerous plant visits were made during 1981 for familiarization
and data collection purposes. Domestic smelters responded to 114
letters adding to the data base.
From September 1980 to date, numerous telephone and written
contacts were made with foreign and domestic smelters, equipment
suppliers, and domestic electric utilities to obtain information on
primary copper smelter processes and emission control systems.
The technical background chapters describing the industry, emission
control techniques, reconstruction and modification considerations,
model plants, and regulatory alternatives were completed in March
1982, and mailed to industry for review and comment. The preliminary
A-3
-------
economic analysis was completed in September 1982 and the final economic
analysis in October.
Industry comments on the draft BID were analyzed and incorporated
into a revised version that was sent to working groups October 1982.
Revised Chapters 6-9 were distributed to litigants and intervenors for
review and comment in November 1982.
NAPCTAC review was accomplished in April 1983 and the notification
package submitted for Steering Committee review and AA concurrence in
September 1983.
A-4
-------
TABLE A-l. MAJOR EVENTS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN THE EVOLUTION
OF THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT
Month
Event
Work begun by Pacific Environmental Services (PES).
PES Work Plan submitted to EPA.
September 1980
October 1980
October 1980
October 1980
December 1980
February 1981
March 1981
April 1981
May 1981
May 1981
May 1981
June 1981
July 1981
September 1981
Work begun by the Research Triangle Institute (RTI).
Draft work plan discussed with I. J. Weisenberg,
formerly project leader for PES effort.
Draft Phases II and III Work Plan completed.
Discussions with lERL/Cincinnati to identify issues and
to obtain background documents.
Phases II and III Work Plan completed.
Familiarization visits made to five U.S. smelters--
ASARCO/E1 Paso, Phelps Dodge/Hidalgo, Phelps
Dodge/Morenci, Inspiration, and ASARCO/Hayden.
Outokumpu Oy contacted and information obtained on the
Outokumpu flash smelting system.
Visits made to INCO Metals Company corporate headquar-
ters and the Copper Cliff Smelter at Sudbury, Ontario,
to assess capabilities of the INCO flash furnace.
Familiarization visit made to Kennecott/Garfield
smelter.
Secondary air curtain for ASARCO/Tacoma converter
discussed with ASARCO Engineering at Salt Lake City.
Draft Source Test Plan completed.
Source Test Plan completed.
Pretest survey visits made to Phelps Dodge/Hidalgo and
Phelps Dodge/Morenci.
Visible emission tests conducted on converter secondary
hoods at ASARCO/Tacoma.
(continued)
A-5
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
Month
Event
November 1981
December 1981
January 1982
January 1982
March 1982
April 1982
September 1982
October 1982
October 1982
October 1982
November 1982
February 1983
April 1983
September 1983
October 1983
Tests conducted at Phelps Dodge/Hidalgo and Phelps
Dodge/Morenci.
Tests conducted on electric slag cleaning furnace
scrubber and slag skim at Phelps Dodge/Hidalgo.
Additional tests conducted on electric slag cleaning
furnace at Phelps Dodge/Hidalga.
Preliminary model plants defined.
Technical background distributed for external review.
Tabular cost data developed.
Preliminary economic analyses completed.
Cost study completed.
Final economic analysis completed.
Working group package distributed.
Draft Chapters 6-9 distributed to litigants and inter-
venors for review and comment.
NAPCTAC package distributed
Review document reviewed by NAPCTAC
Steering Committee package distributed
Review document reviewed by NAPCTAC
A-6
-------
APPENDIX B
INDEX TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS
-------
APPENDIX B
INDEX TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS
Table B-l lists the locations in this document of certain informa-
tion pertaining to environmental impact, as outlined in Agency Guide-
lines (39 FR 37419, October 21, 1974).
3-3
-------
TABLE B-l. LOCATIONS OF INFORMATION CONCERNING ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT WITHIN THE REVIEW DOCUMENT
Agency guidelines for preparing
regulatory action environmental
impact statements (39 FR 37419,
October 21, 1974)
Location within the Review
Document
Background and summary of emission
control alternative
Statutory basis for review of the
existing standard
Relationships to other regulatory
agency actions
Industry affected by the regulatory
alternative
Specific processes affected by the
regulatory alternative
Chapter 6, Sections 6.2, 6.3, and
6.4
Chapter 2, Section 2,1
Chapters 3, 7, 9
Chapter 3, Section 3.1, and
Chapter 9, Section 9.1
Chapter 3, Sections 3.2 and 3.6
B-4
-------
APPENDIX C
EMISSION SOURCE TEST DATA
-------
APPENDIX C
EMISSION SOURCE TEST DATA
C.I SUMMARY OF TEST DATA
EPA has undertaken several test programs in the past to assess
the significance of and control techniques available for both process
and fugitive S02 and particulate matter emissions from primary copper
smelters. Portions of these data were used in this study and are
summarized in Tables C-l and C-2. For detailed discussions of these
data, as well as discussions of the smelters involved in the previous
testing programs, one may refer to either (1) the actual test reports
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Emission Measure-
ment Branch (EMB), as presented in Tables C-l and C-2, or (2) previously
published EPA documents that have used the data—e.g., Arsenic Emissions
from Primary Copper Smelters—Background Information for Proposed
Standards, November 1980.
An additional test program was undertaken as a part of the current
study to characterize smelter offgas streams for which data were
scarce or nonexistent. Particulate matter and S02 mass emission rates
were determined for several scenarios with combined EPA Reference
Methods 5 and 6. Visible emissions data were also obtained for these
sources with EPA Reference Method 9 and 22.
Brief discussions of each smelter and source tested during this
study are presented in Sections C.2 and C.3, along with the test
results.
A great deal of visible emissions data obtained during previous
studies was used as reference material for this study. Therefore, for
the reader's convenience, this data are presented in tabular form in
Section C.4.
C-3
-------
C.2 SUMMARY OF TESTING PERFORMED AT THE PHELPS DODGE-MORENCI SMELTER
At the time of testing, the Phelps Dodge-Morenci smelter had two
reverberatory furnaces in operation, Nos. 3 and 5. Both furnaces were
processing a green charge. The furnaces are fired with fuel oil.
Emissions tests were conducted to characterize matte tapping and
slag skimming emissions from the Nos. 5 and 3 furnaces, respectively.
Visual emissions data were also obtained to assess the effectiveness
of the local hooding used to capture these emissions. The emissions
test data are summarized in Table C-3, while the visual emissions data
are summarized in Tables O4 through C-6.
C.3 SUMMARY OF TESTING PERFORMED AT THE PHELPS DODGE-PLAYAS SMELTER
Several sources were tested at the Phelps Dodge-Piayas smelter to
characterize offgases associated with the operation of an Outokumpu
flash smelter. Emissions tests were conducted to characterize offgases
from flash furnace matte tapping and slag skimming, as well as offgases
from electric slag cleaning furnace (ESGF) slag tapping. The primary
offgas stream from the ESCF was also tested before and after particulate
control by a wet venturi scrubber. These data are presented in Tables
C-7 through C-9. Visual emissions data were also obtained for the
tapping and skimming operations noted above. These data are presented
in Tables C-10 and C-12.
C.4 SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS DATA OBTAINED PRIOR TO THE CURRENT
REVISION
Many emissions data obtained by EPA were used in the current
study. The data used are summarized in Table C-2 and detailed results
are given in Tables O13 through C-27.
C-4
-------
TABLE C-l. SUMMARY OF EMISSION TEST RESULTS USED IN THE PRIMARY COPPER SMELTER NSPS REVIEW
Plant
Anaconda
Anaconda, Montana
ASARCOa
El Paso, Texas
Phelps Dodge3
Douglas, Arizona
Phelps Dodgea
A jo, Arizona
Phelps Dodge
Morenci , Arizona
Phelps Dodge
Playas, New Mexico
Offgas source
Fluid-bed roaster
electric smelting
furnace converter
Multihearth roasters
and reverberatory
furnace
Reverberatory furnace
matte tapping
Converter building
evacuation system
Multihearth roaster
discharge
Multihearth roaster
discharge
Reverberatory furnace
matte tapping
Converter blow cycle
Reverberatory furnace
matte tapping
Reverberatory furnace
slag skimming
Flash furnace matte
tapping
Flash furgace matte
tapping
Flash furnace matte
tapping
Flash furnace slag
skimmi nq
Electric slag cleaning
furnace
Control
equipment
Spray chamber/
baghouse
Spray chamber/
cold ESP
Baghouse
Baghouse
_b
Baghouse
_b
_b
_b
_b
_b
_b
_b
-b
ParticulatP
scrubber
Sampling
location(s)
Inlet and outlet
Inlet and outlet
Inlet
Inlet and outlet
Primary offgas
flue
Inlet and outlet
Fugitive qas
flue
Fugitive gas
flue
Fugitive gas
flue
Fugitive qas
flue
Fugitive qas
flue
Fugitive gas
flue
Fugitive gas
flue
Fugitive gas
flue
Inlet and outlet
Average
particulate mass
rate, kq/hr
Sample type
Particulate
Particulate
Particulate
S02
Particulate
S02
Particulate
S02
Particulate
Particulate
S02
Particulate
S02
Particulate
S02
Particulate
S02
Particulate
S02
Particulate
S02
Particulate
S02
Particulate
S02
Particulate
S02
matter
matter
matter
matter
matter
matter
matter
matter
matter
matter
matter
matter
matter
matter
matter
Inlet
3,876
1,129
1.2
50.
1.
285
2.
27.
7.
0.
20.
2.
3.
7
0
2
7
7
9
4
9
9
5.0
45.
4
Outlet
13.1
37.2
NA
2.0
NA
1.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MA
NA
2.2
Average
S02 mass
rate, kq/hr
Inlet
NA
NA
14.4
.
2.4
NA
115
1,192
136
7.7
143.8
13.2
10.9
59.0
81.6
Outlet
NA
NA
NA
139
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
44 9
EMB
report no
77-CUS-5
78-CUS-7
78-CUS-7
78-CUS-7
78-CUS-7
78-CUS-8
78-CUS-9
78-CUS-9
-
81-CUS-8
81-CUS-8
81-CUS-8
Test data obtained prior to this study.
No control device used.
At the flash furnace launder (without lancing emissions included).
At the flash furnace doghouse enclosure (without lancing emissions included).
At the flash furnace doghouse enclosure (with lancing emissions included).
-------
TABLE C-2. SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS DATA USED IN THE
PRIMARY COPPER SMELTER NSPS REVISION
Plant
Type of source
Methodology
employed
ASARCO0
Tacoma, Washington
Phelps Dodge
Morenci, Arizona
Phelps Dodge
Playas, New Mexico
Tamano
Japan
Calcine discharge
Matte tap port and launder
Matte discharge into ladle
Slag skim port and launder
Slag discharge into pqts
Converter slag return
Matte tapping
Slag skimming
Flash furnace matte tapping
Slag skimming—electric slag
cleaning furnace (ESCF)
Matte tapping—electric slag
cleaning furnace (ESCF)
EPA Method 22
EPA Method 22
EPA Method 22
EPA Method 9
EPA Method 22
EPA Method 9
EPA Method 22
EPA Method 9
EPA Method 22
EPA Method 9
EPA Method 22
EPA Method 9
EPA Method 22
EPA Method 9
EPA Method 22
EPA Method 9
EPA Method 22
EPA Method 9
EPA Method 22
ESCF off-gas particulate scrubber EPA Method 9
Converter charging
Converter copper blowing
Converter slag blowing
Converter slag pouring
EPA Method 9
EPA Method 9
EPA Method 9
EPA Method 9
These data obtained prior to this study.
C-6
-------
TABLE C-3. SUMMARY OF EMISSION RATES CALCULATED FROM PARTICULATE
AND SULFUR DIOXIDE TESTING AT THE PHELPS DODGE-MORENCI SMELTER
Source/test
Estimated
production
Tons Taps
Particulate
lb/hc
1b/ton[
Sulfur dioxide
lb/hc
"Ib of pollutant/h of sampling.
Ib of pollutant/ton of matte or slag produced during sampling.
lb/tonc
Matte tapping
(Reberb No. 5)
EMB-004 MMT
EMB-006 MMT
EMB-008-MMT
Average
Slag skimming
(Reverb. No. 3)
EMB-003 MSS
EMB-005 MSS
EMB-007 MSS
Average
185
250
275
80
90
60
8
10
11
2
3
2
19
18
15
17
2.0
2.5
1.2
1.9
0.1
0.072
0.054
0.076
0.025
0.038
0.020
0.024
290
290
310
300
15
30
7.6
17
1.6
1.2
1.1
1.3
0.19
0.33
0.13
0.21
C-7
-------
TABLE C-4. VISIBLE EMISSION OBSERVATION DATA FOR REVERBERATORY
FURNACE MATTE TAPPING OPERATIONS AT THE PHELPS DODGE-
MORENCI SMELTER3
Average opacity
Duration of observation for observation Range of
period, min period, percent individual readings
8.75
8.50
6.50
8.50
5.00
6.50
9.00
11.00
9.50
4.00
9.50
6.50
9.50
8.00
5.00
7.75
5.00
7.50
5.00
9.25
6.50
3.75
8.57
2.06
8.85
8.09
7.25
7.31
11.39
15.68
16.71
10.00
14.20
18.46
47.06
17.34
6.88
18.23
17.75
14.50
7.00
24.86
7.50
6.67
5 to 25
0 to 25
5 to 20
5 to 30
5 to 10
5 to 20
5 to 20
5 to 30
10 to 20
5 to 10
5 to 30
10 to 30
10 to 60
10 to 40
5 to 25
10 to 30
10 to 30
5 to 35
0 to 30
10 to 70
0 to 30
0 to 30
aBased on visual observations made in accordance with EPA Method 9.
C-8
-------
TABLE C-5. VISIBLE EMISSION DATA FOR REVERBERATORY FURNACE MATTE
TAPPING OPERATIONS AT THE PHELPS DODGE-
MORENCI SMELTER9
Duration of observation
period, min
6.0
7.0
5.0
5.0
Percent of time
emissions observed
100
100
82
100
Light reading, lux
350
175
350
88b
Based on visual observations made in accordance with EPA Method 22.
Not a valid observation since the light was less than 100 lux.
C-9
-------
TABLE C-6. VISIBLE EMISSION OBSERVATION DATA FOR REVERBERATORY
FURNACE SLAG SKIMMING OPERATIONS AT THE PHELPS DODGE-
MORENCI SMELTER
Reference Method 9 results
Duration of observation
period, min
30.00
30.00
33.00
6.25
27.00
30.00
Average opacity
for observation
period, min
0.00
0.00
2.72
11.00
0.00
0.79
Range of
individual readings
_a
_a
0 to 5
5 to 30
_b
5 to 10
Reference Method 22 results
Duration of observation
period, min
30.00
Percent of time
emissions observed
3
Light reading,
175
lux
No opacity readings above 0.0 were observed.
-------
TABLE C-7. SUMMARY OF EMISSION TEST RESULTS—MATTE TAPPING OF THE
OUTOKUMPU FLASH FURNACE AT THE PHELPS DODGE-PLAYAS SMELTER
Source/test
Matte tapping at the
flash furnace launder0
EMB-009 HMT
EMB-011 HMT
EMB-013 HMT
Average
Matte tapping at the
flash furnace dog-
house hooding0
EMB-010 HDH
EMB-012 HDH
EMB-015 HDH
Average
Matte tapping at the
flash furnace .dog-
house hooding
EMB-023 HDHL
Estimated
production
Tons Taps
200
208
183
197
200
208
183
197
144
9
9
8
9
9
8
7
Parti cul ate
lb/ha
51
48
35
45
6.2
9.9
3.1
6.4
8.6
1b/tonb
0.25
0.23
0.19
0.22
0.031
0.048
0.017
0.032
0.060
Sulfur
lb/ha
320
360
270
317
16
37
33
29
24
dioxide
lb/tonb
1.6
1.7
1.5
1.6
0.081
0.18
0.18
0.15
0.16
Ib of pollutant/h of sampling.
Ib of pollutant/ton of matte tapped.
c
Without lancing.
With lancing.
C-ll
-------
TABLE C-8. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS TESTS RESULTS-SLAG SKIMMING OF THE
ELECTRIC SLAG CLEANING FURNACE AT THE PHELPS DODGE-PLAYAS SMELTER
Estimated
production
Source/test
Slag skimming
EMB-054 HSS
EMB-055 HSS
EMB-056 HSS
Average
Tons
142
140
180
154
Taps
3
4
6
Participate
lb/ha
11
10
12
11
lb/tonb
0.075
0.073
0.069
0.072
Sulfur
lb/ha
120
150
120
130
dioxide
lb/tonb
0.86
1.10
0.68
0.88
alb of pollutant/h sampling.
Ib of pollutant/ton of slag skimmed.
C-12
-------
TABLE C-9. SUMMARY OF EMISSION TEST RESULTS—ELECTRIC SLAG CLEANING
FURNACE SCRUBBER AT THE PHELPS DODGE-PLAYAS SMELTER
Source/test
Inlet
EMB-016 HSI
EMB-020 HSI
EMB-022 HSI
EMB-050 HSI8C
EMB-052 HSI8C
Average
Outlet
EMB-017 HSO
EMB-019 HSO
EMB-021 HSO
EMB-051 HS08
EMB-053 HS08
Average
Sulfuric acid
lb/ha
_b
_
_
0.06
0.00
0.03
_b
_
_
0.10
0.04
0.07
Parti cul ate
lb/ha'
100
110
120
100
83
100
1.3
0.98
1.4
19.0
1.9
4.9
Sulfur dioxide
lb/ha
200
150
280
170
110
180
160
63
17
70
31
99
Ib of pollutant/h of sampling.
Results are to be considered only approximately representative of the
scrubber conditions due to abnormal operation of the ESCF during the
sampling period.
Did not sample for sulfuric acid mist.
C-13
-------
TABLE C-10. SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS DATA—MATTE TAPPING OF THE
OUTOKUMPU FLASH FURNACE AT THE PHELPS DODGE-PLAYAS SMELTER
Number of taps
observed3'
Number of taps
observed
Number of taps
observed '
Average opacity,
percent
Percent of time
emissions observed
Average opacity,
percent
Total observation
time, min:sec
3
8
1
6
1
20
20
20
40
30
32:00
55:00
21:00
30:00
4:00
Total observation
time, min:sec
1
1
1
2
100
100
100
100
9:36
7:27
11:15
12:08
Total observation
time, min:sec
1
1
1
2
30
35
45
40
13:00
10:00
9:00
23:00
Number of taps
observed
Percent of time
emissions observed
Total observation
time, min:sec
1
1
1
100
100
100
7:42
10:20
11:05
Lancing emissions not included.
Based on visual observations made in accordance with EPA Method 9.
°Based on visual observations made in accordance with EPA Method 22.
Lancing emissions included.
C-14
-------
TABLE Oil. SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS DATA—SLAG SKIMMING AND
MATTE TAPPING OF THE ELECTRIC SLAG CLEANING FURNACE AT THE
PHELPS DODGE-PLAYAS SMELTER
Operation
Summary
Slag skimming1
Matte tapping0
Method 9. Approximately 1.5 hours of opacity
observations were made for two launders. The average
opacity of fugitive emissions escaping one launder
was 40 percent, while the average opacity of
emissions from the other launder was less than 35
percent.
Method 22. Two slag skimming launders were observed
for a total of 108 minutes. Emissions escaped from
one launder 99 percent of the time and from the
other 81 percent of the time.
Method 9. Based upon 24 minutes of observation at
a single launder, the fugitive emissions escaping
capture had an average opacity of 45 percent.
Method 22. One launder was observed for approxi-
mately 11 minutes. During this period, fugitive
emissions were escaping 82 percent of the time.
Lancing emissions included.
C-15
-------
TABLE C-12. SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS DATA—ESCF
OFFGAS PARTICULATE SCRUBBER
The scrubber is not a fugitive source; therefore, no Method 22
observations were performed.
Method 9. Based on a total of approximately 8.5 hours of observations,
the average scrubber opacity was less than 5 percent.
