EPA-450/3-88-006
Cadmium Emissions from Primary
Lead and Primary Copper Smelting -
Phase I Technical Report
Emission Standards Division
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
June 1988
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Emissions Standards Div.s.on of the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards EPA and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products is not intended
to constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Copies of this report are available through the Library
Services Office (MD-35), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park NC 2771 1, or ,rom
National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield VA 22161
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DEFINITION OF SOURCE CATEGORIES 1
A. Primary Lead Smelters 1
1. PI ants i n Operati on 1
2. Processes 1
3. Projections of Industry Growth 3
B. Primary Copper Smelters
1. Plants in Operation 3
2. Processes 3
3. Projections of Industry Growth 5
II. EMISSIONS AND CONTROLS 5
A. Primary Lead Smelters 5
B. Primary Copper Smelters 9
III. PUBLIC HEALTH RISKS 15
A. Approach 15
1. Primary Lead Smel ters 16
2. Primary Copper Smelters 17
B. Results.... 17
1. Primary Lead Smelters 17
2. Primary Copper Smelters 19
IV. POTENTIAL FOR IMPROVED CONTROL 19
A. Primary Lead Smelters 19
8. Primary Copper Smelters 26
V. REFERENCES 30
11
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure
1 The Lead Smelting Process 2
2 The Copper Smelter Process 4
3 Cadmium Distribution in the Lead Smelting
Process 6
4 Cadmium Distribution in the Copper Smelter
Process 12
fv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1 Inventory of Emissions Sources and Controls
for Primary Lead Smelters 10
2 Inventory of Emissions Sources and Controls
for Primary Copper Smelters 13
3 Summary of Emissions and Risks for
Primary Lead Smel ters 18
4 Summary of High Risk Sources at Lead
Smelters 20
5 Summary of Emissions and Risks for
Primary Copper Smelters 22
6 Summary of High Risk Sources at Copper
Smelters 24
7 Costs of Improved Control for High Risk
Sources at Lead Smel ters 27
8 Costs of Improved Control for High Risk
Sources at Copper Smelters 28
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT:
PRIMARY LEAD AND COPPER SMELTING
I. DEFINITION OF SOURCE CATEGORIES
Cadmium, as an impurity in many nonferrous ore concentrates, is
emitted during the smelting process. This report describes the sources of
cadmium emissions from primary lead and primary copper smelters, documents
the health risks attributable to these emission sources, and discusses the
potential for improvements in existing levels of control.
A. Primary Lead Smelters
1- Plants in operation. There are currently five primary lead
smelters located in three States. The following three plants are currently
operating: the ASARCO smelter in East Helena, Montana; the ASARCO smelter
in Glover, Missouri; and the St. Joe smelter in Herculaneum, Missouri. The
lead smelter in Boss, Missouri, previously owned by a partnership of AMAX
and Homestake Lead Tollers, was acquired in full by Homestake in June 1986.
This smelter, referred to as AMAX-Boss for this study, was immediately
closed after Homestake's acquisition. The ASARCO smelter in El Paso,
Texas, has been closed since 1985. Both ASARCO and Homestake have stated
that no reopening date has been scheduled, and a decision to reopen these
smelters will be based on market conditions.1'2
2. Processes. Figure 1 shows the lead smelting process. Processes
include sintering, reduction, and refining. Ore concentrates, that
typically contain 20 to 70 percent lead and 13 to 19 percent sulfur, are
blended with return sinter, flue dusts, and fluxes and are fed to a
sintering machine.3 Sintering results in the oxidation of lead and sulfur
present in the charge to lead oxide (PbO) and sulfur dioxide (S02).
