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

-------