C-16
-------
TABLE C-13. VISIBLE EMISSION OBSERVATION DATA FOR ROASTER CALCINE
DISCHARGE INTO LARRY CARS (EPA METHOD 22)
AT ASARCO-TACOMA
Observer 1
Run
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Duration
of
operation,
Date mi n: sec
6/24
6/24
6/24
6/25
6/25
6/25
6/25
6/25
6/26
6/26
6/26
6/26
6/26
1:20
2:40
1:20
1:23
1:58
1:42
1:12
1:20
2:50
1:48
2:30
1:42
3:04
% time
emissions
observed
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Observer
2
Duration
of % time
operation, emissions
mi n: sec observed
1:15
2:40
1:20
1:23
1:52
1:42
1:13
1:20
2:49
1:48
Average
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mean
duration
of
operation,
min: sec
1:18
2:40
1:20
1:23
1:55
1:42
1:13
1:20
2:50
1:48
2:30
1:42
3:04
1:54
Mean
% time
emissions
observed
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C-17
-------
TABLE C-14. VISIBLE EMISSION OBSERVATION DATA FOR MATTE TAP PORT
AND MATTE LAUNDER (EPA METHOD 22) AT ASARCO-TACOMA
Observer 1
Run
no.a
1
2
3
4
5b
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16b
17
18
Duration
of
operation,
Date mi n: sec
6/24
6/24
6/24
6/24
6/24
6/25
6/25
6/25
6/25
6/25
6/25
6/25
6/25
6/25
6/25
6/25
6/25
6/25
6:24
6:00
4:51
6:05
2:58
5:22
5:36
5:08
6:02
5:12
4:50
5:23
5:17
5:13
5:58
% time
emissions
observed
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Observer
2
Duration
of % time
operation, emissions
mi n: sec observed
6:36
6:00
4:55
6:10
5:22
5:36
5:10
5:33
5:13
6:37
4:53
5:22
5:18
Average
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mean
duration
of
operation,
min: sec
6:30
6:00
4:53
6:08
2:58
5:22
5:36
5:09
5:48
5:13
6:37
4:52
5:23
5:18
5:13
5:58
5:26
Mean
% time
emissions
observed
0.5
0
1.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.13
aMethod 22 data for corresponding runs at the matte discharge into the ladle
are presented in Table C-15.
Observations were made only at the matte discharge into ladle; see Table C-15.
C-18
-------
TABLE C-15. VISIBLE EMISSION OBSERVATION DATA FOR MATTE DISCHARGE
INTO LADLE (EPA METHOD 22) AT ASARCO-TACOMA
Observer 1
Run
no. Date
1 6/24
2 6/24
3 6/24
4 6/24
5 6/24
6b 6/25
7 6/25
8 6/25
9 6/25
10 6/25
11 6/25
12 6/25
13 6/25
14 6/25
15 6/25
16 6/25
17b 6/25
18b 6/25
Duration
of
operation,
min: sec
6:30
5:49
4:53
6:12
5:09
5:21
5:02
4:29
5:12
6:16
4:43
5:13
5:15
5:41
% time
emissions
observed
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Observer 2
Duration
of
operation,
min: sec
5:40
5:01
6:10
6:31
5:02
5:28
5:03
4:32
5:13
4:45
5:15
5:09
5:50
% time
emissions
observed
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average
Mean
duration
of
operation,
min: sec
6:30
5:45
4:57
6:11
6:31
5:06
5:25
5:03
4:31
5:13
6:16
4:44
5:14
5:12
5:46
5:30
Mean
% time
emissions
observed
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Method 22 data for corresponding runs at the matte tap and launder are
presented in Table C-14.
Observations were made only at the matte tape and launder; see Table C-14.
C-19
-------
TABLE C-16. VISIBLE EMISSION OBSERVATION DATA FOR SLAG TAPPING AT
SLAG TAP PORT AND SLAG LAUNDER (EPA METHOD 22)
AT ASARCO-TACOMA
Observer 1
Run
no.a
1
2
3
4C
5
6C
7
8
9
10
Date
6/24
6/24
6/24
6/24
6/25
6/25
6/26
6/26
6/26
6/26
Duration
of
operation,
min: sec
12:25b
22:00
14:07
14:10
16:44
17:26
16:14
13:45
15:45
14:29
% time
emissions
observed
98b
15
35b
13
11
2
1
0.3
0
0
Observer 2 tA
Duration duration
of % time of
operation, emissions operation,
min: sec observed min: sec
12:26b 99b 12:26
21:36 0 21:43
13:52b 97b 14:07
14:10
16:44
17:26
16:41
13:45
15:45
14:29
Average 15:40
Std. dev.
Mean
% time
emissions
observed
8
13
11
2
1
0
0
0
4
11
Method 22 data for corresponding runs at the slag skim discharge point
appear in Table C-18.
Observations were made at the entire slag tap process line including the
slag tap port, slag launder, and slag discharge into ladle, and therefore
are not included in computing the mean of observations.
Method 9 data for corresponding runs appear in Table C-17.
C-20
-------
TABLE C-17. VISIBLE EMISSION OBSERVATION DATA FOR SLAG TAPPING
AT SLAG TAP PORT AND SLAG LAUNDER (EPA METHOD 9)
AT ASARCO-TACOMAd
Run no.
1
2
Average
Maximum
Date
6/25
6/25
Duration
of operation,
min.
14.75
18
16.38
Mean
opacity,
%
1.3
10.3
6
Mean
opacity,
%
10
30
30
aEmission data were taken during entire slag tapping operation.
C-21
-------
TABLE C-18. VISIBLE EMISSION OBSERVATION DATA FOR SLAG TAPPING--
SLAG DISCHARGE INTO POTS (EPA METHOD 22) AT ASARCO-TACOMA
Observer 1 Observer 2
Run
no.a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Duration
of
. operation,
' Date mi n: sec
6/24
6/24
6/24
6/24
6/25
6/25
6/26
6/26
6/26
6/26
6/26
12:46
21:09
14:06
14:05
16:34
17:29
15:54
13:48
15:48
14:11
14:45
Duration
% time of % time
emissions operation, emissions
observed mi n: sec observed
97 12:26 73
93 21:43 99
97 13:52 95
82
91
94
90
86
77
72
82
Average
Std. dev.
Mean
duration
of
operation,
min: sec
12:36
21:26
13:59
14:05
16:34
17:29
15:54
13:48
15:48
14: 11
14:45
15:31
Mean
% time
emissions
observed
85
96
96
82
91
94
90
86
77
72
82
86
8
aVisible emission observation data by EPA Method 9 for corresponding runs
are presented in Table C-19.
Visible emission observation data for corresponding runs for the slag tap
port and launder are presented in Table C-16.
C-22
-------
TABLE C-19. VISIBLE EMISSION OBSERVATION DATA FOR SLAG TAPPING
AT SLAG DISCHARGE INTO POTS (EPA METHOD 9)
AT ASARCO-TACOMA3
Run no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Average
Maximum
Date
6/24
6/24
6/24
6/25
6/25
6/25
6/26
6/26
6/26
6/26
6/26
Duration
of operation,
min
c
c
c
13.75
16.75
11.75d
15
15
13
15
14.32
Mean
opacity,
%
22.7
11.3
16
14.8
10.3
5.5
3.7
12
Mean
opacity,
%
50
30
35
40
20
10
10
50
Emission data were taken during entire slag tapping operation.
Method 22 data for corresponding runs appear in Table C-18.
GNo data were obtained by Method 9.
Reading started after filling of first slag pot.
C-23
-------
TABLE C-20. VISIBLE EMISSION OBSERVATION DATA FOR CONVERTER SLAG RETURN TO
REVERBERATORY FURNACE (EPA METHOD 22) AT ASARCO-TACOMA
Run
no.a
1
2
3
4
? 5
-p.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Observer 1 Observer 2 Observer 3
Duration Duration Duration
of % time of % time of % time
operation, emissions operation, emissions operation, emissions
Date mi n: sec observed mi n: sec observed mi n: sec observed
6/24 1:04 100 1:05 89 0:58 100
6/24 0:47 97 0:47 96 0:46 100
6/24 0:54 100 0:53 100 0:55 100
6/25 0:55 100
6/25 1:03 100
6/25 0:52 100
6/25b
6/26 1:04 66
6/26 1:00 85
6/26 1:15 83
6/26 0:55 82 0:41 93
6/26
Average
Std. dev.
Mean
duration
of
operation,
min: sec
1:04
0:46
0:53
0:55
1:03
0:52
1:04
1:00
1:15
0:48
0:58
Mean
% time
emissions
observed
96
98
100
100
100
100
66
85
83
88
92
11
aVisible emission observation data by EPA Method 9 for corresponding runs are presented in Table C-21.
bNo data obtained by Method 22.
-------
TABLE C-21. VISIBLE EMISSION OBSERVATION DATA FOR CONVERTER
SLAG RETURN TO REVERBERATORY FURNACE (EPA METHOD 9)
AT ASARCO-TACOMA
Observer 1
Run
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Date
6/24
6/24
6/24
6/25
6/25
6/25
6/25
6/26
6/26
6/26
6/26
6/26
Duration
of
operation,
mm: sec
a
a
a
1.00
1.25
0.75
1.25
1.25
1.50
1.25
0.75
Average
opacity,
%
17.5
20
23
5
11
12
13
5
Observer 2
Duration
Maximum of Average Maximum
opacity, operation, opacity, opacity,
% min:sec % %
30 1.00 16 25
40
1.00 23 35
35 0.75 23 30
10
20
20
20
10
Average opacity for all readings--15%
Maximum opacity during all readings--40%
Data were not obtained by Method 9 on 6/24/80.
C-25
-------
TABLE C-22. A SUMMARY OF METHOD 22 VISIBLE EMISSION OBSERVATION DATA FOR BLISTER DISCHARGE
FROM CONVERTER AT THE TAMANO SMELTER IN JAPAN >>c
CD
Total time equal to or greater than given opacity
1st blister discharge
Opacity,
%
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
min: sec
8:00
5:00
3:15
1:30
0:30
0:15
% of total
time
53
33
22
10
3
2
2nd blister discharge 3rd blister discharge
min: sec
11:30
8:45
5:15
3:15
2:00
0:45
0:15
% of total % of total
time min: sec time
96 1:00 29
73 0:30 14
44
27
17 0.15 7
6
2
Total bl-
min: sec
20:30
14:15
8:30
4:45
2:45
1:00
0:15
ister charge
% of total
time
67
47
28
16
8
3
<1
Observation point: converter secondary hood system.
Data were based on a total of 30.5-minute observations for three successive blister discharges of the
total four blister discharges during one converter cycle. Duration of each of the three discharges
observed was 15 minutes, 12 minutes, and 3.5 minutes, respectively.
cTable C-23 summarizes the observation data into average opacities for each set of 6-minute data.
Total of the three individual blister discharges.
-------
TABLE C-23. SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY FOR
BLISTER POURING AT THE TAMANO SMELTER
IN JAPAN
Set no.b
1
2
3
4
5
Average opacity,0 %
6
8
11
10
9
Based on same observation data used for Table C-22.
Observation time for each set is 6 minutes.
GAverage of all sets is 9 percent.
C-27
-------
o
ro
CO
TABLE C-24 SUMMARY OF METHOD 22 VISIBLE EMISSION DATA FOR INDIVIDUAL A^DTQTAL MATTE CHARGES
TO A CONVERTER OBSERVED AT THE TAMANO SMELTER IN JAPAN3'0' '
Total time eaual to or qreater than
Opacity,
%
5
10
25
1st
min:
matte
:sec
0:15
0:15
discharge
% of total
time
43
14
2nd
min:
0:
0:
matte
sec
45
15
discharge
% of total
time
60
20
3rd_
min:
matte
: sec
0:45
0:15
discharge
% of total
time
43
14
given opacity
4th matte discharge Total matte
% of total %
min: sec time min: sec
0 2: 15
0:30
0:15
charge
of total
time
35
8
4
aMatte"charges 1, 2, and 3 were successive charges; respective charging times for Matte Charges 1, 2, 3 and 4 were 1.75 min.
1.25 min.,1.75 min., and 1.75 min., respectively.
bObservation point: converter secondary hood system.
C0ata are based on a total of 6.5-minute observations for three successive matte charges at the beginning of one converter
"ycle and an intermediate matte charging during the cycle. Average duration of each matte charge was 1.5 minutes.
dTotal of the four individual matte charges; average opacity for matte charging, based on total observation, is 3.0 percent.
-------
TABLE C-25. SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSION
OBSERVATION DATA FOR COPPER BLOW AT THE
TAMANO SMELTER IN JAPANa
Set no.b
1
2
3
4
Average opacity, %
0
0
0
0
Observation point: converter secondary hood system.
Each set is based on 6-minute observation.
C-29
-------
TABLE C-26. SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSION
OBSERVATION DATA FOR SLAG BLOW AT THE
TAMANO SMELTER IN JAPAN
Set no.
1
2
3
4
5
Average opacity, %
0
0
0
0
0
Observation point: converter secondary hood system.
bEach set is made up of 6-minute observation; first two
sets of data are based on observations during 1st slag
blow and the remaining three sets of data are based on
observations during 2nd slag blow of the total three
slag blows in a converter cycle at the Tamano smelter.
C-30
-------
TABLE C-27. SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSION
OBSERVATION DATA FOR CONVERTER SLAG POURING
AT THE TAMANO SMELTER IN JAPAN3
b ~~ ======
bet no- Average opacity, %
- - _
=J^ ___ _ 0
Observation point: converter secondary hood system.
Each of two consecutive sets of 6-minute observations
are made during one slag discharge.
C-31
-------
APPENDIX D
(NOT USED)
-------
APPENDIX E
USE OF COAL IN THE OUTOKUMPU FLASH FURNACE AT THE TOYO SMELTER
-------
APPENDIX E
USE OF COAL IN THE OUTOKUMPU FLASH FURNACE AT THE TOYO SMELTER
At the Toyo smelter in Japan,1 additional heat is supplied to the
flash furnace by preheated air, coal, and oil. This smelter is in the
process of converting from oil to coal because of the lower price of
the latter. The use of coal at the Toyo smelter began in April 1981
and has continued for over 9 months. Initially, pulverized coal was
substituted for half of the oil requirement of the furnace. The coal
is fed to each of the concentrate burners. The rate of coal addition
is controlled carefully in order to control the matte grade of the
furnace—the coal being combusted preferentially to the concentrate
feed. Personnel at the Toyo smelter have reported that no problems
have been encountered related to operation of the flash furnace, waste
heat boiler, electrostatic precipitator, or acid plant since coal has
been used.1 Because of the successful operations, the conversion from
oil to coal has proceeded at a greater rate than expected.
REFERENCE
1. Moriyama, K., T. Terayama, T. Hayashi, and T. Kimura. The
Application of Pulverized Coal to the Flash Furnace at Toyo
Smelter. In: Copper Smelting—An Update, George, D. B. and
J. C. Taylor (eds.). Warrendale, PA, The Metallurgical Society
of AIME. 1981. p. 201-212.
E-3
-------
APPENDIX F
COST ANALYSIS TO ESTIMATE THE INCREMENTAL INCREASE IN
CAPITAL COST INCURRED BY INCREASING SULFURIC ACID
PLANT GAS-TO-GAS HEAT EXCHANGER CAPACITY
-------
APPENDIX F
COST ANALYSIS TO ESTIMATE THE INCREMENTAL INCREASE IN
CAPITAL COST INCURRED BY INCREASING SULFURIC ACID
PLANT GAS-TO-GAS HEAT EXCHANGER CAPACITY
Case I: Incorporate additional heat exchanger capacity in the plant
design to lower the autothermal operating requirement for a
double contact/double absorption (DC/DA) plant from 4.0-
percent S02 to 3.5-percent S02.
Based on an overall heat transfer coefficient, U, of 4.0 Btu/hr • ft2 •
Or.*
1 >
Heat exchanger surface area required with a 4.0-percent S02 gas
stream entering the acid plant converter ~ 4.15 ftVscfm.
Heat exchanger surface area required with a 3.5-percent S02 gas
stream entering the acid plant converter ~ 5.70 ftVscfm.
Heat exchanger cost (mid-1980 dollars) = $25.22/ft2.
Indexing to mid-1981 dollars, we have
Heat exchanger cost = $2^2 x ^9 = $27.77/ft2.
Thus, at 4-percent S02, the total heat exchanger cost for a DC/DA
plant is estimated as:
4.15 ft2 x $27.77 _ $115.25
scfm ft2"" scfm '
Similarly, at 3.5-percent S02, the total heat exchanger cost can
be estimated to be $158.29 per scfm.
*Weisenberg, I. J., and T. Archer. "Feasibility of Primary Copper
Smelter Weak S02 Stream Control Relative to Reverberatory Furnace
NSPS Exemption," Draft Final Report, July 1978.
Marshall and Swift Equipment Cost Indices, Chemical Engineering,
February 8, 1982.
F-3
-------
Thus, the incremental cost, A$, is estimated as:
A$ = $158.29 - $115.25 = $43.04 per scfm.
The total installed capital cost for a DC/DA plant designed to
operate autothermally at 4.0-percent S02 is presented in Figure 8-1.
At 50,000 scfm, this cost is estimated to be $26.21 MM. The increase
in the installed capital cost (due to the increased heat exchanger
capacity) required to lower the autothermal operating requirement to
3.5-percent S02 is estimated as follows:
x 50,000 scfm = $2,152,000.00 .
Thus, the increase in the installed capital cost incurred as a
result of lowering the autothermal operating requirement from 4.0- to
3.5-percent S02 is calculated as follows:
$28,362,000.00 = (1 + f) x $26,210,000.00 ,
where f = the fractional increase in the installed capital cost.
Solving for f yields
f = 0.082 .
Thus, as a result of lowering the autothermal requirement from
4.0- to 3.5-percent S02, the installed capital cost of the plant
increases about 8.2 percent at the 50,000 scfm level.
Similarly, at the 200,000 scfm level, the installed capital cost
would be expected to increase about 12.8 percent. Thus, over the
50,000 to 200,000 scfm range, reducing the autothermal operating
requirement for a DC/DA plant from 4.0- to 3.5-percent S02 would be
expected to increase the installed capital cost by 8.2 to 12.8 percent.
Case II: Incorporate additional heat exchanger capacity in the plant
design to lower the autothermal operating requirement for an
single contact/single absorption (SC/SA) plant from 3.5-
percent S02 to 3.0-percent S02.
F-4
-------
Based on an overall heat transfer coefficient, U, of 4.0 Btu/hr
• ft2 • °F,
Heat exchanger surface area required with a 3.5-percent S02 gas
stream entering the acid plant converter = 1.80 ft2/scfm.
Heat exchanger surface area required with a 3.0-percent S02 gas
stream entering the acid plant converter ~ 2.45 ftVscfm.
Heat exchanger cost (mid-1980 dollars) = $25.22/ft2.
Indexing up to mid-1981 dollars yields a heat exchanger cost of
$27.77 per square foot.
Thus, at 3.5-percent S02, the total heat exchanger cost for an
SC/SA plant is estimated as follows:
1.8 ft2 x $27.77 = $50.00
scfm Ft2" scfm
Similarly, at 3.0-percent S02, the total heat exchanger cost can be
estimated to be $68.00 per scfm.
Thus, the incremental cost, A$, is estimated as follows:
A$ = $68.00 - $50.00 = $18.00 per scfm .
The total installed capital cost for an SC/SA plant designed to
operate autothermally at 3.5-percent S02 is presented in Figure 8-5.
At 50,000 scfm, this cost is estimated to be $22.68 MM. The increase
in the installed capital cost (due to the increased heat exchanger
capacity) required to lower the autothermal operating requirement to
3.0-percent S02 is estimated as follows:
X 50'000 scfm = $9°0,000 .
Thus, the increase in the installed capital cost incurred as a
result of lowering the autothermal operating requirement from 3.5- to
3.0-percent S02 is calculated as:
$23,580,000.00 = (1 + f) x $22,680,000.00 ,
where f = the fractional increase in the installed capital cost.
Solving for f yields
F-5
-------
f = 0.0397.
Thus, as a result of lowering the autothermal requirement from
3.5- to 3.0-percent S02, the installed capital cost of the plant
increases about 4.0 percent at the 50,000 scfm level. Similarly, at
the 200,000 scfm level the installed capital cost would be expected to
increase about 6.4 percent. This, over the 50,000 to 200,000 scfm
range, reducing the autothermal operating requirement for an SC/SA
plant from 3.5- to 3.0-percent S02 would be expected to increase the
installed capital cost by 4.0 to 6.4 percent.
F-6
-------
APPENDIX G
ANALYSIS OF CONTINUOUS S02 MONITOR DATA AND DETERMINATION OF AN UPPER
LIMIT FOR THE INCREASE IN S02 EMISSIONS DUE TO SULFURIC ACID PLANT
CATALYST DETERIORATION
Please note: To provide the most comprehensive study possible, this
appendix is reprinted, with minor editorial changes, from
Volume I, Proposal Standards, of Background Information
for New Source Performance Standards: Primary Copper,
Lead, and Zinc Smelters, publication number EPA 450/2-74-
0021.