Simultaneously, the charge material is converted to a dense permeable
material called sinter. The sinter is crushed, mixed with metallurgical
coke, and charged to a blast furnace where carbon monoxide formed by
burning coke reduces PbO to elemental lead. In addition, impurities with
an affinity for oxygen, such as iron, react with the fluxes and are
1
-------
ACID PLANT
CONCENTRATES
SECONDARIES
SINTER MACHINE
STACK
SLAG
BLAST FURNACE
SU
\ t
FUMING FURNACE
(OPTIONAL)
DROSS ING
STACK
1
ZnO PRODUCT
BH
LEAD
BULLION
Figure 1. The lead smelting process.
-------
collected in a molten slag. 3oth the slag and lead bullion ars tapped
continuously from the furnace. The waste slag is either disposed of
directly, or, as is the case at two smelters, it may be charged to a zinc
fuming furnace where the zinc in the slag is vaporized to zinc oxide. The
residual slag is then discarded.
The crude lead bullion is transferred to a series of refining kettles
where impurities are selectively removed as drosses. Typically, the
drosses are treated in a reverberatory furnace where additional lead is
recovered and metals, such as copper and arsenic, are concentrated. The
dross is skimmed and recycled while the product lead bullion is pumped from
the dressing kettles into molds.
3- Projections of industry growth. Federal regulations on lead in
gasoline, in existence since 1976, have reduced the demand for lead.
Depressed lead prices and foreign competition have resulted in the
temporary closure of two of the five domestic smelters. No growth in lead
demand is projected through the year 2000 and no new smelters are expected
to be built.3
B. Primary Copper Smelters
l- Plants in operation. There are currently 14 primary copper
smelters located in 7 States. Nine smelters are operating and five are
closed. Of the nine smelters which remain open, two are scheduled to close
permanently in 1987. The five smelters which are closed now could reopen
if market conditions improve.
2. Processes. Figure 2 shows the copper smelting process. The
winning of copper from ore concentrates involves the following processes:
(a) roasting the ore concentrates (optional), (b) smelting the roasted
calcine or unroasted ore concentrates and fluxes to form an intermediate
copper-bearing product called matte, and (c) converting (oxidizing) the
matte to produce blister copper (approximately 99 percent pure copper).
Six of the 14 smelters roast ore concentrates prior to smelting. In this
step, ore concentrates, which typically contain 15 to 30 percent copper,
are charged to the roaster. The concentrates are heated, but not melted,
in the presence of oxygen so that much of the sulfur in the concentrate is
oxidized to S02. Volatile impurities such as arsenic also are emitted
during this process.
-------
MAO
cm r
ACID PI AH I
-j
£SP
KOASII!*
(OI'IIUIlAl)
CALCINE
STACK
1
ESP
SHU TING
FURNACE
I
<>i i
/
\
MATTE
(OPTIONAL)
ACID PLANT 1
;
CSP
3
CONVERTER
BLISTER
COPPER
-SI AS
Figure 2. The copper smelting process.
-------
The roaster product (calcine), or, if the roasting process is not
used, ore concentrates mixed with flux, are then charged to a smelting
furnace. Here, copper and iron combine with sulfur to form the molten
matte. Lighter impurities, such as zinc and oxides of iron, silicon, and
calcium, float to the top of the furnace and are drawn off as slag which is
then either recycled to the smelting furnace or discarded. The copper-
rich matte, a mixture of copper sulfides and iron sulfides, is tapped from
the bottom of the furnace and is transferred to the converters by ladle.
In the converter, fluxes are added and air is blown through the matte.
First, the iron sulfide is oxidized to various iron oxides which are
skimmed off as slag and discarded or recycled. This slag skimming
operation leaves impure copper sulfides. Next, the copper sulfides are
oxidized to copper and SC^. The converter operation is terminated at this
point to prevent further oxidation of the copper to copper oxide. The SOg
laden off-gases are ducted to control devices for particulate removal and
then are either used to produce byproduct sulfuric acid (at 11 smelters) or
emitted directly to the atmosphere (at 3 smelters). Typically, the product
blister copper is further refined in an anode furnace prior to casting of
copper anodes for electrolytic refining. A more detailed discussion on the
copper smelting process is contained in Reference 4.