-------
APPENDIX G
ANALYSIS OF CONTINUOUS S02 MONITOR DATA AND DETERMINATION OF AN UPPER
LIMIT FOR THE INCREASE IN S02 EMISSIONS DUE TO SULFURIC ACID PLANT
CATALYST DETERIORATION
G.I EMISSION VARIATION
S02 emissions from the No. 7 sulfuric acid plant, which is the
newest of five single-stage absorption plants operating on the offgases
from the nine Kennecott copper converters at Garfield, Utah, were
analyzed. The emissions were recorded by a Du Pont 460 continuous S02
analyzer from September 15, 1972, to November 15, 1972. This instrument
is capable of measuring S02 concentrations within ±150 ppm (2 percent
of full scale) and automatically zeroes itself every 8h minutes. The
zero calibration procedure requires 1% minutes; thus the instrument is
"on-line" 85 percent of the time.
A general review of the data generated revealed that several
periods of data were missing due to problems with the recorder. Other
segments contained long periods of plant shutdowns for maintenance or
included concentrations that were obviously greater than the upper
limit of the monitor. (A shorter absorption tube could have been
installed to increase the upper limit of the monitor, if this situation
had been noticed sooner.) Consequently, on the basis of data legibility
and continuity, the periods of October 11-27, 1972, and November 8-15,
1972, were selected as representative of the 2-month monitoring period.
Periods of emissions during which the average concentration
appeared to be greater than 3,000 ppm or less than 1,000 ppm were then
noted. Eighteen periods during which emissions exceeded 3,000 ppm,
including two periods during which emissions exceeded the recording
capacity of the Du Pont analyzer (7,500 ppm), were identified. Fourteen
G-3
-------
periods during which emissions were less than 1,000 ppm were also
identified. Acid plant operating logs and inlet S02 volume and concen-
tration continuous monitor data were analyzed to ascertain if upsets,
malfunctions, or startups and shutdowns occurred during these periods.
One major upset/malfunction was discerned. It occurred during
one of the two periods during which the emissions exceeded the recording
capacity of the analyzer. The upset/malfunction resulted from prolonged
low inlet S02 concentrations, which caused a decrease in the normal
temperature increase across the first catalyst bed. Consequently,
this period of excessive emissions was deleted from the data. Six
shutdowns and startups were noted. The six periods of low emissions
following these shutdowns were deleted from the data because the acid
plant was not in operation. Two periods of high emissions were identi-
fied following two of the six startups. These two periods of high
emissions were also deleted from the data. Due to the time constraints
placed on the analysis of these data, no investigation of why four of
these six startups had no associated periods of high emissions was
conducted. A brief investigation of the eight remaining periods
during which emissions were less than 1,000 ppm, however, did reveal
that these low emissions appeared to be the result of almost ideal
operating conditions within the acid plant, with somewhat low inlet
gas volumes and S02 concentrations and a minimum of fluctuations in
either of these variables.
Following this review of acid plant operating data, fifteen
periods during which emissions were higher than 3,000 ppm remained.
This included one of the two periods previously identified as periods
during which emissions exceeded the capacity of the Du Pont analyzer.
This period was then deleted from the data for the following reasons.
First, and most important, because no knowledge concerning numerical
values of emissions was available, this time period could not be
mathematically accounted for in the analysis. Second, because emis-
sions were apparently so great, this period of operation would repre-
sent a violation of any reasonable standard developed and thus would
add nothing to the analysis of "normal" operating emissions data to
provide a basis for such standards.
6-4
-------
The long-term S02 emissions concentration average was then calcu-
lated for all the data generated during the "normal operating" portions
of the October 11-27 and November 8-15 periods. Fifteen-minute instan-
taneous S02 concentration values were used for this calculation, and
the long-term emission average was determined to be 1,700 ppm. It is
significant to note that this value is considerably less than the
emission concentration corresponding to Monsanto's guaranteed conver-
sion efficiency of 95 percent conversion of S02 to S03 at 5 percent
S02 inlet, i.e., approximately 2,700 ppm.
The 14 periods of high emissions that were not deleted from the
data were then examined by averaging these periods over various time
intervals using the 15-minute instantaneous S02 concentration values
identified during the above analysis. The time-averaged concentrations
were then compared to various outlet S02 concentration levels to
determine the extent to which such averaging periods mask variations
in outlet concentration. The results are tabulated in Tables G-l and
G-2.
Seven of the fourteen high-emission periods exceeded 2,700 ppm
(equivalent to the manufacturer's guarantee) when averaged for a
6-hour duration. Increasing the averaging time to 7 hours decreased
the number of periods exceeding 2,700 ppm to five. Further increases
in the averaging period resulted in only minor decreases in the number
of periods exceeding 2,700 ppm. Increasing the level of average S02
emission concentration from 2,700 ppm to 3,000 ppm (approximately
10 percent) caused a significant reduction of the number of high-
emission periods that exceeded this level as compared with 2,700 ppm.
For each time-averaging interval, the number of periods for which the
averages exceed 3,000 ppm is about half the number of periods corres-
ponding to 2,700 ppm. Increasing the level of average S02 emission
concentration from 2,700 to 3,250 ppm (approximately 20 percent)
resulted in only a slight decrease in the number of periods exceeding
this level compared to the number of periods exceeding 3,000 ppm. In
general, therefore, increasing either the averaging time to periods
greater than 6 hours, or increasing the average S02 emission concentra-
G-5
-------
TABLE G-l. SUMMARY OF PERIODS EXCEEDING THE REFERENCE LEVEL S02
CONCENTRATION AS A FUNCTION OF AVERAGING TIME
Concentra-
tion (ppm)
2,700
3,000
3,250
4-h
average
13
8
5
6-h
average
7
4
3
7-h
average
5
3
3
8-h
average
5
3
2
12- h
average
3
1
0
TABLE G-2. SUMMARY OF TOTAL TIME EXCEEDING THE REFERENCE LEVEL S02
CONCENTRATION AS A FUNCTION OF AVERAGING TIME
Concentra-
tion (ppm)
2,700
3,000
3,250
4-h
average
112 (21)
61 (11)
40 (7)
6-h
average
76 (14)
40 (7)
30 (6)
7-h
average
62 (11)
33 (6)
30 (6)
8-h
average
62 (11)
33 (6)
22 (4)
12- h
average
42 (8)
13 (2)
0 (0)
NOTE: Numbers in parentheses indicate percentage of time for which
the emissions would exceed the reference concentration. The
total "normal" operating time of 542 hours equals 100 percent.
G-6
-------
tion selected for comparison by more than 10 percent above the manufac-
turer's guarantee, does not significantly decrease the number of
high-emission periods that exceed the level of S02 emission concentra-
tion selected for comparison.
Another approach is to examine the actual time during which S02
emissions exceeded various selected concentration levels, such as
2,700, 3,000, and 3,250 ppm. These data are tabulated in Table G-2.
An examination of these data leads to the same conclusions presented
above. Thus, based on this analysis and not considering catalyst
deterioration, it appears that an averaging time of 6 hours is suitable
for determining S02 emission concentrations and that emissions levels
established somewhat above commonly accepted vendor/contractor guar-
antees by 10 to 20 percent could be viewed as acceptable for purposes
of allowing normal, short-term fluctuations.
G.2 CATALYST DETERIORATION
Due to the lack of substantial numerical qualification of the
effect of catalyst deterioration on S02 emissions from sulfuric acid
plants, S02 emission data gathered by simultaneous U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) source testing of the No. 6 and No. 7 plants
at the Kennecott Garfield smelter during the period of June 13-16,
1972, were analyzed. The No. 6 (Parsons) plant began operating in
February 1967 and was in the second month of its 12-month catalyst
cleaning cycle during the source test. The No. 7 (Monsanto) plant
began operation in September 1970 and was in the twelfth and last
month of its catalyst cleaning cycle. The S02 emission data are
tabulated in Table G-3.
A statistical analysis of these data leads to the conclusion that
the 30-percent greater average emissions of the No. 7 plant, compared
to the average emissions of the No. 6 plant, are statistically signif-
icant at the 90-percent probability level. It should be noted, however,
that this difference in emissions reflects not only catalyst deterior-
ation but other factors as well, such as a difference in emissions due
to design or construction variations between Parsons 1967 acid plant
technology and Monsanto 1970 acid plant technology. On the other
G-7
-------
TABLE G-3. SUMMARY OF OUTLET S02
CONCENTRATIONS (ppm)
Run No. 6 Plant No. 7 Plant
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
389
753
1,036
1,745
938
1,608
794
1,128
930
296
855
2,277
1,207
1,131
2,553
1,104
1,355
1,433
Average 1,036 1,357
G-8
-------
hand, it is probably safe to assume that the major portion of this
difference in emissions is due to catalyst deterioration. Thus, the
results of this analysis can be reviewed as indicating first, that
catalyst deterioration does not have a significant effect on S02
emissions and second, that with a 12-month catalyst cleaning cycle,
this difference in emissions due to deterioration appears to be of the
order of magnitude of 30 percent.
G.3 ADDITIVE EFFECT OF EMISSION VARIATIONS AND CATALYST DETERIORATION
As discussed above, not considering catalyst deterioration,
sulfuric acid plant performance standards based on 6-hour S02 emission
levels 10 to 20 percent greater than commonly accepted vendor/contractor
guarantees appear to be appropriate to allow short-term fluctuations
in S02 emissions. As also discussed above, the increase in S02 emis-
sions during the 12-month catalyst cleaning cycle can be estimated to
be 30 percent. Based on the conservative assumption that catalyst
deterioration is an increasing exponential function of time, almost
all of the effect of catalyst deterioration will occur during the
second half of the cleaning cycle. Because the emission variation
data were based on the fifth month of the catalyst cleaning cycle, the
data do not include significant catalyst deterioration and the increase
in S02 emissions due to catalyst deterioration should be added to the
allowance for new catalyst emission variation. Thus, considering
short-term fluctuations of S02 emissions and using conservative assump-
tions regarding catalyst deterioration, new source performance standards
(NSPS) can possibly be based upon 6-hour emission levels established
40 to 50 percent greater than commonly accepted vendor/contractor
guarantees.
6-9
-------
APPENDIX H
SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSION TEST RESULTS FOR SINGLE-STAGE
ABSORPTION SULFURIC ACID PLANTS PROCESSING
METALLURGICAL OFFGAS STREAMS FROM
PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS
Please note: To provide the most comprehensive study possible, this
appendix is reprinted, with minor editorial changes, from
Volume I, Proposal Standards, of Background Information
for New Soruce Performance Standards: PrimaryTopper,
Lead, and Zinc Smelters, publication number EPA 450/2-74-
002a.
-------
APPENDIX H
SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSION TEST RESULTS FOR SINGLE-STAGE
ABSORPTION SULFURIC ACID PLANTS PROCESSING
METALLURGICAL OFFGAS STREAMS FROM
PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS
H.1 BACKGROUND
Before emissions testing began in May 1972, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) surveyed all sulfur dioxide (S02) control
systems at domestic primary copper smelters to determine which were
most effective. Using the survey results, EPA selected for emission
testing the facilities exhibiting the most advanced system design or
highest degree of S02 emission reduction. The facilities selected
consist of three single-stage absorption acid plants that treat off-
gasses from two different copper converting operations. All facilities
were tested for S02 emissions using Reference Method 8 contained in
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60 (40 CFR 60),
Appendix A, first published in the Federal Register on December 23,
1971. Later, after one had been installed at a domestic copper smelter,
a double-absorption acid plant was also tested. The analysis of this
test is included in Appendix I.
During the initial portion of the testing program, the best
domestic S02 control technology was considered to be single-stage
absorption sulfuric acid plants (see Section 4.2). Thus, acid plants
handling converter offgases had to be tested to determine the effects
on acid plant performance of highly variable inlet S02 concentrations
and flow rates.
All single-stage absorption acid plant tests were initally con-
ducted using Method 8 of 40 CFR 60. However, to gain long-term
operational data, an 8-week continuous monitoring test program was
H-3
-------
also conducted at one installation to monitor the frequently unsteady
nature of converter offgas streams. The converter operation is a
batch operation and, depending upon the number of converters in opera-
tion and their scheduling, will produce S02 concentrations and flow
rates ranging from 0 percent to approximately 9 percent and flow rates
ranging from 0 to the maximum blowing capacity of the converters.
Plant operating logs, acid plant inlet volumetric flow rate
charts, absorber and converter temperature charts, and inlet concentra-
tion charts were reviewed to determine the operating condition of acid
plants during the continuous monitoring program. Periods of startup
and shutdown were eliminated from the data analysis, and the long-term
S02 emission concentration averages were determined from the remaining
valid data points. Finally, various averaging techniques were used to
determine the most appropriate averaging interval, thereby masking the
effect of massive short-term fluctuations.
H.2 SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
H.2.1 ASARCO—Hayden, Arizona
The copper converter single-absorption acid plant at the ASARCO
smelter in Hayden, Arizona was tested during the week of June 19,
1972. The test consisted of eight separate runs using Reference
Method 8 of 40 CFR 60. Two of the test runs were aborted because
either the test equipment or the acid plant malfunctioned. Test 1
consisted of two samples, one for each orthogonal axis, whose results
were combined to determine an overall emissions rate. In addition to
the manual tests, continuous S02 monitoring was performed at the site
for 2 days to provide comparative data experience for future tests.
No statistical analysis of the continuous monitoring data was performed.
The ASARCO smelter has five copper converters, each requiring
approximately 8 hours to process a batch of copper matte. The gas
flow to the acid plant from the converters is as high as 2,830 NmVmin
(100,000 scfm), depending upon the number of converters in operation.
The gas stream to the acid plant has an S02 concentration of 4 to
9 percent.
H-4
-------
The converter emissions are controlled by a 750-ton-per-day (tpd)
single-absorption sulfuric acid plant designed by Chemiebau of West
Germany and built in 1972 by Rust Engineering, U.S. Chemiebau's licensee.
This acid plant was designed to process an inlet gas flow up to 2,830
NnrVmin (100,000 scfm) at an S02 concentration of 4 percent. The acid
plant has a four-stage capability, but only three catalytic stages
were active during the test.
Table H-l summarizes the results of the Hayden emission tests.
H.2.2 KENNECOTT--Garfield. Utah
The metallurgical, single-stage absorption sulfuric acid plants
at the Kennecott smelter in Garfield, Utah, were tested during the
week of June 19, 1972. A total of 20 acid mist and S02 emissions tests
were conducted on two of the five acid plants. Specifically, Plants 6
and 7 were tested using Method 8 of 40 CFR 60, with 10 tests performed
on each. Tables H-2 and H-3 summarize the manual emissions test
results from the Kennecott-Garfield acid plants. In addition, a
continuous S02 monitor was used to record long-term emissions from
plant 7.
At the time of testing, 9 converters were in place at the Garfield
facility. All offgases from these converters were ducted to six
single-stage absorption sulfuric acid plants. Converter operations
were scheduled to maintain a relatively constant S02 concentration in
the acid plant feed streams. Each acid plant was designed to process
a gas stream with an S02 concentration between 2 and 8 percent. The
flow rate to each acid plant varied from 850 to 1,980 NnrVmin (30,000
to 70,000 scfm), depending upon the number of converters in operation.
Acid plants 6 and 7 were chosen for the tests because they were
then the newest installations at the facility. Plant 6, designed by
Parsons Co., began operations in February 1967, was in the second
month of its catalyst cleaning cycle during the test program, and is
capable of processing up to 2,830 NmVmin (100,000 scfm) of gas at a
concentration of 2 to 8 percent. Plant 7, designed by Monsanto
Enviro-Chem and constructed by Leonard Construction Company, commenced
operation in September 1970, was designed to handle the flow rate
H-5
-------
TABLE H-l. SUMMARY OF EMISSION TEST DATA OBTAINED ASARCO-HAYDEN, JUNE 1972a
Date
Test time (min)
Stack effluent
Flow rate
dscm/min
(dscfm)
Temperature,
°C
(°F)
Pressure,
mm Hg
(in. Hg)
Acid pVant S02
emissions
ppm (by volume)
kg/dscm x 10"3
(Ib/dscf x io~5)
kg/h
(Ib/h)
1
June 20
145
2,192
(78,300)
47
(116.00)
699
(27.5)
2,238
29.1
(37.4)
3,850.0
(1,750.0)
2
June 20
144
2,257
(80,600)
37
(99.00)
708
(27.87)
3,994
51.9
(66.8)
7,106.0
(3,230).0
Run number
3
June 21
144
2,072
(74,000)
43
(110.00)
708
(27.87)
3,313
43.0
(55.4)
5,411.5
(2,459.7)
4
June 21
145
2,100
(75,000)
34
(93.00)
694
(27.33)
2,593
22.9
(29.5)
2,920.5
(1,327.0)
5
June 22
144
2,136
(76,300)
40
(104.00)
694
(27.33)
3,086
40.1
(51.6)
5,197.0
(2,362.0)
Average
144
2,151
(75,770)
40
(104.00)
701
(27.58)
3,117
37.4
(29.06)
4,896.6
(2,225.7)
aA single-stage absorption of Chemiebau design was tested. The plant processed copper converter offgases.
-------
Date
Test time (min)
Stack effluent
Flow rate
dscm/min
(dscfm)
Temperature,
&)
Pressure,
mm Hg
(in. Hg)
Concentration (SO,)
ppm (by volume)
-4
kg/dscm x 10
(Ib/dscf x 10"6)
kg/h
(Ib/h)
1
June 13
112
1,744
(62,800)
77
(169.0)
734
(28.90)
126
16.3
(21)
174.0
(79.1)
2
June 14
56
1,494
(53,300)
76
(167.0)
734
(28.90)
388.5
50.5
(65)
457.4
(207.9)
—• — — - • " —
3
i i i — —
June 14
56
1,661
(59,800)
74
(165.0)
734
(28. 90)
752
97.1
(125)
986.7
(448. 5)
4
June 14
112
1,606
(57,900)
74
(164.0)
734
(28.90)
1,036
134.0
(173)
1,322.0
(601.0)
=^^^^^-__z__=___.
nun r
5
June 15
112
1,975
(71,100)
96
(203.0)
735
(28.92)
1,744
227.0
(292)
2,740.5
(1,245.7)
-
lumuer
6
June 15
112
1,914
(68,900)
95
(196.0)
735
(28.92)
938
122.0
(157)
1,445.0
(657.0)
—
7
June 15
112
1,891
(68,100)
82
(181.0)
735
(28.92)
1,608
209.0
(269)
2,417.8
(1,099.0)
8
June 16
112
1,894
(68,200)
77
(169.0)
734
(28.90)
7,940
103.0
(133)
1,156.8
(544.0)
9
June 16
112
1,972
(71,000)
83
(182.0)
734
. (28.90)
1,128.0
146.9
(189)
1,771.0
(805.0)
10
June 16
112
1,850
(66,600)
80
(175.0)
734
(28.90)
930.0
930.0
(155)
1,361.8
(619.0)
Average
101
1,800
(64,804)
81
(178.0)
734
(28.91)
944.7
122.6
(158)
1,383.3
(628.7)
copper converter offgases.
-------
TABLE
H-3. SUMMARY OF EMISSION TEST DATA OBTAINED AT THE NO. 7 (MONSANTO) SINGLE-STAGE
ABSORPTION SULFURIC ACID PLANT AT KENNECOTT-GARFIELD, JUNE 1972a
Run number
Date
Test time (min)
Stack effluent
Flow rate
dscm/min
(dscfm)
Temperature,
°C
(°F)
Pressure,
mm Hg
(in. Hg)
Concentration (S02)
ppm (by volume)
-4
kg/dscm x 10 ,
(Ib/dscf x 10"D
kg/h
(Ib/h)
1
June 13
111
1,747.0
(62,900)
57
(135.0)
734
(28.91)
553
71.9
) (92.5)
768.0
(349.0)
2
June 14
56
1,675.0
(60,300)
51
(124.0)
734
(29.90)
296
38.4
(49.5)
393.8
(179.0)
3
June 14
56
1,500.0
(54,000)
59
(138.0)
734
(28.90)
855
111.1
(143.0)
1,019.0
(463.0)
4
June 14
112
1,643.0
(59,150)
56
(134.0)
734
(28.90)
2,277
296.0
(381.0)
2,974.8
(1,352.0)
5
June 15
112
1,958.0
(70,500)
60
(139.0)
735
(28.92)
1,207
160.0
(202.0)
1,879.8
(854.0)
6
June 15
112
1,783.0
(64,200)
56
(133.0)
735
(28.92)
1,131
146.9
(189.0)
1,601.7
(728.0)
7
June 15
112
1,916.0
(69,000)
64
(146.0)
735
(28.92)
2,553
331.8
(427.0)
3,889.0
(1,767.8)
8
June 16
112
1,875.0
(67,500)
56
(134.0)
734
(28.90)
1,104
143.7
(185.0)
1,648.0
(749.0)
9
June 16
112
1,930.6
(69,500)
56
(134.0)
734
(28.90)
1,355
176.4
(227.0)
2,082.5
(946.6)
10
June 16
112
1,905.6
(68,600)
56
(134.0)
734
(28.90)
1,433
186.5
(240.0)
2,173.0
(987.8)
Average
100.7
1,793.0
(64,560)
734
(28.90)
1,276
166.0
(213.6)
1,842.7
(837.6)
The acid plant tested processed copper converter offgases.
-------
fluctuations and S02 concentration associated with converter operations,
and is capable of handling S02 concentrations ranging between 2 and
8 percent. Plant 7 was in the last month of its catalyst cleaning
cycle when the manual tests were performed.
As noted earlier, a continuous monitoring test program was also
conducted at the Kennecott-Garfield facility between September 15,
1972, and November 15, 1972, on Acid Plant 7 to gather long-term
emissions data. The data being sought would be used to determine an
averaging time that would effectively mask fluctuations in acid plant
outlet concentrations and to evaluate the long-term performance capabil-
ities of single-absorption acid plants. These emissions data were
recorded by a Dupont 460 Continuous S02 Analyzer. Because Section 4.2
of this document discusses the results of that test, they are not
discussed here.
H-9
-------
APPENDIX I
ANALYSIS OF DUAL-ABSORPTION ACID PLANT CONTINUOUS S09
MONITORING DATA
Please note: To provide the most comprehensive study possible, this
appendix is reprinted, with minor editorial changes from
Volume I, Proposal Standards, of Background Information
for New Soruce Performance Standards: Primary Copper,
Lead. and Zinc Smelters, publication number EPA 450/2-74-
002a.
-------
APPENDIX I
ANALYSIS OF DUAL-ABSORPTION ACID PLANT CONTINUOUS S02
MONITORING DATA
I.I INTRODUCTION
The dual-absorption sulfuric acid plant at the ASARCO copper
smelter at El Paso, Texas, was the first system of its type to be used
in the domestic nonferrous smelting industry. The S02 emissions from
this unit were measured by the U.S. Evironmental Protection Agency
(EPA) beginning May 17, 1973, and continuing through December 14,
1973.
The objective of the test was to characterize the S02 emissions
from a primary copper smelter using a control system of this type.
The data were analyzed to determine the control system efficiency and
any conditions which would cause high emissions. Finally, the emis-
sions data were used to examine realistic and achievable S02 emission
limitations for nonferrous smelting operations which produce strong
S02 streams.
The ASARCO smelter at El Paso, Texas, is a custom copper smelter
that produces 236 Mg/day (260 tons/day) of blister copper. Approxi-
mately 365 Mg/day (400 tons/day) S02 are also produced during the
smelting process. The smelter operates three converters, with two
converters operating at essentially all times while the third converter
is in the pouring portion of its smelting cycle. This type of converter
scheduling typically produces a relatively steady stream containing 3
to 7 percent S02.
The converter gases are controlled by the dual-absorption acid
plant that produces approximately 450 Mg/day (500 tons/day) of sulfuric
acid. The acid plant is designed to process a gas stream with an
1-3
-------
average inlet concentration of 4 percent, with an inlet concentration
ranging between 2 percent to 10 percent S02, and an inlet flow rate of
up to 2,830 NmVmin (100,000 cfm). The system is equipped with an
automatic heater that permits efficient operation of the acid plant
down to an inlet S02 concentration of approximately 2 percent. The
catalyst renewal cycle of the acid plant is designed to be approximately
once every 2 years.
The monitoring instrumentation included a Dupont 460 S02 analyzer
for monitoring the outlet S02 concentration; a Beckman inlet S02
concentration analyzer; and a Westinghouse E2B 4-channel tape recorder,
which permitted simultaneous recording of time, inlet S02 concentra-
tion, outlet S02 concentration, and inlet volumetric flow rate. The
Beckman inlet S02 monitor was an integral part of the ASARCO S02
control system that required modification to permit recording of its
output signal by the EPA recorders.
The accuracy of the outlet S02 monitoring instrumentation was
verified as outlined in the proposed EPA Method 12 of 40 CFR 60. A
total of nine manual Method 8 S02 tests, defined in 40 CFR 60, were
performed between July 9 and 12, 1973. Table 1-1 shows the results
of the manual S02 measurements as determined by Method 8 and the
corresponding S02 readings as determined by the Dupont 460 S02 monitor-
ing instrument.
The entire monitoring program covered a period of 5,088 hours, or
212 days. During this time span, the acid plant was in operation for
a total of 190 days, or 90 percent of the monitoring period. During
the same time span, the monitoring instrumentation was in operation
for 90 percent of the monitoring period. Including periods when both
acid plant and monitoring instrumentation were inoperative, data were
collected during 86 percent of the duration of the monitoring program.
The monitoring instrumentation recorded one reading for each parameter
monitored every 3 minutes. At the end of each 15-minute interval, an
average of the previous five readings was computed. The 15-minute
averages were used as the base data points for all subsequent computa-
tions and analyses.
1-4
-------
TABLE 1-1. COMPARISON OF S02 MEASUREMENTS USING EPA METHOD 8
AND THE DUPONT 460 S02 ANALYZER
Date and time started
Test results (ppm S02)
EPA Method 8
Dupont analyzer
7/09/73 (1617)
7/10/73 (1011)
7/10/73 (1418)
7/10/73 (1602)
7/10/73 (1745)
7/10/73 (0816)
7/10/73 (1000)
7/10/73 (1627)
7/10/73 (1805)
12.5
122.0
21.0
117.5
53.0
19.5
49.5
239.0
22.5
19.9
121.2
22.1
116.3
48.5
22.2
51.4
224.3
23.1
1-5
-------
1.2 VALIDATION OF DATA
To ensure that the recorded data were representative of "normal"
operating conditions, data validation criteria were established. The
acid plant operations log, the acid plant engineer's log, the catalyst
temperature charts, and the copper converter operating logs were
reviewed to determine the operating state of the converter operations
and the acid plant. Periods during which the acid plant was not
operating and periods of excess emissions during startup were removed
from the compiled data. For purposes of analysis of the compiled
data, all other operating situations were considered normal.
During the the test program, the acid plant experienced a number
of shutdown and startup situations. The periods of acid plant downtime
lasted for as little as 30 minutes to as long as 5 days. A general
review of the data showed that the shorter durations of downtime
produced shorter periods of high emissions after startup than did the
downtimes of longer duration. Therefore, each period of downtime and
startup was evaluated to derive a quantitative relationship between
the duration of the downtime and the duration of excess emissions
after startup.
In developing an approximate relationship between the duration of
'abnormal emissions and the duration of downtime, a family of curves
was prepared to show average emission vs. time after startup based on
the data monitored. Figure 1-1 shows the relationship between the
downtime duration and the emissions rate immediately after startup.
There were 25 startups during the monitoring period. These were
categorizied into five groups depending upon downtime duration. The
curves represent the following downtime periods: 1.99 hours or less,
2 to 5.99 hours, 6 to 9.99 hours, 10 to 13.99 hours, and greater than
or equal to 14 hours. Each curve represents the following total
number of downtimes: 7 downtimes of 1.99 hours or less, 3 downtimes
of from 2 to 5.99 hours duration, 3 downtimes of from 6 to 9.99 hours
duration, 4 downtimes of from 10 to 13.99 hours duration, and 7 down-
times of 14 hours or greater duration. Normal operation was considered
attained when the average emissions decreased to 500 ppm.
1-6
-------
1.700
1.600 -
Shutdown greater than 14 hr
12345
Time After Startup (hr)
Figure 1-1. Average emissions after startup versus time after startup.
1-7
-------
The analysis of the curves indicates that downtimes of up to
1.99 hours did not cause excess emissions. Downtimes of greater than
14.99 hours, however, typically resulted in excess emissions for up to
approximately 5 hours after startup. Other shutdown intervals resulted
in normal operation after a period of time ranging between the two
previous extremes.
The exact duration of excess emissions during startup will vary
because the time required to attain normal operation depends to a
major degree upon the skill of the acid plant operator, his/her percep-
tion of the system's imbalance and his/her response with corrective
measures. Also, the time required to attain normal operation is
dependent upon the response time of the acid plant process control
system to any corrective actions initiated by the operator. The
curves of Figure 1-1 indicate that there may be considerable elapsed
time after startup before the acid plant regains equilibrium conditions.
Based on the curves, data validation criteria were developed for
startup periods. Data points during the initial portions of an acid
plant startup were excluded from the analysis based on the following
criteria, to the nearest hours:
For shutdowns of less than 2 hours, the first valid datum
point occurs immediately after startup.
For shutdowns of 2 to 5.99 hours, the first valid datum
point occurs 3 hours after startup.
For shutdowns of 6 to 9.99 hours, the first valid datum
point occurs 4 hours after startup.
For shutdowns of 10 to 13.99 hours, the first valid datum
point occurs 4 hours after startup.
For shutdowns of greater than 14 hours, the first valid
datum point occurs 5 hours after startup.
1.3 DISCUSSION OF THE DATA
With periods of acid plant downtime and the initial portion of
acid plant startup eliminated from the recorded data, the remaining
data constitute emissions from normal smelting and acid plant opera-
tions. This includes periods of abnormally low inlet concentration
1-8
-------
when all converters were out of the hoods for short periods. These
situations are common occurrences in copper converter operations.
As previously discussed, the inlet S02 concentration to the acid
plant was measured at 3-minute intervals. The readings were then
averaged every 15 minutes to determine the 15-minute average base data
points. The inlet gas stream averaged 3.80 percent S02 for the entire
test period, with a standard deviation of 1.64 percent S02. The
highest recorded 15-minute average inlet for the total monitoring
period was 9.19 percent S02.
An analysis of the distribution of the 15-minute inlet S02 readings
indicated that the acid plant processed gases of greater than 3.5 per-
cent for only approximately 55 percent of the time. Figures 1-2 and
1-3 show the concentration distribution and the cumulative frequency
distribution of the inlet gas stream S02 concentrations recorded
during the monitoring period.
1.3.1 Catalyst Deterioration
The efficient operation of any acid plant is governed to a major
degree by the condition of the catalyst that aids the conversion
reaction of S02 to S03. As the catalyst is used, its condition can
deteriorate and thus decrease the control efficiency of the system.
This naturally results in increased emissions from the acid plant. To
ascertain any change in conversion efficiency attributable to catalyst
use, the change in efficiency was determined for various time intervals
over the total test period. The implied assumption in this procedure
was that any decrease in control efficiency would be basically due to
the decreased reactivity of the catalyst.
The acid plant conversion efficiency was calculated using the
following definition:
Efficiency E = Hass s°2 converted
trnciency, t Mass so* available '
Adopting the ideal gas law for S02, the previous definition can be
represented by the equation:
Cout
E = (1 - Cin > d * Cout
1-9
-------
I
(—'
o
50
40
30
0)
3
cr
0)
c
o
I 20
3
a.
I
10
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0 5.0 6.0
SO2 Concentration (%)
8.0
9.0
10.0
Figure I-2. Inlet S02 concentration frequency distribution.
-------
no
100
80
60
u
0)
3
IT
0>
•3 40
JS
3
E
3
o
20 -
Mean Inlet Concentration,
3.8% SO.,
456
SO2 Concentration (%)
8
10
Figure I-3. Inlet S02 concentration cumulative frequency distribution.
-------
where
C. = S02 concentration entering the acid plant
C . = S02 concentration leaving the acid plant.
The acid plant commenced operation in December 1972. Between
May 1973 and December 1973, the acid plant was monitored while operating
for approximately 171 days, or approximately 86 percent of the time.
At the end of the monitoring program, the acid plant has been in
operation a total of 335 days.
The normal cleaning cycle for the acid plant catalyst, based on
the manufacturer's design, is 2 years. Thus, the system was monitored
during the second quarter of its normal catalyst cleaning cycle. Due
to the failure of parts of the gas precleaning system to operate
properly, however, the catalyst deterioration rate was accelerated,
and the acid plant catalyst was screened during March 1974. Based on
this information, the catalyst renewal cycle therefore covered a
period of 1.2 years, and the acid plant was considered to have been
monitored during the second and third quarters of its catalyst cleaning
cycle.
One least-squares regression analysis of the change in efficiency
with usage covers the total test period from May 17, 1973, through
December 14, 1973. Similarly, second and third analyses of the change
in efficiency with time were also made and included the last 2 months
and the last month of the monitoring period, respectively. A review
of the three results indicates that the acid plant's efficiency remained
essentially constant at an average of greater than 99.70 percent
during the total test program. The respective changes in efficiency
within the observed periods indicated by the three analyses were
-0.20 x lo"7, -5.6 x 10~7, and -8.7 x 10 percent per day. The
minimum efficiencies from these changes in efficiency were 99.750
percent, 99.643 percent and 99.688 percent, respectively. Thus,
neither within a given interval nor between one reporting interval and
other did the analysis show sufficient changes in efficiency to indicate
a significant change in the condition of the catalyst.
1-12
-------
I-3-2 Effect of Inlet SO? Concentration on Emissions
The most important aspect of the inlet S02 concentration is its
effect on acid plant operating efficiency and the resulting outlet S02
concentration. To ascertain the effects of varying inlet S02 con-
centrations on the resulting outlet S02 concentrations, all of the
simultaneous 15-minute inlet and outlet concentration data were used
to develop a least-squares straight line. The results of this analysis
indicated there is a direct linear relationship between inlet S02
concentration and the resulting outlet S02 concentration. The correla-
tion coefficient of the analysis was calculated to be 0.413 and was
determined to be significant enought to warrant a conclusion of
linearity. Figure 1-4 shows the graph of the least-squares line and
its standard error.
The inlet S02 concentrations experienced during this test were
somewhat lower than the concentrations of 5 to 6 percent achievable
from typical copper converter operations. With an average of 3.8 per-
cent S02 and a standard deviation of 1.64 percent S02, approximately
68 percent of the readings were between 2.2 and 5.4 percent S02)
indicating that the inlet concentrations are biased low and thus
result in lower outlet concentrations. The fact that the acid plant
inlet concentration was typically low indicates that the typical
outlet concentration was lower than that expected from other similar
acid plants operating at a higher average inlet concentration. This
factor must be taken into account when determining emissions limits
for other smelting operations, based on data from this test.
An inlet concentration of 9 percent is approximately the maximum
inlet S02 concentration that can be processed by most modern dual-stage
acid plants. Figure 1-4 is significant, therefore, when predicting
the expected emissions from a smelter generating an inlet gas stream
within the observed range of this test (0.02 to 9.16 percent S02). It
shows that the average outlet concentration increases approximately
50 ppm per 1 percent increase in inlet concentration above 3.8 percent.
For instance, when the average inlet concentration to the acid plant
was 9 percent S02, the average emission rate indicated from the test
1-13
-------
350.0
300.0
250.0
E
Q.
.1 200.0
c
o>
t>
c
o
O
O1 150.0
CO
3
O
m
/
V
/
w
/
100.0
f
9
f
w
/
9
f
50.0
f
r
f
9
r
f
f
f
r
r
w
/
*
/
8
10 11
Inlet SO2 Concentration r/o
Figure I 4. Outlet SO2 concentration versus inlet SO2 concentration.
12
1-14
-------
was approximately three times the emission rate obtained at 3.8 percent
inlet S02. This increase is basically due to increased inlet concentra-
tion at a constant conversion efficiency.
1.4 RESULTS OF THE TEST PROGRAM
The results of the test program indicated that during normal
operations the average emissions, based on 15-minute readings, ranged
between 10 and 2,920 ppm. Approximately 90 percent of these values,
however, were below 250 ppm and well below the typical manufacturer's
guaranteed emission rate of 500 ppm.
There were, however, periods of relatively high emissions, even
when averaged over 6-hour periods, which could not be attributed to
malfunctions, startups, or shutdowns. It was thought that these
periods might be caused by relatively high inlet concentrations,
resulting in a corresponding increase in outlet concentrations. To
examine this possibility, 6-hour averages of 400 ppm or greater were
located in the data base, and the 24 15-minute inlet concentration
readings that made up the 6-hour averages were recorded. The concen-
tration frequency distributions of these inlet readings were then
compared with the inlet concentration frequency distribution for the
entire monitoring period. In general, the individual distributions
did not vary significantly enough from the composite for the entire
monitoring period to indicate that the excursions occurred during
periods of unusually high or during abnormal inlet concentration
conditions. The catalyst converter temperatures and inlet gas flow
rates were also reviewed, but no abnormalities were noted in these
parameters.
Because the periods of relatively high emissions were not caused
by abnormal inlet gas conditions or by abnormal operation of the acid
plant system, the compiled data were averaged over various time inter-
vals ranging from 1 to 10 hours to examine the effect of averaging
time on damping of normal excursions. As a result, the effects of
normal short-term excursions were spread over successively longer
periods of time. Table 1-2 shows a matrix, to the nearest 0.05
1-15
-------
TABLE 1-2. THE EFFECT OF REFERENCE CONCENTRATION LEVEL AND AVERAGING TIME ON THE PERCENTAGE OF EXCURSIONS
G-i
Averag-
ing
time
15 min
1 hr
2 hr
3 hr
4 hr
5 hr
6 hr
7 hr
8 hr
10 hr
Number
of
readings
14,612
3,628
3,702
3,758
3,803
3,841
3,876
3,907
3,935
3,988
Reference concentration level,
150
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
15.00
15.00
200
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
8.15
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
250
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
6.10
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
300
7.50
7.10
5.00
5.00
3.00
2.75
2.45
2.15
2.15
2.05
350
5.00
4.10
3.00
2.20
2.20
1.75
1.75
1.40
1.40
1.20
400
4.00
3.15
2.50
2.00
1.40
1.25
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.55
450
3.00
2.65
2.00
1.60
1.05
1.00
0.90
0.55
0.50
0.25
500
2.30
2.10
1.75
1.25
0.80
0.75
0.45
0.30
0.25
0.10
ppm
550
1.60
1.75
1.50
0.85
0.75
0.55
0.35
0.20
0.10
0.05
600
1.35
1.40
1.25
0.80
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.10
0.05
0.00
650
1.15
1.00
1.00
0.55
0.45
0.30
0.15
0.05
0.00
0.00
700
1.05
0.90
0.90
0.50
0.30
0.25
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
Me
750 1
1.05
0.80
0.70
0.50
0.25
0.15
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
iximum concen-
tration, ppm
2,920
1,982
1,261
1,238
935
935
752
662
662
576
-------
percent, of the percentages of the total readings that exceeded given
concentrations for various averaging intervals.
It can be seen from Table 1-2 that, as the averaging time for a
given concentration level increases, the percentage of excursions
above that concentration level tends to converge to zero. For example,
Table 1-2 indicates that from 20 to 15 percent of the recorded values
exceeded 150 ppm, depending on the averaging intervals between 1 and
10 hours.
Similarly, in Table 1-2, an increase in the concentration level
for a given averaging time will also cause the matrix to converge
rapidly to a small value. For example, observing the 6-hour averaging
interval, there is a 20 percent excursion rate at the 150 ppm level.
Increasing the concentration level to 300 ppm decreases the excursion
rate to 2.45 percent; increasing the concentration level to 750 ppm
decreases the excursion rate to 0.05 percent.
Based on the results of Table 1-2, as either the averaging time
increases, the concentration level increases, or both increase, the
percentage of excursions tends to converge toward a small value in the
matrix.
1.5 CONCLUSIONS
As previously indicated, the typical manufacturer's guarantee for
a dual-stage acid plant is 500 ppm, based on a 5 to 6 percent average
inlet S02 concentration. The results of the test, however, indicated
that the test was carried out at a 3.8 percent average inlet concentra-
tion, somewhat lower than the average inlet concentration from typical
copper converting operations. The test results also indicate that
there is a direct linear relationship between inlet gas-stream S02
concentration and outlet gas-stream S02 concentration; the inlet
concentration increases in proportion to the outlet concentrations.