3- Projections of industry growth. Demand for primary copper is
expected to grow at 1.7 percent annually through the year 2000.5 A world
surplus of mine, smelter, and refinery capacity is expected to exist
through 1990 leading to a permanent shift in smelter and refinery capacity
away from the U.S.5 No additional copper smelters are anticipated to begin
operating in the near future. Two of the currently operating smelters are
scheduled for permanent shutdown in 1987, and only 9 of the 14 smelters are
currently operating.
II. EMISSIONS AND CONTROLS
A. Primary Lead Smelters
As an impurity in lead ore concentrates, cadmium is emitted in varying
amounts at each stage of the smelting process. The typical lead ore
concentrate contains 0.02 percent cadmium. The distribution of cadmium
through the lead smelting process is shown in Figure 3. Approximately half
5
-------
STACK
ACID PLANT
Bit
100 UNITS
CADMIUM
50 VOLATILIZED
SINTER MACHINE
SO
SLAG
STACK
BH
48 VOLATILIZED
RIAST FURNACF
T
SLAfi
MCE
STACK
TRACE
GROSSING
STACK
-ZERQ-M
LEAD
BULLION
FUMING FURNACE
(OPTIONAL)
\
>
ZnO PRODUCT
BH
Figure 3. Cadmium distribution 1n the lead smelting process.
-------
of the cadmium input to the smelter is volatilized in the sintering step
and half is volatilized in the blast furnace with small amounts remaining
in the slag. Other point sources of cadmium emissions at primary lead
smelters include dross furnaces, slag fuming furnaces, and, at one plant, a
cadmium oxide roaster. These sources are discussed in more detail below.
At three of the five smelters, the sinter machine produces two off-gas
streams. One stream is taken from the charging end where the majority of
the sulfur combustion takes place. This stream has a high S02 content
(typically 4 to 7 percent) and is referred to as the strong off-gas
stream.6 The second off-gas stream, taken from the discharge end of the
machine, has a low S02 content (typically 0.5 percent) and is referred to
as the weak off-gas stream.6 The S02 in the strong off-gas stream can be
recovered economically in a byproduct sulfuric acid plant. The gas is
passed through a series of particulate control devices prior to acid
conversion. A baghouse and/or an ESP is first used to reduce the
particulate matter concentration. Particulate loadings are reduced further
by wet treatment devices-scrubbers and spray towers. This extensive
pretreatment is required to keep the particulate matter from poisoning the
acid catalyst conversion beds. Thus, virtually no particulate matter or
cadmium emissions are discharged from the acid plant stack. Sinter machine
weak stream off-gases contain too little S02 to be converted to sulfuric
acid economically. Therefore, they are emitted to the atmosphere after
baghouse control.
The sinter machine at the ASARCO smelter in El Paso recirculates the
weak stream off-gases with the strong off-gases to produce a single off-
gas stream (from the charging end of the sinter machine) that contains
approximately 6 percent S02. This stream is processed through an acid
plant. The ASARCO-Glover smelter has no S02 control. Consequently, there
is no concern to maintain a strong stream for an economical acid conver-
sion. Thus, the sinter machine off-gas is a single stream containing gas
from che enure length of the sinier machine. It is vented through a
baghouse for particulate control, then to the atmosphere.
Process gases from blast furnaces at all five smelters are vented to a
baghouse for particulate matter removal and discharged directly to the
-------
atmosphere through stacks. The S02 concentration in the blast furnace
off-gas is too low to be recovered economically in an acid plant.
At four of the five smelters, the blast furnace baghouse dust is
recycled to the sinter machine. At the ASARCO smelter in El Paso, Texas,
however, the blast furnace dust, which can contain up to 18 percent
cadmium, is roasted in a Godfrey roaster to produce a crude cadmium oxide
byproduct (66 percent cadmium). Cadmium oxide product from the roaster is
collected in a baghouse which is vented through a louvered cupola.