Therefore, because the inlet concentration was somewhat lower than
normal, the resulting outlet concentration was considered lower than
that from typical copper smelters.
Because the manufacturer's guarantee of 500 ppm is based on a
5 to 6 percent inlet S02 concentration into a typical smelter converter
1-17
-------
acid plant, the equivalent S02 concentration for the ASARCO acid plant
during the test period was 400 ppm. This is due to the typically
lower inlet concentrations.
As discussed in Appendix H, an appropriate averaging time for
masking outlet concentration fluctuations from single-stage absorption
acid plants was determined to be 6 hours. The test of the ASARCO
plant indicates that a 6-hour averaging time is also sufficient to
mask fluctuations from a dual-absorption acid plant. The results show
that an emission rate of 400 ppm for a 6-hour averaging time would
result in 1.20 percent excursions.
Although the results of this test program indicate that a reason-
able emissions limit equivalent to the vendor's guarantee (400 ppm)
would result in only 1.20 percent violation rate, the effects of
higher inlet S02 concentrations at other smelting operations and acid
plant catalyst deterioration must be taken into account. To account
for situations of increased emissions due to higher inlet concentrations
of up to 9 percent, the results of Table 1-3 require prorating upward
a maximum of 200 ppm.
The results of this test were not conclusive as to the character-
istics of increased emissions due to catalyst deterioration because no
deterioration was observed during this test. Discussions with the
designers of the ASARCO acid plant indicated that up to a 10-percent
increase in emissions was expected before renewal of the catalyst.
This factor, therefore, has to be taken into account when predicting
the expected emissions from a system of this type. Based on the
previous factors, the results of Table 1-3 were prorated upward to
take higher inlet concentrations and catalyst deterioration into
account.
Table 1-3 shows an acid plant operating at an inlet of as high as
9 percent and taking catalyst deterioration into account. From
Table 1-3 it can be seen that an acid plant processing the maximum
expected inlet concentration could be expected to maintain an emission
rate of 650 ppm with only a 1.20 percent excursion rate.
1-18
-------
UD
150 200
Percentage of
averages exceed-
250 30° 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 """
20.00 10.00 5.00 2.45 1.75 1.20 0.90 0.45 977
Expected
mtra
ppm
ing outlet S02
concentration
-------
In general, however, a new source performance standard (NSPS) set
at the 650-ppm level and a 6-hour averaging time would result in a
probable excursion rate of less than 1.20 percent. The general NSPS
provisions (39 FR 9308) specify that each performance test for the
purpose of compliance shall consist of the arithmetic mean of the
results from three separate runs. To determine the number of times
that the ASARCO acid plant exceeded the 400-ppm level (equivalent to
650 ppm in Table 1-2), the recorded data from the test program were
reviewed. Each 6-hour average of 400 ppm or greater was considered an
excursion. Readings for 24 hours both before and after the violation
were reviewed to determine whether the average of any two readings
together with the excursion would exceed 400 ppm. The three 6-hour
averaging periods were chosen so that none of the periods overlapped.
The results indicate that, of 48 recorded readings greater than 400 ppm
during the entire monitoring period, only 6 result in averages of 3
runs greater than 400 ppm. From this evaluation, the probable percent-
age of 6-hour averages in excess of 650 ppm, based on a 9 percent $62
inlet stream, would be approximately 0.15 percent.
1-20
-------
APPENDIX J
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS
MODEL PLANT OPERATING PARAMETERS
-------
APPENDIX J
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS
MODEL PLANT OPERATING PARAMETERS
This appendix contains examples of calculations used in the
development of the Background Information Document for the review of
the primary copper smelter NSPS. Calculations are for Control Alterna-
tive I-G, new greenfield smelter processing high-impurity materials
(oxyfuel burners and 100 percent blending of the reverberatory furnace
offgas stream). Where procedures for the expansion scenarios differ,
example calculations are included for selected expansion scenarios.
The following input data obtained from Chapter 6 are reproduced
for the reader's convenience.
INPUT DATA
New greenfield Expansion
smelter Scenario 9
Feed:
Mg/day 1,364 2,045
Copper (%) 22.9 22.4
Sulfur (%) 27.0 28.4
Iron (%) 19.6 24.8
Sulfur removal (%)
Roaster 19.3
Reverberatory furnace 28.4 41.2
Converter 52.3 59.8
Matte grade (%) 40.0 39.0
The assumptions used in these calculations are those listed on
pages 6-6 and 6-9. Additional assumptions are indicated in the example
calculations.
J-3
-------
J.2 NEW GREENFIELD SMELTER PROCESSING HIGH-IMPURITY MATERIALS
J.2.1 Material balance:
Copper in feed:
Matte fall:
Inert in matte:
S as C02S:
C02S:
FeS:
S as FeS:
S in matte: 113.6 + 78.7
S in feed: 1,364 x 0.270
S removed in MHR and RV: 368.3 - 192.3
0.193
1,364 x 0.229
312.4 T 0.40
781.0 x 0.10
31 ? A y
Jl^.4 X 127_1
312.4 + 78.7
781.0 - 78.1 - 391.1
S removed in MHR: 176.0 x
S removed in RV: 176.0 x
J.2.2 Multihearth Roaster
Volumetric flow:
0.193 + 0.284
0.284
0.193 + 0.284
71.2 Mg S removed 1 day
day 1,440 min " 32 Mg
Mg-mol v 22.4 x
Mg-mol
Fraction 02:
Theoretical air:
Dilution air:
Fraction 02:
Nm3 offgas 530
0.045 Nm3 S02 492
828.5 x Q.Q45
0.21
828.5 - 177.5
651.0 x Q.21
828.5
= 312.4 Mg/day
= 781.0 Mg/day
= 78.1 Mg/day
= 78.7 Mg/day
= 391.1 Mg/day
= 311.8 Mg/day
= 113.6 Mg/day
= 192.3 Mg/day
= 368.3 Mg/day
= 176.0 Mg/day
= 71.2 Mg/day
= 104.8 Mg/day
828.5 NmVmin
[at 70° F, 1 atm]
828.5
0.165
177.5 NnrVmin
651.0 NmVmin
0.165
J-4
-------
J.2.3 Reverberatory Furnace
.a,b
Natural gas equivalent required:
(1,364.0 - 71.2) Mg calcine x 1 day x 1.1 tons
day 1,440 min Mg
y (0.6 x 4.5 x 1Q6) BTO ft3 natural gas
Ton feed
(2.832 x IQ"2 m3) v 530
x
1,000 Btu
Combustion products (CH4 + 202 -» C02 + 2H20):
C02:
H20:
0.79
N2:
S02 formed:
104.8 Mg S removed
day
162.6
0.21
1 day
_
1,440 min 32 Mg
(22.4 x 1Q3
530
N2 in air to form S02: 54.9 x
Mg-mol 492
0.79
0.21
Air leakage:
02 requirements:
N2 at 65/35 H2/02:
162.6 + 54.9
0.65
217.5 x
81.3 Nm3/min
[70° F, 1 atm]
= 81.3
= 81.3 NmVmin
= 162.6 NmVmin
- 611.7 NmVmin
54.9 Nm3/min
[79° F, 1 atm]
0.35
= 54.9
= 206.5 NnrVmin
511.3 NmVmin
= 217.5 NirrVmin
= 403.9 NmVmin
Natural gas equivalents are used in reverberatory furnace calculations
for convenience. It is assumed that combustion products per Btu of
input from natural gas are essentially the same as combustion products
per Btu of input from other fossil fuels.
The literature indicates a 40-percent reduction in heat requirements
when using oxyfuel burners.
J-5
-------
Air leakage:
Moisture in air
(70° F 40% RH):
Theoretical RV offgas:
403.9 -=- 0.79
511.3 x 0.00757
= 511.3 NmVmin
= 3.9
= 3.9 NmVmin
= 706.6 NmVmin
Dry 65/35 air to
1 percent 02 at
N2 in makeup air
02 in makeup air
H20 in makeup ai
result in
offtake:
:
:
r:
Component
C02
H20
Combustion
In air
N2
S02
0.35 volume air
Volume air + 706.6
20.8 x 0.65
20.8 x 0.35
20.8 x 0.00757
NmVmi n
81.3
166.5
(162.6)
(3.9)
403.9
54.9
RV offgas at offtake:
Dry basis Wet
Component
C02
H20
(combustion)
(leakage air)
(makeup air)
N2
(leakage air)
(makeup air)
S02
02
Total
NmVmin
81.3
-
417.4
(403.9)
(13.5)
54.9
7.3
560.9
% NmVmin
14.5 81.3
166.7
(162.6)
(3.9)
(0.2)
74.4 417.4
(403.9)
(13.5)
9.8 54.9
1.3 7.3
727.6
basis
%
11.2
22.9
57.4
7.5
1.0
20.8 NmVmin
0.01
13.5 NmVmin
7.3 NmVmin
0.2 NmVmin
J-6
-------
Leakage through waste
heat boiler and ESP:
= 727.6 Nm3/min
RV gas to acid plant
(dry basis):
Component
C02
N2
(at offtake)
(leakage)
02
(at offtake)
(leakage)
S02
J.2.4 Converters
= 1,284.4 NnvVmin
NmVmin
81.3
992.2
(417.4)
(574.8)
160.1
(7.3)
(152.8)
54.9
6.3
77.0
12.4
4.3
1,288.5
J.2.4.1 General. The availability of a strong S02 stream can
significantly enhance the attractiveness of weak-stream blending as a
means by which to control weak S02 streams. Consequently, a converter
scheduling scheme that will maximize the converter offgas S02 concen-
tration over time is highly desirable.
A typical converter cycle can take between 11 and 12 hours per
charge. In converting a 40-percent matte, a slag blow will last
approximately 6 hours, while a copper blow lasts about 3 hours. Time
taken up by charging, pouring, and skimming will generally be about
2 hours per cycle. Figure J-l presents the converter schedule used in
this study to determine the time profile of the total converter offgas
flow for a 40-percent matte. Copper and slag blowing fumes will
change when other matte grades constitute the converter charge. A
three-converter operation performing five converter cycles per 24-hour
period was chosen as representative of domestic practice. An intercycle
time of 3-2/3 hours was determined to be typical. Offgas profile of
the converter aisle is determined in the following paragraphs.
J.2.4.2 Slag Blow. [FeS + 1.5 02 = FeO + S02]
FeS: = 311.8 Mg/day
FeS/cycle: 311.8 ^5 =62.4 Mg/cycle
J-7
-------
1
CO
Hours 5 10 15 20 2'
. . I i . I , . I . i I . . I . . I . . I . . I . . I , . I , . I i . I . . I . , I , , I , , I . . I , i I ( , I , . I i , I , . 1 , , I , . I
I I I » f f H I 1 t | | | I | | | 1 |
Figure J-1. Model smelter converter operating schedule.
-------
S0:
62.4 Mg FeS 1 cycle
Mg-mol
cycle 360 min 87.8 Mg FeS
Theoretical 02: 47.6 x 1.5
Actual 02:
(22.4 x 1Q3
Mg-mol
71.4 T 0.75
Actual N2:
Offgas before dilution:
Offgas after dilution:
Fraction S02:
Fraction 02:
95.2
0.79
0.21
47.6 + 95.2 - 71.4 + 358.1
2 x 429.5
47.6 T 859.0
859.0
J.2.4.3 Copper Blow [Cu2S + 02 -> 2 Cu + S02].
Cu2S:
•Cu2S/cycle: 391.1 r 5
S02:
78.2 x 22.4 x 103 x 530
Actual 02:
Actual N2:
Offgas before dilution:
Offgas after dilution:
Fraction S02:
Fraction 02:
180 x 159.1 x 492
65.9 T 0.75
330.7 + 87.9
2 A 418.6
65.9 T 837.2
87.9 - 65.9 + 0.21 x 418.6
837.2
47. 6 NmVmin
[70° F, 1 atm]
= 71.4 NmVmin
= 95.2 NnrVmin
= 358.1 NmVmin
= 429.5 NmVmin
= 429.5
= 859.0 NmVmin
= 0.0554
= 0.133
95.2 - 71.4 + 0.21 x 429.5 _
= 0.133
391.1 Mg/day
78.2 Mg/cycle
65.9 NmVmin
65.9
87.9 NmVmin
330.7 NmVmin
418.6 NmVmin
837.2 NmVmin
0.0787
0.131
0.131
J-9
-------
J.2.4.4 Offgas Profile. Using the converter aisle station
presented in Figure 6.2 and the slag and copper blow flows determined
above the following converter aisle offgas profile can be developed.
Converter aisle status
Number of converters
Slag
blow
2
2
1
I
0
0
Average
Copper
blow
1
0
1
0
1
0
flow
Off-
stack
0
1
1
2
2
3
Hr/
day
4.0a
5.2
9.5
2.3
1.7
1.3
Mm3 /mi n
2,555.2
1,718.0
1,696.2
859.0
837.2
0
1,611.1
S02 (%)
6.30
5.54
6.69
5.54
7.57
6.31
13.2
13.3
13.2
13.3
13.1
13.2
aExample calculation:
Flow: 2 x 859.0 + 837.2 - 2,555.2 NmVmin
Fraction S02: 2x859.0x0.0554^837.2x0.0787 = Q Q63
Average flow: I hr pending x NmVmin
J.2.5 Acid Plant Flows
J.2.5.1 Feed. Blended MHR, RV, and CV streams are fed to the acid
plant. Profile of this blended stream is determined as shown below:
Stream Hr/day NmVmi n S02 (%)
Multihearth roaster 24 828 4.50
Reverberatory furnace 24 1,284 4.30
Converter aisle 4.0 2,555 6.30
5.2 1,718 5.54
9.5 1,696 6.69
2.3 859 5.54
1.7 837 7.87
1.3 0
To acid plant 4.0a 4,667 5.43
5.2 3,830 4.90
9.5 3,808 5.41
2.3 2,971 4.71
1.7 2,949 5.37
1.3 2,112 4.36
Average 3,723 5.21
aExample calculation (see next page):
J-10
-------
now: 828 + 1,284 + 2,555 = 4,667 NnrVmin
Fraction S02:
828 x Q.Q45 + 1,284 x 0.043 + 2.555 x 0.063 _ n nt...
-- - 0.0543
J.2.5.2 Effluent. Acid plant effluent is based on average
flows, 98.3 percent conversion efficiency, and on the assumption that
only S02 is removed from the dry gas in the acid plant. The following
model was developed for this purpose.
V: Volume of dry gas to the
acid plant
S: Fraction of S02 in dry
inlet gas
0: Fraction 02 in dry inlet
gas.
S02 converted: 0.983 VS
02 used:
S02 + 3^2 + H20 -> H2S04
Effluent: V - 0.983 VS - °'98^ VS
= V - 1.4745 VS
= 3,723 - 1.4745 x 3,273 x 0.0521
- 3,437 NirrVmin
Fraction S02: 0.00096
(1 - 0.983) (3,723) (0.0521) + 3,437
J.2.6 Air Pollution Impact
J.2.6.1 Table 7.4— S02 Control Alternative.
Baseline
Emissions/yr (total): 76,495 Mg/yr
J-ll
-------
MHR:
847 Mg/yr
71.2 Mg S removed x 350 days x 64 Mg S02
day year 32 Mg S
x 0.017 Mg emitted
Mg to acid plant
RV:
CV:
Control Alternative I-G
Emission/yr (total):
MHR:
CV:
RV:
Emission reduction:
Blister copper/yr:
104.8 x 350 x
64
32
64
192.3 x 350 x x 0.017
104.8 x 350 x ° x 0.017
76,495 - 4,382
1,364 x 0.229 x 350
(99% recovery, 99% purity,
350 days/yr)
847
73,360 Mg/yr
2,288
4,382 Mg/yr
847 Mg/yr
2,288 Mg/yr
1,247
72,113
109,324 Mg/yr
Reduction per unit of
blister: 72,113 x 1,000 -f 109,324
J.2.6.2 Table 7-5--Fugitive Particulate Control
Baseline, MHR:
109,324 Mg blister v 5.2 Kg fugitive 1 Mg
year Mg blister 1,000 Kg
Reduction, MHR:
568 Mg uncontrolled x 0.90 Mg captured
= 659
568 Mg/yr
568
506 Mg/yr
year
Controlled, MHR:
Mg uncontrolled
0.99 Mg collected
Mg captured
568 - 506
506
62 Mg/yr
J-12
-------
Control %: 506 T 568 = 89 percent
Reduction: = 4.6 kg/Mg blister
506 Mg particulate 1,000 Kg year
Year Mg 109,324 Mg blister
J.2.6.3 Table 7-7--So1id and Liquid Effluents from Gas Cleaning
and Conditioning. Use factors from Appendix L.
Volume to acid plant: 3,725 NmVmin
or 3,725 x 35.31 x ^ = 122,100 scfm (°C)
CaS04: 122,100 x 2.8 x 10"5 = 3.4 Mg/yr
Liquid: 122,100 x 1.8 x lo"4 = 22.0 Mg/yr
J.2.6.4 Table 7-9—Solid and Liquid Wastes from FGDs. Use
factors from Appendix L.
Volume to scrubber = 3,315 NmVmin
(Table 6-3): at 12% S02
or
9T\
3,315 x 35.31 x = 108,700 scfm
108,700 x 1.7 x 0.034 = 6,282 Mg/yr
solid waste
108,700 x 1.7 x 1.8 =- 332,622 Mg/yr
1 iquid waste
J.2.6.2.5 Table 7~12--energy impact. Energy requirements in
Table 7-12 were estimated using relationships developed for the cost
analysis (Chapter 8).
J.3 EXPANSION SCENARIOS
With the exception of converter analysis and distribution of acid
plant flows to the existing single acid plant and a new double acid
plant for scenarios requiring a new acid plant, the procedures for
determining expansion scenario parameters are the same as those used
for new greenfield smelters. Examples of each of these exceptions
follow.
J-13
-------
J.3.1 Converter Analysis
Using the same procedures used in
profile, before dilution,
Converter aisle status
Converters on:
Slag blow Copper blow
2 1
2 0
1 1
1 0
0 1
0 0
Average
Dilution to attain
4.3 percent S02:
Converter profile after di
Converter aisle status
Converters on:
Slag Copper Off-
blow blow stack
210
201
111
102
012
003
Average
aExample:
Flow:
S02:
Section J.
is determined for Basel
Offstack
0
1
1
2
2
3
12.3
lution:
Hr/
day
4.0a
5.2
9.5
2.3
1.7
1.3
1,550.8 x 2.
12.3 T 2.860
Hr/day
4.0
5.2
9.5
2.3
1.7
1.3
NmVmin
4,435
3,267
2,793
1,583
1,168
2,838
860
2, the fol
ine II.
nr\\ti
OW
(Mm3 /mi
1,550.
1,142.
979.
553.
408.
0
992.
= 2.
S02 (%)
4.30
3.88
4.55
3.88
5.52
4.3
= 4,
= 4.
lowing conv<
Cf|
OU2
n) (%)
8 12.3
2 11.1
6 13.0
6 11.1
5 15.8
-
3 12.3
860
n f°/\
U2 \/o)
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.5
-
15.5
435 NmVmin
3 percent
02: Same procedure used in
J.3.2 Acid Plant Flows
Section J. 2.
4
The procedures described herein apply to Expansion Scenarios 11
through 14. The example covers Scenario 11.
J-14
-------
Using the procedures described in Section J.2, the following
parameters are developed:
Flow
(NmVmin)
1,440
2,770
970
S02
3.0
4.3
6.2
02
15.6
15.4
13.3
RV, to acid plant
Old CV
New CV
In this scenario, the flows from both the old and new converter
are blended to smooth out variations encountered in individual converter
operations. The new double acid plant is preferentially driven by send-
ing a constant volume of the combined CV stream along with the RV stream
to be controlled to the plant. The remainder of the combined CV stream is
treated in the existing single acid plant.
Combined CV stream:
Old CV
New CV
Combined
Flow
NmVmin
2,770
970
3,740
S02
4.3
6.2
4.8
SOo:
2,770 x 4.3 + 970 x 6.2
3,740
Equivalent new CV flow:
Double acid plant input:
970 x 6.2
4.8
CV
RV
Combined
Single acid plant input: 3,740 - 1,253
15.4
13.3
14.9
= 4.8
= 1,253 NmVmin
Flow
NmVmin
1,253
1,440
2,693
S02
(%)
4.8
3.0
3.8
02
(%)
14.9
15.6
15.3
= 2,487 NmVmin
J-15
-------
APPENDIX K
MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR ESTIMATING POSTEXPANSION REVERBERATORY GAS
FLOW AND S02 CONCENTRATION FOR OXYGEN ENRICHMENT
AND OXY-FUEL EXPANSION OPTIONS
-------
APPENDIX K
MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR ESTIMATING POST EXPANSION REVERBERATORY GAS
FLOW AND S02 CONCENTRATION FOR OXYGEN ENRICHMENT
AND OXY-FUEL EXPANSION OPTIONS
Assumptions:
1. Ten percent excess 02.
2. Fifty percent of base case off-gases is dilution air. Amount of
dilution air does not vary with expansion.
3. Fuel is equivalent to CH4 for determining volume of combustion
products.
Notation:
V = volume rate of off-gas
S = volume fraction of S02
C = volume of combustion products, excluding nitrogen,
at theoretical 02
0 = volume rate of excess 02
N = volume rate of nitrogen
P = volume fraction of oxygen in combustion air
E = Ratio of expansion capacity to base case capacity
H = ratio of expansion fuel to base case fuel
subscript b = base case
subscript e = expansion
Procedure:
1. Vb = dilution air + S02 + Cb + °b + Nb
K-3
-------
V.
2. Dilution air = -
3. S02 rate = V. S.
b b
V.
4. Cb + Ob + Nb = -4j - VbSb (from 1, 2, & 3)
5. CH4 + 202 •* C02 + 2H20
Three volumes of combustion products require, at 10 percent excess
02, 2.2 volumes of 02 and 2.2 x || or 8.3 volumes of nitrogen.
This represents 0.2 volumes of excess 02.
6. Using ratios of Cb , Ob, Nb determined in 4, the following rela-
tionships with Vb + Sb are determined:
Vb (1-2S )
°b = 2 X 0.2 * 3. 8.3 = °-0087 Vb (1-2V
Vh (1-2S.) fi .
2 x ^ = 0.3609 Vb (l-2Sb)
V. (1-2S. ) ,
2 x ^ = 0.1304 Vb (l-2Sb)
7. VQ = -4j + S02 + C + 0 + N
e 2 ^ e e e
8. S02 =
9- Ce = HCb
= 0.1304 HVb (l-2Sb) (from 6)
K-4
-------
10.
II.
Oe = H
=0.0087 H
(l-2Sb)
(from 6)
From 5, 3 volumes of combustion products require, at 10 percent
excess 02 (0.2 volumes), 2.2 volumes of oxygen and 2.2
volumes of nitrogen.
Each volume of combustion products is therefore associated with
2.2 - op volumes of N2.
L-P)
N2 = 0.1304 HVb (l-2Sb) 2.2
= 0.0956 HVb (l-2Sb)
12. Combining 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
(from 9)
Ve = T + EVbSb + °-1304 H Vb (1~2V + °-0087 HVb
+ 0.0956 HVb (l-2Sb)
-P)
= VL
0.5 + ESb + H(l-2Sb) 0.1391 + 0.0956
0.5 + ESb + H(l-2Sb) [0.1391 + 0.0956
13.
K-5
-------
APPENDIX L
METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE
DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
-------
APPENDIX L
METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE
DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS*
L.I GAS CLEANING AND CONDITIONING SYSTEMS
Scrubbing water purged from gas cleaning and conditioning equipment
must be neutralized since this effluent is in fact a weak sulfuric
acid solution. The effluent is neutralized via the following reaction:
H2S04 + CaC03 -» CaS04 + C02 + H20.
Thus, as indicated, limestone (CaC03) is used as the neutralizing
agent, producing calcium sulfate (CaS04), carbon dioxide gas, and
water. Matthews et al.1 report the following limestone usage rates,
based upon 0.03 percent S03 in the inlet gas stream:
0.09 Ib CaC03/106 scf (regenerative systems)
0.07 Ib CaC03/106 scf (nonregenerative systems).
Thus, by noting the stoichiometry of the neutralization reaction, an
expression that relates the amount of calcium sulfate produced and
the volume of gas cleaned can be developed as follows:
Let V = the inlet gas stream volumetric flow rate in scfm (0° C)
CaS04 production rate = V x 0.09 (or 0.07) ^
Ib • mol CaC03 1 Ib • mol CaS04 produced
100 Ib CaC03 Ib • mol CaC03 consumed
136 Ibs CaSO.j y 60_mi_n x 8,400 hrs of operation
Ib • mol CaS04 A hr yr
^Because sources from which data were obtained used scfm at 0° C,
the factors are calculated on this basis. Flows shown in this BID
must be converted to this basis before using the factors.
L-3
-------
, in Mg per year
= 2.8 x 10^5 v (regenerative)' °r
9 7 x 10~5
'-•'- iu v (nonregenerative).
Similar expressions can be derived for the water production rate:
Water production rate = 3.7 x 10~6 V (regenerative), or
2.9 x 10 6 V (nonregenerative).
Once the CaS04 production rate is determined, stoichiometry can be
envoked once again to determine the amount of acid neutralized:
o o v irTs w Mg CaS04 Y 106 g x g • mol H2S04 neutralized
1.8 x iu V yr x Mg x i g . moi CaS04 formed
x 98 g H2S04 x Mg_ x g • mole CaS04 . M
g • mol 10e g 136 g CaS04 ' u K
= 2.0 x 10~5 V (regenerative), or
1.6 x 10 5 V (nonregenerative).
Then, once the amount of acid neutralized is determined, the total
amount of liquid (calculated as water) requiring disposal can be
estimated as follows:
Noting that the purge is normally about 10 percent H2S04 by weight,
Total liquid effluent rate = 2.0 x lo"5 V x (!l£
+ 3.7 x 10~6 V = (18 x 10~5 + 3.7 x 10~6) V, in Mg per year
-4
= 1.8 x 10_ V (regenerative), or
1.5 x 10 4 V (nonregenerative).
L.2 LIME/LIMESTONE SLURRY SCRUBBING PROCESS
Matthews et al.1 report that sludge consisting primarily of
calcium sulfite (CaS03) is produced at the rate of 6 to 7 Ibs per Ib
L-4
-------
of S02 absorbed. Thus, the rate of sludge generation can be estimated
as follows:
r, , *• , w i * ^ C (% S02) v 1b • mol S02
Sludge generation rate = V (scfm) x — VIQQ *' x 359 f^a SQ
v 64 1b S02 v n v 60 min 8.400 hr 6 1b sludge
Ib • mol S02 TOO hr yr Ib • S02 absorbed
x 1;°Q° 9 x JJjL — in Mg per year, where n = the FGD S02 removal
2. 2 I b lu g
efficiency (90 percent).
Condensing terms yields a sludge generation rate (Mg/yr) of 2.2 VC.
Typically, a mixture of 15 weight percent sludge1 and 85 weight percent
water is ponded; therefore, the amount of liquid that must be pumped
to the pond can be estimated as follows:
Liquid effluent rate = 2.2 VC x
= 13 VC, in Mg/yr.
L.3 MAGOX SLURRY SCRUBBING PROCESS
A scrubber costs program developed by PEDCo2 was used to estimate
the amount of absorbent purge taken from the MAGOX system. This was
done by assuming that the amount of solid material purged (assumed to
be MgS03) is stoichiometrical ly equivalent to the amount of MgO fed as
makeup. The subroutine SMTMG1 from the PEDCo program calculates the
MgO makeup feed rate as follows:
a. S02 feed rate (Ib/hr) = V (scfm) x
, . /1U/, , S0? removal efficiency
b. S02 absorbed (Ib/hr) = a. x — 2 - ___ - JL
c. MgO actually consumed (Ib/hr) = b. x 0.625
d. MgO required (Ib/hr) - c. x 1.1 x SQ2 remova1Qefficiency
e. Makeup MgO (Ib/hr) = d. x 0.05
L-5
-------
As indicated by expression "e" above, the MgO makeup rate is expressed
as 5 percent of the MgO actually required. Assuming an S02 removal
efficiency of 90 percent, Equations (a) through (e) can be condensed
to yield the following expression:
MgO makeup rate = 0.0034 VC, in Ib MgO per hr.
Converting to Mg per year yields a MgO makeup rate (Mg/yr) = 0.013 VC.
As mentioned previously, it has been assumed that the amount of solid
material purged (assumed to be MgS03) is stoichiometrically equivalent
to the amount of MgO fed as makeup. The following reaction was chosen
to be representative of the stoichiometry involved:
MgO + S02 + 3H20 -> MgS03 • 6H20.
As indicated, the MgS03 is in the form of a hydrated crystal. Since
one mol of MgO is consumed in the formation of one mole of MgS03 •
6H20, an expression for the MgS03 • 6H20 purge rate can be developed
as follows:
o nfm vc 1b Mg° x 1b ' mo1 Mg° 1 1b • mol MgS03
0.0034 VC — a- x
104 lb MgS03 1.000 g x M
Ib • mol MgS03 2.2 lb MgS03
x 8>400 hr = 0.034 VC , in Mg per year.
Next, assuming that the mixture to be ponded is 2 weight percent
solids,3 an expression for the liquid effluent rate can be developed
as follows:
Liquid effluent rate (Mg/yr) = 0.034 VC x
= 1.7 VC.
L-6
-------
L.4 PARTICULATE MATTER CONTROL ON REVERBERATORY SMELTING FURNACES
To assess the impact of the evaporative cooling procedure on the
gas stream volumetric flow rate, an energy balance is used to estimate
the amount of water that is evaporated in reducing the gas stream
temperature from 400° C to 100° C. The energy balance has the following
form:
- mr CD ATr = mu AH., , (L-l)
b KQ b w vw
where
iL = the molar flow rate of the gas stream
(3
Cp = the specific heat capacity of the gas stream
KG
ATr - the temperature change associated with cooling the gas
stream
mw = the mols of water evaporated per unit time
AH., = the latent heat of vaporization of water at 100° C.
VW
Since mw is the quantity of interest, Eq. (L-l) can be rearranged to
yield:
- mG Cp ATG
-
A\
An average specific heat capacity for the reverberatory furnace offgas
stream can be estimated using the following gas-stream composition:
Component Vol %
S02 1.0
02 11.0
N2
H20
C02
The average heat capacity can then be calculated as follows:
L-7
-------
Cp = i y. cp ,
HG ] pi
where
y.j = the gas stream volume fraction of species i
s\
Cp = the specific heat capacity of species i.
The following pure component specific heat capacities are used:
Component Specific heat capacity @ 25° C
S02 39.8 J/g • mol °K
02 29.4 J/g • mol °K
N2 29.1 J/g • mol °K
H20 33.6 J/g • mol °K
C02 37.1 J/g • mol °K
Cp = (0.012) (39.8) + (0.099) (29.4)
KG
+ (0.083) (29.1) + (0.096) (33.6)
+ (0.044) (37.1) = 32.4 J/g - mol °K.
Also,
ATr = -300° C
b
AH.. = 40.7 kJ/g • mol @ 100° C
VW
Now, m., can be estimated using Equation (L-2).
L.5 REFERENCES
1. Matthews, J. C., F. L. Bellegia, C. H. Gooding, and G. E. Weant.
S02 Control Processes for Nonferrous Smelters. Research Triangle
Institute, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication No. EPA-600/
2-76-008. January 1976.
2. PEDCo Environmental, Inc., "Users Guide, Computerized Approach to
Estimating S02 Scrubber Costs at Nonferrous Smelters, "EPA Contract
No. 68-03-2924, April 1982.
3. Anderson, K. P., et a!., "Definitive SO Control Process Evalua-
tions: Limestone, Lime, and Magensia FGU Processes," TVA ECDP B-7,
January 1980.
L-8
-------
APPENDIX M
DETAILED COSTS FOR GREENFIELD SMELTERS
-------
Copper- Smel-tev Costr
Plant type : MHR-RV-CV Date 109/14/82
Exoansion Cation 5 Not Applicable Time J 12517
Control Option 5 Base Case
Plant Scenario ! New
Process costs include new hardware associated with copper production. For the oreen-
field smelter, the process cost is the Baseline Case Cost (Smelter plus fugitive capture).
For the expansion scenarios, process costs include any new roaster or converter.
Control costs include all equipment associated with emission reduction, Oxynen 'enrich-
ment and oxyfuei costs are considared as control costs along with acid plant and FGD cost<-
for the greenfield smelter. Oxygen enrichment and oxyfuel costs are considered as ex-
pansion costs for existing plants.
Process Control
Capital Cost 162.000,000. 46*278,400.
Annualized Costs
Raw Materials 688.625* 19*922*
Process water 105.555* 134,899*
Cooling water 0* 93*526*
Electricity 349,860* 6.471*850*
SUPP. heat (Nat, qas) 0* 0,
Bunker C Fuel Oil 9*538*830, 0*
Solids disposal 0. 0.
Labor; Direct Qperatinq 1,538*450* 309,812,
Supervision 307*690, 61.962*
Maint*: Labor & Matl* 6.480,000, 1,851,140,
Supervision 972,000* 277*670*
Overhead 4,649,070, 1,250,290*
Taxes, ins., adwin. 6,480*000. 1,851,140,
Total Operating Cost 31,110.100, 12.322.200,
Capital Recovers Cost 26,365.500, 7.531,810*
Ar.nualized Cost 57,475,600, 19.854,000,
Neaative values indicate savinas over base case costs.
M-3
-------
C o p pD e Y~ S rn e? 1
Plant type : MHR-RV-CV Date : 02/23/83
Expansion Option : Not Applicable Time : 10:18
Control Option : 45* Blending * DC/DA (I-A)
Plant Scenario : New v
Process costs include new hardware associated with copper production. For the green-
field smelter, the process cost is the Baseline Case Cost (Smelter plus fugitive capture).
For the expansion scenarios, process costs include any new roaster or converter.
Control costs include all equipment associated with emission reduction. Oxygen enrich-
ment and oxyfuel costs are considered as control costs along with acid plant and FGD costs
for the greenfield smelter. Oxygen enrichment and oxyfuel costs are considered as ex-
pansion costs for existing plants.
Process Control
Capital Cost 0. 61,167, 100.
finnualized Costs
Raw materials 0. £6,660.
Process water 0. 164,999.
Cooling water 0. 134,550.
Electricity 0. 9,310,590.
Supp. heat (Nat. gas) 0. 6,700.
Bunker C Fuel Oil 0. 0.
Solids disposal 0. 0.
Labor: Direct Operating 0. 309, 8i£.
Supervision 0. 61,96.2.
Ma int. : Labor & Matl. 0. £,447,480.
Supervision 0. 367, 1££.
Overhead 0. 1,593,190.
Taxes, ins., admin. 0. £,447,480.
Total Operating Cost 0. 16,87£,500.
Capital Recovery Cost 0. 9,958,190.
ftnnualized Cost 0. £6,830,700.
Negative values indicate savings over base case costs.
M-4
-------
Plant type 5
Exoansion Option
Control Cation I
Plant Scenario J
MHF.-RV-CV
Not Applicable
MgO FGD + DC/DA (I-B)
New
Date 5 09/14/Si
Time { 12118
Process costs include new hardware associated with copper production, For the green-
field smelter, the process cost is the Baseline Case Cost (Smelter plus fugitive capture).
For the expansion scenarios, process costs include any new roaster or converter.
Control costs include all equipment associated with emission reduction. Oxygen enrich-
ment and oxyfuel costs are considered as control costs along with acid plant and FGD costs
for the greenfield smelter, Oxygen enrichment and oxyFuel costs are considered as ex-
pansion costs for existing plants.
Process
Capital Cost
Control
73*996.900.
Annual :ized Costs
Raw Materials
Process water
Coolinq water
Electricity
SUPP, heat (Nat. qas)
Bunker C Fuel Oil
Solids disposal
Labor? Direct Qperatinq
Supervision
Maint.J Labor & Matl.
Supervision
Overhead
Taxes, ins., adttin.
Total Operstinq Cost
Capital Recovers Cost
Annualized Cost
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
598,
220.
107.
.221,
641.
938,
538,
0,
3,733,570,
0,
662,
532.
380,
557,
111,
2,959,
443,
2,036.
2.959,
530 .
880.
20.951.700.
12.043.000.
32.994.700,
Neoative values indicate savinas over base case costs.
M-5
-------
Plant type J
Expansion Option
Control Option {
Plant Scenario {
MHR-RV-CV
Not Applicable
NH3 FGD + DC/DA (I-C)
New
Date
Time
09/14/32
12518
Process costs include new hardware associated with capper production. For the green-
field smelter, the process cast is the Baseline Case Cost (Smelter plus fugitive capture).
For the expansion scenarios, process costs include any new roaster or converter.
Control costs include all equipment associated with emission reduction. Oxygen enrich-
ment and oxyFuel costs are considered as control costs along with acid plant and FGD costs
for the greenfield smelter. Oxygen enrichment and oxyFuel costs are considered as ex-
pansion costs for existing plants.
Process
Capital Cost
0,
Control
62 t 839, 200,
Annualized Costs
Raw Materials
Process water
Coolinq water
Electricity
SUPP, heat (Nat, qas)
Bunker C Fuel Oil
Solids disposal
Labor I Direct Qperatinq
Supervision
Maint,: Labor & Matl,
Supervision
Overhead
Taxes, ins,, adMin,
Total Qperatinq Cost
Capital Recovery Cost
Annualized Cost
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*
»
*
#
*
*
#
*
*
*
+
»
*
t
*
*
4
8
2
1
2
22
10
32
,664
147
544
,799
743
148
,513
377
,891
,513
,343
,227
,570
,440
, 141
,955
,440
0
0
0
,549
,710
,570
,035
,430
,570
,800
,100
,900
»
»
*
*
*
*
*
+
+
+
*
*
*
*
*
*
Neaative values indicate savinas over base case costst
M-6
-------
Costs
Plant type J
Expansion Option I
Control Option !
Plant Scenario 5
MHR-RV-CV
Not Applicable
LL FGD *• DC/DA (I-D)
New
Date
Time
09/14/82
12: 19
Process costs include new hardware associated with copper production. For the green-
field smelter, the process cost is the Baseline Case Cast (Smelter plus fugitive capture).
For the expansion scenarios, process costs include any new roaster or converter,
Control costs include all equipment associated with emission reduction. Oxygen enrich-
ment and oxyFuel costs are considered as control costs along with acid plant and FGD costs
for the green field smelter, O 'gen enrichment and oxyFuel costs are considered as ex-
pansion costs far existing plants*
Process
Capital Cost
Control
69*742.000*
Annual ized Costs
Raw Materials
Process water
Coolinq water
Electr icit*j
SUPP* heat (Nat, qas)
Bunker C Fuel Oil
Solids disposal
Labort Direct Qperatinq
Supervision
Maint.J Labor & Matl.
Supervision
Overhead
Taxes, ins**
Total Qperatinq Cost
Capital Recovery Cost
Annual ized Cost
0. 1.243.260.
0. 217,313,
0, 93,526,
0, 6.752,510,
0, 0,
0, 0,
0, 820,821,
0, 557.662,
0, 111,532,
0, 2,789,680.
0, 418.452.
0, 1,938,660,
0, 2,789,680,
0. 17,733,100,
0. 11,350,500.
0, 29,083,600,
Negative values indicate savings over base case costs,
M-7
-------
Copper Smel-tei- Costs
Plant type J MHR-RV-CV Date : 02/02/83
Expansion Option 5 Not Applicable Time 5 13J31
Control Option 5 100% Blending + DC/DA (I-E)
Plant Scenario • New
Process costs include new hardware associated with copper production. For the green-
field smelter, the process cost is the Baseline Case Cost (Smelter plus fugitive capture).
For the expansion scenarios, process costs include any new roaster or converter.
Control costs include all equipment associated with emission reduction. Oxygen enrich-
ment and oxyfuel costs are considered as control costs along with acid plant and FGD costs
for the greenfield smelter, Oxygen enrichment and oxyfuel costs are considered as ex-
pansion costs for existing plants.
Process Control
Capital Cost 0* 74,231,100,
Annual!zed Costs
Raw Materials 0, 39,322,
Process water 0, 226,381*
Cooling water 0, 184,60s,
Electricity 0, 11,527,700,
SUPP, heat (Nat, gas) 0. 72,600,
Bunker C Fuel Oil 0, 0,
Solids disposal 0. 0,
Labor: Direct Operating 0, 278,831+
Supervision 0, 55,766,
Maint.t Labor & Matl, 0. 2,969,240,
Supervision 0, 445,387,
Overhead 0. 1,874,610,
Taxes, ins,, adnin, 0, 2,969,240*
Total Operating Cost 0. 20,643,700,
Capital Recovery Cost 0, 12,081,100,
Annualized Cost 0, 32,724,800,
Negative values indicate savings over base case costs,
M-8
-------
Co pptst~ Smelter-
Plant type : MHR-RV-CV
Expansion Option : Kot Applicable Time6;
Control Option : Oxygen enrichment * DC/DA (I-F)
Plant Scenario : New
noiH Pr°"Sa C°sta lnclu<*e new hardware associated with copper production. For the green-
field amelter, the process cost is the Baseline Case Cost (Shelter plus fugitive captured
For the expansion scenarios, process costs include any new roaster or converter.
Control costs include all equipment associated with emission reduction. Oxygen enrich-
ment and oxyfuel coats are considered as control costs along with acid plant and FGD costs
for the greenfield smelter. Oxygen enrichment and oxyfuel costs are considered as ex-
pansion costs for existing plants.
Process Control
Capital Cost 0. 67, £15, 300.
ftnnualized Costs '
Raw materials 0. 1,941,860.
Process water 0. 193 775
Cooling water 0. 158'016."
Electricity 0. 9,867,310.
Supp. heat (Nat. gas) 0. 5,700
Bunker C Fuel Oil -1,716,990. 0]
Solids disposal 0. 0
Labor: Direct Operating 0. £78,83l!
Supervision 0. 55,766.
Maint. : Labor & Mat 1. 0. £,668,610.
Supervision 0. 403,29£.
Overhead 0 i 71? ^^a,
f • i,fi-l,C.i_IW.
Taxes, ins., adrnin. 0. £,688,610.
Total Operating Cost -1,716,990. 19,995,000.
Capital Recovery Cost 0. 10,939,300.
ftnnualized Cost -1,716,990. 30,934,300.
Negative values indicate savings over base case costs.
M-9
-------
Copper Smel-tei- Costrs
Plant type i MHR-RV-CV Date 5 10/15/82
Expansion Option \ Not Applicable Time 5 14210
Control Option J Oxy-fuel burners + DC/DA
-------
APPENDIX N
FUGITIVE EMISSION CONTROL COSTS
-------
Control Cos-ts
AnnualUed Costs i$ 1000's. June 1981)
Plant
Greenfield Plants
MHR-RV-CV
MHR
RV
CV
FF-CV
Fr
CV
Expansion Base Cases
I MHR-RV-CV
MHR
RV
CV
II RV-CV
RV
CV
III FBR- RV-CV
FBR
RV
CV
IV EF-CV
EF
CV
V FF-CV
FF
E3CF
CV
Expansion Options
"-13
CV
13
FBR
CV
Capture System
w/BE
39
103
1,713
78
1 ,713
39
103
1.713
103
1,713
0
103
1,713
103
1,713
78
66
1 ,713
0
0
0
w/AC
3"
103
2,237
73
2,237
39
103
2,237
103
2,237
0
133
2,237
103
2,237
76
66
2,237
746
0
746
Collection
w/BE
231
533
4,185 1
358
4,185 1
234
533
4,185 1
533
4,185 1
0
533
4,185 1
491
4,185 1
358
491
System
w/AC
234
533
,401
358
,401
234
533
,401
533
,401
0
533
,401
491
,401
353
491
4,185 1,401
42
0
42
577
0
579
Capture +
w/BE
273
636
5.898
436
5,898
273
t>36
5,898
e>36
5,398
0
'c36
5.898
594
5.898
436
557
5,098
42
0
42
Collect*
w/'AC
273
636
3,638
436
3,633
273
o36
3.638
636
3,638
0
636
3,638
594
3,638
436
557
3,638
1 .325
0
1 ,325
- All labor costs are assigned to the collection system (baahouse)
- Electrical usage rate is calculated as 2.5 * 10 kwh/yr-1000 scfm
J-3
-------
Corrtirol Co-sirs
Caoital Costs (S 1000's. June 1981)
Plant
Greenfield Plants
MHH-EV-CV
MHR
RV
CV
FF-CV
FF
CV
Flow
1000's 5CFM)
w/BE w/AC
20
65
750
45
750
20
65
200
45
200
Caoture System
Hoods and ducting Air Curtain
w/BE w/AC
116
298
5.300
22 4
5,300
116
298
1 ,723
224
1,723
0
0
6, 170
0
6.170
Collection System
iBagnouse)
w/BE w/AC
571
1 ,539
12.213
1 , 130
12.213
1
4
1
4
571
.539
,133
,130
.1.33
Expansion Ease Cases
I MHH-EV-CV
MHR
RV
CV
II RV-CV
RV
CV
III FBR-P.V-CV
FBfV
RV
CV
IV EF-CV
EF
CV
V FF-CV
FF
E5CF
CV
Expansion Options
9-13
CV
13
FE:R
CV
20
65
750
65
750
0
65
750
65
750
45
65
750
0
0
0
20
65
200
65
200
0
65
200
65
200
45
65
200
67
0
67
llo
298
5.300
298
5.300
0
2?S
5.300
298
5.300
224
239
5.300
0
0
0
116
298
1,723
298
1,723
0
298
1 ,723
298
1 .723
224
239
1,723
575
0
575
C
0
6,170
0
6.170
0
0
6. 170
0
6.170
0
0
o. 170
2.C57
a
2.057
571
1 ,539
12,213
1 ,539
12,213
0
1 ,539
12,213
1 ,539
12,213
1 . 130
1 ,539
12,213
0
3
0
1
4
1
-1
1
a
1
4
1
1
4
1
1
571
.539
,133
.539
.133
0
,539
,133
,539
, 133
.130
,539
, 133
,647
0
,o47
No fugitive controls are required on a flu:d bed roaster. (S^e Section 4.7.J)
*~It is assumed that a new converter would be adaed in an existing building, Since the building evacuation cost is
a function only of building sue, no new cost wculd be incurred for fugitive control with Building Evacuation.
•?
"This is 1/3 of the ASARCO-Tacoma iir curtain desion flow rate,
N-4
-------
APPENDIX 0
DETAILED COSTS FOR EXPANSION SCENARIOS
-------
Smeltrer- Costs
Plant type I MHR-RV-CV Date . 02/04/83
txpansion Option J Oxygen enrichment Time ' 01506
Control Option t PB - SC/SA
Plant Scenario 5 1
Process costs include new hardware associated with copper production, For the green-
field smelter, the process cost is the Baseline Case Cost (Smelter plus fugitive capture),
For the expansion scenarios, process costs include any new roaster or converter.
Control costs include all equipment associated with emission reduction, Oxygen enrich-
ment and oxyfuel costs are considered as control costs along with acid plant and FGD costs
for the greenfield smelter. Oxygen enrichment and oxyfuel costs are considered as ex-
pansion costs for existing plants,
Process Control
Capital Cost 510,000. 10,907,600,
Annualized Costs
Raw Materials 2,635,430, 9,529,
Process water „. 17,322.
Cooling water 0, 44,737
Electricity 9,534. l,641,51o!
SUPP. heat (Nat, gas) 0. 60,000,
Bunker C Fuel Oil 341,201, 0,
Solids disposal 0, 0,
LaborJ Direct Operating 0. Q!
Supervision 0, Q*
Maint,: Labor & Hatl, 20,400, 436,30s!
Supervision 3,060. 65,445,
9.verhead 11,730, 250,874.
laxes, ins., adMin. 20,400, 436,303.
Total Operating Cost 3,041,750. 2,962,020.
Capital Recovery Cost 83,002, 1,775,210,
Annualized Cost 3,124,750, 4,737,230.
Negative values indicate savings over base case costs,
0-3
-------
Copper- Smeltrer- Costs
Plant type : MHR-RV-CV Date ,'02/04/83
Expansion Option ' Oxygen enrichment Time 5 OOJ01
Control Option J LL - SC/SA
Plant Scenario J 2
Process costs include new hardware associated with copper production* For the green-
field smelter* the process cost is the Baseline Case Cost (Smelter plus fugitive capture).
For the expansion scenarios, process costs include any new roaster or converter,
Control costs include all equipment associated with emission reduction. Oxygen enrich-
ment and oxyfuel costs are considered as control costs along with acid plant and FGD costs
for the greenfield smelter. Oxygen enrichment and oxyfuel costs are considered as ex-
pansion costs for existing plants,
Process Control
Capital Cost 510,000, 15,559,600,
Annual!zed Costs
Raw Materials 2,635,430, 230,270,
Process water 0, 24,504,
Cooling water 0, 20,258,
Electricity 9,534, 1,041,000,
Supp, heat (Nat, gas) 0, 0,
Bunker C Fuel Oil 341,201, 0.
Solids disposal 0, 151,609.
Labori Direct Operating 0, 278,831,
Supervision 0, 55,766,
Maint,! Labor & Matl, 20,400. 622,384,
Supervision 3,060, 93,358,
Overhead 1.1,730, 525,170,
Taxes, ins,, adwin. 20,400, 622,384,
Total Operating Cost 3,041,750, 3,665,530,
Capital Recovery Cost 83,002. 2,532,330,
Annualized Cost 3,124,750, 6,197,860.
Negative values indicate savings over base case costs,
0-4
-------
Copper- Smelter- Costrs
Plant type 5 MHR-RV-CV Date : 02/04/83
Expansion Option } Oxygen enrichment Time J 00502
Control Option { MgO - SC/SA
Plant Scenario 5 3
Process costs include new hardware associated with copper production, For the green-
field smelter, the process cost is the Baseline Case Cost (Smelter plus fugitive capture),
For the expansion scenarios, process costs include any new roaster or converter,
Control costs include all equipment associated with emission reduction. Oxygen enrich-
ment and oxyfuel costs are considered as control costs along with acid plant and FGD costs
for the greenfield smelter, Oxygen enrichment and oxyfuel costs are considered as ex-
pansion costs for existing plants.
Process Control
Capital Cost 510,000, 17,589,600,
Annualized Costs
Raw Materials 2,635,430, 118,932,
Process water 0, 23,371.
Cooling water 0. 23,635,
Electricity 9,534, 1,056,680.
Supp, heat (Nat* 935) 0, 0,
Bunker C Fuel Oil 341,201. 725,197.
Solids disposal 0, 0.
Labor: Direct Operating 0, 278,831,
Supervision 0, 55,766.
Maint.: Labor & Matl. 20,400, 703,583,
Supervision 3,060, 105,537.
Overhead 11,730. 571,858,
Taxes, ins., adMin, 20,400, 703,583,
Total Operating Cost 3,041,750, 4,366,970.
Capital Recovery Cost 83,002, 2,862,700,
Annualized Cost 3,124,750. 7,229,670,
Negative values indicate savings over base case costs,
0-5
-------
C «-• p> pi?*•*• J3rnE? 1 ±. f^ *-" C os
Plant type : MHR-RV-CV Date : 02/08/83
Expansion Option : Oxygen enrichment Time : 09:01
Control Option : NH3 - SC/SA
Plant Scenario : 4
Process costs include new hardware associated with copper production. For the green-
field smelter, the process cost is the Baseline Case Cost (Smelter plus fugitive capture).
For the expansion scenarios, process costs include any new roaster or converter.
Control costs include all equipment associated with emission reduction. Oxygen enrich-
ment and oxyfuel costs are considered as control costs along with acid plant and FGD costs
for the greenfield smelter. Oxygen enrichment and oxyfuel coata are considered as ex-
pansion costs for existing plants.
i-V o c e B s L o r i r r o I
510, i?!?0. 15. 4f;.,£, )?Ci
H ri r-j i.i a 1 i r t? rJ C o s> t s
R3w Materials £•, C35, 4Ji?i. 903,!?ill?l.
Proc:e:>3 water 0. _ i . 40S.
C.-o 1 3 riD Hr-te-^ i?. ili?,?^?.
Eiectr.icity 9,534. 1,^,28,341?.
SuiDD, -; = f.'.t (i'Jct~. rj="f'1 ^'- '?-
Dun'-'er C Fuel Oil 1-41 . c!i?l. iZ'.
So lie.:. G i r :jo3a 1 i3. 0.
L -J "":• o r : 1) L r c? c; t i j :• ce r ,-jJ. i r i r. 3. 4 f: 4. 7 : 6.
S ij c r? -" v i ?; i or1 i?. r~'it "'-''4.
''a int.: L-Lior 6. h-,?tl. ,1:71, 'H-OsZ. C:"".B, 479.
Si.'Cjervi s: on 3^.0:?. SZ\77£'.
Overhead :. l,72ti. " r:8, 4c:e.
T £1 w e 3, i ri s. , a o rn i r:. £ 'Zi, 4 :Z;'?. ;z ":• G,. ^73.
Total Operating Cost 3,941,750. 4. 7t,a, 641?.
Caoital Recovery Coifi- S3, i?iiZi£. Z, 3 9i?, S4>Zi.
fiprn.i = li::e.-H Cost 3, 1 £4, 7f-1
-------
Copper- Smelter- Costrs
Plant type J RV-CV Date . 02/04/83
Expansion Option 5 Oxygen enrichment Time J 16*48
Control Option J PB - SC/SA
Plant Scenario { 7
Process costs include new hardware associated with copper production, For the green-
field smelter, the process cost is the Baseline Case Cost (Smelter plus fugitive capture),
For the expansion scenarios, process costs include any new roaster or converter,
Control costs include all equipment associated with emission reduction, Oxygen enrich-
ment and oxyfuel costs are considered as control costs along with acid plant and FGD costs
for the greenfield smelter, Oxygen enrichment and oxyfuel costs are considered as ex-
pansion costs for existing plants.
Process Control
Capital Cost 510,000, 11,360,900,
Annualized Costs
Raw Material?* 2,690,980. 10,608.
Process water 0. 12,473.
Cooling water 0, 49,802,
Electricity 4,662. 1,631,450,
SUPP, heat (Nat, gss) 0, 14,300,
Bunker C Fuel Oil -158,760, 0,
Solids disposal 0, 0,
Labor? Direct Operating 0, 0!
Supervision 0, 0,
Maint.: Labor & Matl. 20,400, 454,436,
Supervision 3,060, 68,165,
Overhead 11,730, 261,301,
Taxes, ins,, adwin. 20,400. 454,436,
Total Operating Cost 2,592,470, 2,956,980,
Capital Recovery Cost 83,002. 1,848,990.
Annualized Cost 2,675,470. 4,805,960.
Negative values indicate savings over base case costs,
0-7
-------
Copper Smeltrer- Costs
Plant type J RV-CV Date J 02/04/83
Expansion Option J Oxygen enrichment Time t 15J46
Control Option } LL - SC/SA
Plant Scenario » 8
Process costs include new hardware associated with copper production, For the green-
field smelter, the process cost is the Baseline Case Cost (Smelter plus fugitive capture),
For the expansion scenarios, process costs include any new roaster or converter,
Control costs include all equipment associated with emission reduction, Oxygen enrich-
ment and oxyfuel costs are considered as control costs along with acid plant and FGD costs
for the greenfield smelter, Oxygen enrichment and oxyfuel costs are considered as ex-
pansion costs for existing plants,
Process Control
Capital Cost 510,000* 17,507,900.
Annualized Costs
Raw Materials 2,690,980, 414,896,
Process water 0* 35,402,
Cooling water 0, 25,323,
Electricity 4,662, 1,135,700,
Supp, heat (Nat, 935) 0, 0,
Bunker C Fuel Oil -158,760, 0,
Solids disposal 0, 274,763,
Labor! Direct Operating 0, 278,831,
Supervision 0, 55,766*
Maint.: Labor & Matl, 20,400, 700,317.
Supervision 3,060, 105,047.
Overhead , 11,730, 569,981.
Taxes, ins,, adwin. 20,400, 700,317,
Total Operating Cost 2,592,470. 4,296,340,
Capital Recovery Cost 83,002. 2,849,410,
Annualized Cost 2,675,470. 7,145,760.
Negative values indicate savings over base case costs,
0-8
-------
Coppi
Smeltrer Costi
Plant type I
Expansion Option
Control Option •
Plant Scenario J
RV-CV
Oxygen enrichment
MgO - SC/SA
9
Date
Time
J 02/04/83
J 16123
Process costs include new hardware associated with copper production. For the green-
field smelter, the process cost is the Baseline Case Cost (Smelter plus fugitive capture).
For the expansion scenarios, process costs include any new roaster or converter.
Control costs include all equipment associated with emission reduction. Oxygen enrich-
ment and oxyfuel costs are considered as control costs along with acid plant and FGD costs
for the greenfield smelter. Oxygen enrichment and oxyfuel costs are considered as ex-
pansion costs for existing plants.
Capital Cost
Process
510,000.
Control
20,204,900.
Annualized Costs
Raw materials
Process water
Cooling water
Electr icity
Supp. heat (Nat. gas)
Bunker C Fuel Oil
Solids disposal
Labor? Direct Operating
Supervision
Maint.: Labor & Matl,
Supervision
Overhead
Taxes, ins., adwin.
Total Operating Cost
Capital Recovery Cost
Annualized Cost
:,69Q
-158
2.0
3
11
20
,980.
0.
0.
,662.
0.
,760.
0.
0.
0.
,400,
,060.
,730,
,400,
2,592,470,
83,002.
2,675,470.
207,963,
31,984,
29,544,
1,164,310,
0,
1,314,500,
0,
278,831,
55,766,
808,195,
121,229.
632,011,
808,195,
5,452,520.
3,288,350,
8,740,870,
Negative values indicate savings over base case costs*
0-9
-------
Smelter- Costs
Plant type : RV-CV Date : 02/03/83
Expansion Option : Oxygen enrichment Time : 09:03
Control Option : NH3 - SC/SA
Plant Scenario : 10
Process coata include new hardware associated with copper production. For the green-
field smelter, the process cost is the Baseline Case Cost (Smelter plus fugitive capture).
For the expansion scenarios, process costs include any new roaster or converter.
Control costs include all equipment associated with emission reduction. Oxygen enrich-
ment and oxyfuel costs are considered as control costs along with acid plant and FGD costs
for the greenfield smelter. Oxygen enrichment and oxyfuel costs are considered as ex-
pansion costs for existing plants.
£"VC'Cti<:J:S Cor it r~o 1
Cc?n.-.tal Cost 5l0,0i?0. 15, 576, 000.
P. ri n u a 1 i;: e a C o s t s
Ra w Hi.p t e.-1 a 3 ?:, £, £,90, 58®. 1,633, 5,2®.
'-'rocf-iss w^ter 0. 9, 703.
Cooling w;-ter i?. 183,386.
E1 ert r i c i by 4-, 6&£. 1, 04t-j, /nJiZi.
S'.'. pp. he^t (hvat. ir,c'.i7.> 0. 0.
B M n k e r C F u e 1 H i 1 - 1 rij 8, 76 f i. 0.
So lids cl i. r. r)O5i\ I 0. 0.
Labor's Du rf.n^t CJye^at i i"in '3. 46 A, 718.
Supe^v i H i ori 0. 9J', Vl-i 4.
^aint. : Lsbor ^ r.^nt i . L-'iZi, 480. Gi":3, d^tC.
Supervision! 3,060. *?3b A5C.
Overhead 1i,73C. 637.©73.
"axes, ins., acrniri. 50,400. 6C:3, 040.
focal ODei-aiing Co^t irJ, 532, 470. 6, P09, 630.
C^piJ:al Recovery Co->t 83,00.='. £SS:34,3Q0.
Prinua] j .:od Clo^t d. 675, 470. &.7^^i,GG0.
Negative values indicate savings over base case costs.
0-10
-------
Smelter- Costs
Plant type J RV-CV Date , 02/04/83
Expansion Option J Oxy-fuel burners Time I 15'47
Control Option J PB - DC/DA
Plant Scenario 5 11
Process costs include new hardware associated with copper production, For the green-
field smelter, the process cost is the Baseline Case Cost (Smelter plus fugitive capture),
For the expansion scenarios, process costs include any new roaster or converter,
Control costs include all equipment associated with emission reduction. Oxygen enrich-
ment and oxyfuel costs are considered as control costs along with acid plant and FGD costs
for the greenfield smelter, Oxygen enrichment and oxyfuel costs are considered as ex-
pansion costs for existing plants,
Process Control
Capital Cost 32,800,000, 40,013,200,
Annual!zed Costs
Raw Materials 7,031,760. 16,002,
Process water 0, 92,126.
Cooling water 0. 75,125,
Electricity 11,634, 4,691,190,
SUPP. heat (Nat, gas) 0, 0
Bunker C Fuel Oil -992,250, o,'
Solids disposal 0. 0,
Labor: Direct Operating 92,944, 278,8311
Supervision 18,589. 55,766.
Maint.: Labor « Matl. 1,312,000, 1,600,530,
Supervision 196,800, 240,079,
Overhead 810,166, 1,087,600.
Taxes, ins,, adnin. 1,312,000, 1,600,530,
Total Operating Cost 9,793,650, 9,737,780,
Capital Recovery Cost 5,338,200, 6,512,150.
Armualized Cost 15,131,800. 16,249,900.
Negative values indicate savings over base case costs,
0-11
-------
Copper- Smelter- Costs
Plant type J RV-CV Date: 02/04/83
Expansion Option » Oxy-fuel burners Time i 15548
Control Option ' LL - DC/DA
Plant Scenario J 12
Process costs include new hardware associated with copper production. For the green-
field smelter, the process cost is the Baseline Case Cost (Smelter plus fugitive capture),
For the expansion scenarios, process costs include any new roaster or converter,
Control costs include all equipment associated with emission reduction, Oxygen enrich-
ment and oxyfuel costs are considered as control costs along with acid plant and FGD costs
for the greenfield smelter. Oxygen enrichment and oxyfuel costs are considered as ex-
pansion costs for existing plants.
Process Control
Capital Cost 32,800,000, 41,321,200.
Annual!zed Costs
Raw Materials 7,031,760, 1,021,190,
Process water 0, 110,739.
Cooling water 0. 34,608.
Electricity 11,634. 2,589,510.
S'jpp. heat (Nat. gas) 0, 0.
Bunker C Fuel Oil -992,250. 0.
Solids disposal 0. 680,238.
Labor: Direct Operating 92,944. 557,662.
Supervision 18,589. 111,532.
Maint.J Labor & Matl, 1,312,000. 1,652,850.
Supervision 196,800, 247,927,
Overhead 810,166. 1,284,980.
Taxes, ins., adwin. 1,312,000, 1,652,850,
Total Operating Cost 9,793,650, 9,944,080.
Capital Recovery Cost 5,338,200, 6,725,020,
Annualized Cost 15,131,800, 16,669,100.
Negative values indicate savings over base case costs,
-------
Copper- Smeltret- Costs
Plant type { RV-CV Date , 02/04/83
Expansion Option { Oxy-fuel burners Timo • 1-vaa
Control Option ! MgO - DC/DA '
Plant Scenario ,' 13
i? ^? *tf nSW hardware Associated with copper production, For the green-
d smelter, the process cost is the Baseline Case Cost (Smelter plus fugitive capture),
the expansion scenarios, process costs include any new roaster or converter,
Control costs include all equipment associated with emission reduction, Oxygen enrich-
ment and oxyfuel costs are considered as control costs along with acid plant and FGD costs
for the greenfield smelter, Oxygen enrichment and oxyfuel costs are considered as ex-
pansion costs for existing plants.
r .. . _ Process Control
Capital Cost 32,800,000, 47,461,100,
Annual!zed Costs
Raw Materials 7,031,760, 494,012,
Process water n ^70 o07
r, , . u* lZa,v3b/»
Cooling water 0. 47,270,
Electricity 11,634, 3,196,520,
Supp, heat (Nat. gas) 0, 0
cU?k!r S-Fuel Oil -992,250. 3,185,120,'
Solids disposal 0, 0
Labor: Direct Operating 92,944, 557,662,*
. Supervision 18,589, 111,532.
Maint.. Labor & Matl, 1,312,000, 1,898,440,
Supervision 196,800, 284,767,
?Verhe3d 810,166, 1,426,200.
laxes, ins,, adnin. 1,312,000. 1,898,440.
Total Operating Cost 9,793,650, 13,228,400,
Capital F
-------
Cop»p>e:ir Sme:lt.e:tr Cortes.
Plant type : RV-CV Date : 02/08/83
Expansion Option : Oxy-fuel burners Time : 09:04
Control Option : NH3 - DC/DA
Plant Scenario : 14
Process costs include new hardware associated with copper production. For the green-
field smelter, the process cost is the Baseline Case Cost (Smelter plus fugitive capture).
For the expansion scenarios, process costs include any new roaster or converter.
Control costs include all equipment associated with emission reduction. Oxygen enrich-
ment and oxyfuel costs are considered as control costs along with acid plant and FGD costs
for the greenfield smelter. Oxygen enrichment and oxyfuel costs are considered as ex-
pansion costs for existing plants.
Process Control
Capital Co it 3£, 800. 000. 37,415,000.
Paw rnater.tals 7,031,760. 3,3^.^,400.
°rocsr:5 water 0. G9, £i~:8.
Cool i rig Winter 0. Ac.'^, 03CJ.
Electricity 11,634-. 4,648,410.
SUUD. neat (Nst. gas) 0. 0.
E'unker C Fuel Gil" -39£, £50. 0.
Solids disnosal 0. 0.
Labor: Direct Cper,? t i r.c 'j£s 9V+. 7-'-3. 549.
Supervision 13,589. 148,710.
faint. : LsbDr & Matl. 1, 3 1,7', S'^0. i, •'•'•96, CO',3.
S u c e r v 3 = i o n I 9 5, 0 2^ 0. ,-: J: 4, ^ 9 0.
Overhead 8;i?, '. 6&. 1 , 3IL'F.. St".0.
Taxes, ins. , admin. 1, 31c.'. 030. \ , -+?"•£, G!Z''-?i.
Total Ooerating Cost 9, 79Z, G51?. 1 4, 5 L •=,, f'.QTi.
Capital Recovery Cost 5, 338, ,='f?0. 6, t?-ft9, 30C5.
Hnnu^iizcd Cost 15, .131, £00. J:0, £36, 100.
Negative values indicate savings over base case costs.
0-14
-------
Copper- Smelter- Costs
Plant type t RV-CV Date j Q2/02/83
Expansion Option J Calcine charge Time 5 09502
Control Option 5 DC/DA
Plant Scenario { 15
Process costs include new hardware associated with copper production. For the green-
field smelter, the process cost is the Baseline Case Cost (Smelter plus fugitive capture),
For the expansion scenarios, process costs include any new roaster or converter.
Control costs include all equipment associated with emission reduction. Oxygen enrich-
ment and oxyfuel costs are considered as control costs along with acid plant and FGD costs
for the greenfield smelter, Oxygen enrichment and oxyfuel costs are considered as ex-
pansion costs for existing plants,
F:'rocess Control
Capital Cost 44,000,000, 26,841,300,
Annual!zed Costs
Raw Materials 467,850, 10,428.
Process water 0, 81,002,
Cooling water 0, 48,958,
Electricity 595,560. 3,057,180,
SupP. heat (Nat, gas) 0, 0.
Bunker C Fuel Oil 3,828,080, 0,
Solids disposal 0. 0,
Labor: Direct Operating 464,718, 278,831,
Supervision 92,944, 55,766,
Mair.t.: Labor & Matl, 1,760,000. 1,073,650,
Supervision 264,000, 161,048.
Overhead 1,290,830, 784,648.
Taxes, ins., adhin. 1,760,000, 1,073,650.
Total Operating Cost 10,524,000. 6,625,160,
Capital F^ecovery Cost 7,161,000, 4,368,420,
Annualized Cost 17,685,000, 10,993,600,
Negative values indicate savings over base case costs.
0-15
-------
Copper- SmeHrer- Costs
Plant type 5 FBR-RV-CV Date 502/04/83
Expansion Option « Oxygen enrichment Time • 15549
Control Option J PB - SC/SA
Plant Scenario t 18
Process costs include new hardware associated with copper production. For the green-
field smelter, the process cost is the Baseline Case Cost (Smelter plus fugitive capture).
For the expansion scenarios/ process costs include any new roaster or converter.
Control costs include all equipment associated with emission reduction. Oxygen enrich-
ment and oxyfuel costs are considered as control costs along with acid plant and FGD costs
for the greenfield smelter. Oxygen enrichment and oxyfuel costs are considered as ex-
pansion costs for existing plants.
Process Control
Capital Cost 510,000* 2,938,390
Annualized Costs
Raw Materials 2,000,080. 5,57-1.
Process water 0. 31,376.
Cooling water 0. 26,167*
Electricity 89,040. 1,049,770.
Supp. heat (Nat. gas) 0. 0,
Bunker C Fuel Oil -1,525,680. 0*
Solids disposal 0. 0*
Labor? Direct Operating 0» 0*
Supervision 0. 0«
Maint.J Labor & Matl. 20,400. 117,536.
Supervision 3,060* 17,630.
Overhead . 11,730. 67,583.
Taxes, ins., adwin. 20,400* 117,536*
Total Operating Cost 619,021* 1,433,170*
Capital Recovery Cost 83,002, 478,223*
Annualized Cost 702,024* 1,911,390.
Negative values indicate savings over base case costs.
0-16
-------
Plant type .'
Expansion Option
Control Option 5
Plant Scenario J
Copper- Smelter Costi
FBR-RV-CV
Oxygen enrichment
LL - SC/SA
19
Date 502/04/83
Time J 15J49
Process costs include new hardware associated with copper production, For the green-
field smelter, the process cost is the Baseline Case Cost (Smelter plus fugitive capture).
For the expansion scenarios, process costs include any new roaster or converter.
Control costs include all equipment associated with emission reduction. Oxygen enrich-
ment and oxyfuel costs are considered as control costs along with acid plant and FGD costs
for the greenfield smelter. Oxygen enrichment and oxyfuel costs are considered as ex-
pansion costs for existing plants,
Capital Cost
Process
510,000,
Control
5,700,670.
Annualized Costs
Raw Materials
Process water
Cooling water
Electricity
Supp. heat (Nat, gas)
Bunker C Fuel Oil
Solids disposal
Labor? Direct Operating
Supervision
Maint.I Labor & Matl,
Supervision
Overhead
Taxes, ins., adnin.
Total Operating Cost
Capital Recovery Cost
Annualized Cost
2,000,080.
0.
0.
89,040,
0,
-1,525,680,
0.
0,
0,
20,400,
3,060,
11,730,
20,400,
619,021,
83,002.
702,024.
138,
41,
5,
463,
92,
278,
55,
228,
34,
298,
228,
555,
495,
909.
602.
0.
0.
121,
831.
766.
027.
204.
414.
027.
1,864,950,
927,783.
2,792,730.
Negative values indicate savings over base case costs,
0-17
-------
Copper
Costri
Plant type J
Expansion Option
Control Option »
Plant Scenario •
FBR-RV-CV
Oxygen enrichment
MgO - SC/BA
20
Date {02/04/83
Time I 15550
Process costs include, new hardware associated with copper production. For the green-
field smelter, the process cost is the Baseline Case Cost (Smelter plus fugitive capture).
For the expansion scenarios, process costs include any new roaster or converter.
Control costs include all equipment associated with emission reduction, Oxygen enrich-
ment and oxyfuel costs are considered as control costs along with acid plant and FGD costs
for the greenfield smelter, Oxygen enrichment and oxyfuel costs are considered as ex-
pansion costs for existing plants,
Capital Cost
Process
510,000,
Control
6,970,250,
Annual!zed Costs
Raw materials
Process water
Cooling water
Electricity
Supp. heat (Nat. gas)
Bunker C Fuel Oil
Solids disposal
Labor? Direct Operating
Supervision
Maint.. Labor & Matl*
Supervision
Overhead
Taxes, ins,, adwin*
Total Operating Cost
Capital Recovery Cost
Annual!zed Cost
2,000,080*
0*
0*
89,040*
0*
-1,525,680*
0*
0*
0*
20,400*
3,060*
11,730*
20,400*
619,021*
83,002*
702,024*
72,145.
40,177,
6,753.
408,034*
0*
441,670,
0*
278,831*
55,766,
278,810.
41,822,
327,614*
278,810,
2,230,430.
1,134,410.
3,364,840,
Negative values indicate savings over base case costs,
0-18
-------
Costs
Plant type :
Expansion Option :
Control Option :
Plant Scenario :
FBR-RV-CV
Oxygen enrichment
NH3 - SC/SA
21
Date : 02/08/83
Time : 09:05
Process costs include new hardware associated with copper production. For the green-
field smelter, the process cost is the Baseline Case Cost (Smelter plus fugitive capture).
For the expansion scenarios, process costs Include any new roaster or converter.
Control costs include all equipment associated with emission reduction. Oxygen enrich-
ment and oxyfuel costs are considered as control costs along with acid plant and FGD costs
for the greenfield smelter. Oxygen enrichment and oxyfuel costs are considered as ex-
pansion costs for existing plants.
Capital Cost
P r o c e 5 5
530, £00.
C o r 1 7. r o 1
nn us 1 i r f: cl
> t s
Raw matt?,- j. cils
!- ' r- i-j c t? < ; -3 w a tor
Cooling water
FJ e-ctr icity
S1.' DO. heat C^i-t. PC-JJ)
BMi-ker C Pn«l Q] 1
bC' lids C! 1 .;- DC- S c-i i
'<-..bor: Djrt-ot O^er^ti
E LI D -.• >• v i ri i ci n
Kair't.: i.
-------
Copper- Smelter- Costs
Plant type J FF-CV Dat , 02/04/o3
Expansion Option J Oxygen enrichment T^rne • 16'20
Control Option J DC/DA ' 16'2°
Plant Scenario J 26
Process costs include new hardware associated with copper production, For the orepn-
field smelter, the process cost is the Baseline Case Cost (Smelt'er plus"ugitive entire)?
Contrnl *XP?n510? 5Hcenf "°*>. P™<*SS costs include any new roaster or converter.
Control costs include all equipment associated with emission reduction, Oxygen enrich-
™ C°nsidered as contro1 C05ts ^°"9 ^th acid planted FGD costs
„ Process Control
Cost 510,000* 5,088,630,
Annualized Costs
Raw Materials 1,457,230. 3,956,
Process water 0. 30,725,
Cooling water Ot 18,570
Electricity 5,817, l,159,*62o!
S.JPP, heat (Nat, gas) 0, n
Bunker C Fuel Oil -158,760, 0,'
Solids disposal 0. 0
Labor! Direct Operating o, 278,831!
Supervision 0. 55 7^6*
Maint.: Labor & Matl, 20,400, 203^545*
n », JS'-lpervisi°r' 3,060, 30,532,'
?^I . • 11,730, 284,337,
Ta,,es, ins., adMin, 21,930, 218,811,
Total Operating Cost 1,361,400, 2,284,690,
Capital Recovery Cost 83,002. 828,175,
Annualized Cost 1,444,400, 3,112~870,
Negative values indicate savings over base case costs,
0-21
-------
APPENDIX P
METHODOLOGY UTILIZED TO DETERMINE THE COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH SULFURIC ACID PLANT PREHEATER OPERATION
-------
APPENDIX P
METHODOLOGY UTILIZED TO DETERMINE THE COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH SULFURIC ACID PLANT PREHEATER OPERATION
P.I DETERMINATION OF THE STANDARD HEAT OF REACTION
(@ 298 K) for the conversion reaction.
S02 + 1/2 02 -> S03
AH° = the standard heat of reaction at 1 atmosphere and 298 K
= I v. AH° - I v. AH°
P 1 Ti R ] fi
where
v.j = the stoichiometric coefficient of species i
H° = the standard heat of formation (1 atm, 298 K) of species i
P = reaction products
R = reactants
AH° = -296.06 kJ/g • mol*
TS02
AH° = 0.0*
AH° = -395.18 kJ/g • mole.*
S03
Thus, AH° = -395.18 - [-296.06] = -99.12 kJ/g • mol.
*Barrow, G. M., Physical Chemistry, 3rd Ed. New York. McGraw Hill,
X j I O ,
P-3
-------
P. 2 DETERMINATION OF THE HEAT OF REACTION AT THE TEMPERATURE OF THE
CATALYST BEDS
Optimum conversion temperature ~438° C = 711 K
AH711 = heat of reaction at
° K
= AH
where
A r* — \" f* ^ f*
P = p Vi Pi " R Vi Pf
C = the specific heat capacity of species i
v. = the stoichiometric coefficient of species i
C = 50.63 J/g • mol °K*
PS03
C = 39.79 J/g • mol °K*
PS02
C = 29.36 J/g • mol °K.*
P02
Thus, AC = 50.63 - [(0.5)(29.36) + 39.79] = -3.84 J/g • mol °K
.'. sill v AC dT = -3.84 [711 - 298] = -1,586 J/g • mol
^ya K. p
Thus,
= -100,706 J/g • mol .
*Letter and attachments from Arzabe, H. A., Monsanto Enviro-Chem,
to Wood, J. P., Research Triangle Institute. August 3, 1982. Response
to request to review Draft Chapter 4 of BID and acid plant preheater
operating cost estimation procedure.
P-4
-------
P.3 CALCULATION OF THE HEAT DEFICIENCY THAT RESULTS WHEN THE GAS
STREAM S02 CONCENTRATION FALLS BELOW THE AUTOTHERMAL REQUIREMENT
J = 251,140 I T.V. (C. - C.)
1=1 1 1 A 1
where,
J = the heat deficiency during a 24-hour cycle (kilojoules)
n = the number of time periods during a 24-hour cycle during
which the gas stream S02 concentration is below that
required for autothermal operation.
T.J = the duration of time period i (hours)
V^ = the gas stream volumetric flow rate in evidence during
time period i (NmVmin)
C^ = the gas stream S02 concentration required to sustain
autothermal operation (volume portion)
C. = the gas stream S02 concentration in evidence dur'ng time
period i (volume portion)
P.4 ILLUSTRATION OF THE COST ESTIMATION PROCEDURE
Consider the following 24-hour gas stream profile:
No. of hours
per day
4.0
5.2
9.5
2.3
1.7
1.3
Gas stream
volumetric flow rate
(NmVmin)
6,690
5,860
5,830
5,000
4,980
4,146
C<¥
-j » *
3.8
3.2
3.6
2.8
3.2
2.3
P-5
-------
A single contact/single absorption acid plant is specified. From the
information presented above, it can be determined that n = 4. Thus,
i} AH711
= 1.2 [ 5.2 hrs x 5'869 Nm3 x (0.035 - 0.032) + 2.3 x 5,000
mm
x (0.035 - 0.028) + 1.7 x 4,980 x (0.035 - 0.032) + 1.3 x 4,140
* fn mi; n rmi x 60 mi'n x 1Q1 kj x g * ?o1 = 78 9
x (0.035 0.023] x hr x g . mol x Q. 02413 m3 (21° C) /B'y
x 106 kJ per 24 hours .
Assuming that the heating value of natural gas is 37,228 kJ/m3, that
the cost of natural gas is $97.82 per 103m3, and that the facility
operates at 8,400 hr/yr, the annual cost attributable to preheating
requirements can be estimated as follows:
78. 9 x ipe kJ x m3 x $97,12 x 8,400 hr = $
24 hours 37,228 kJ 103m3 yr p y
P-6
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-83-018b
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Review of New Source Performance Standards for
Primary Copper Smelters
5. REPORT DATE
__Mar_ch 1984
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-30.56
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Draft
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Standards of performance for the control of emissions from primary copper smelters
were promulgated in 1976, Developments since promulgation necessitated that the
following be included in the periodic review of the standards: (1) reexamination
of the current exemption for reverberatory furnaces processing high-impurity materials,
(2) assessment of the feasibility of controlling particulate matter emissions from
reverberatory furnaces processing high-impurity materials, (3) revaluation of the
impact of the current standard on the ability of existing smelters to expand
production, and (4) assessment of the technical and economic feasibility of controlling
fugitive emissions at primary copper smelters. The results of the review indicated
that no changes should be made to the existing standard. This document contains
background information and environmental and economic assessments considered in
arriving at this conclusion.
This report is published in two volumes. Volume 1, EPA 450/3-83-018a, contains
Chapters 1 through 9. Volume 2, EPA 450/3-83-018b, contains the Appendixes.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Air pollution
Pollution control
Standards of performance
Primary copper smelters
Sulfur oxides
Particulate matter
,b. D'S f aiBUT.QN STATEMENT
Unlimited
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air Pollution Control
19 SECURITY CLASS ( '1 Ins
_ JJ n classified
__ __
20 SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
c. COSATI Held/Group
13B
21. K'O. OF PAGES
150
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2270-1 (Rev. 4_77)
t-DITION IS
------- |