Two smelters have slag fuming furnaces for zinc recovery: ASARCO-
£ast Helena, and ASARCO-E1 Paso. Neither has operated the furnace since
1982. A decision to restart the furnaces will be based on the zinc market.
Because of the possibility that these facilities may be restarted, they
were included in the source assessment. However, since slag contains very
small quantities of cadmium, the slag fuming furnace is a relatively minor
source of cadmium emissions.
Process fugitive emissions result from leakage in and around process
equipment and from the handling and transferring of materials. Control
techniques include measures to preclude their occurrence and measures to
confine and capture emissions. Once captured, emissions may be vented
directly to a particulate control device or combined with process gases
prior to control.
Major process fugitive sources include the handling and transfer of
sinter machine and blast furnace flue dusts, sinter machine leakage, sinter
crushing and handling, blast furnace charging, blast furnace upsets, and
hot metal tapping and transfer operations. Process fugitive emissions from
sinter charging and product handling and transfer operations can be limited
oy the use of dust suppressants (e.g., water sprays) and the application of
local hooding and ventilation followed by a control device. Local hooding
and ventilation techniques are also applied to the control of tapping
emissions from blast furnaces and dross reverberatory furnaces, and the
control of drossing kettles. Captured emissions are generally combined
with the blast furnace process gases and treated in the blast furnace
baghouse. Process fugitive emissions- from sinter machine and furnace
leakage can be minimized or eliminated by proper operation and maintenance.
Control of process fugitives from flue dust handling includes enclosing
8
-------
dust transfer points and conveyors and/or application of dust suppressants.
Many of these controls have been put in place to comply with State
implementation plans (SIP's) for fugitive lead emissions.
The Texas Air Control Board (TACB) has required the ASARCO smelter in
El Paso to enclose all transfer and handling of dusts containing greater
than 1 percent lead. If ASARCO decides to reopen the lead plant it must
comply with this mandate. ?> 8 The enclosures put in place tQ control ^
emissions also will significantly reduce cadmium emissions.
The Montana lead SIP has required the ASARCO smelter in East Helena
to install a number of control measures that have reduced lead and cadmium
emissions. These include improved ventilation and covers for the dross
kettles, an air pressure control system to reduce blast furnace upsets, and
a blast furnace secondary hooding system vented to a baghouse. Montana
estimates the particulate matter capture efficiency to be 95 percent for
the blast furnace and 50 percent of the drossing operations.9*^
Open fugitive sources include ore concentrate storage piles, slag
storage piles, and plant roadways and yard areas. In the case of ore
concentrates and slag, the cadmium content is low (approximately 0.02
percent for ore and 0.005 percent for slag). As a result, potential
cadmium emissions from these sources are relatively minor. Similarly,
emissions from plant roadways and yard areas are also minor, due to both
low cadmium content and measures taken to mitigate lead emissions. Control
for open fugitives consists of wet suppression or enclosing the storage
piles.
An inventory of cadmium emission sources at primary lead smelters and
the existing controls is presented in Table 1. In general, the SIP's for
lead have forced or driven the application of best available technology
(BAT) for most of the potentially significant sources of cadmium emissions
If the ASARCO plant at El Paso is reopened then the SIP's for lead would
require enclosures for dust handling processes significantly reducing
cadmium emissions from this operation.
B. Primary Copper
As an impurity in copper ore concentrates, cadmium is emitted in
varying quantities at each stage of the smelting process. The typical
copper ore contains 0.01 percent cadmium. The distribution of cadmium
-------
TABLE 1. INVENTORY OF EMISSIONS SOURCES AND CONTROLS
FOR PRIMARY LEAD SMELTERS
Plant/Location
Anax,
Boss, MO
ASARCO, East
Helena, MT
ASARCO
Glover, MO
St. Joe,
Herculaneum,
Mo.
ASARCO,
El Paso, TX
Source
Main stack; blast furnace
weak sinter
Sinter/flast furn. fugitives
Sinter prep/ returns
Sinter prep/returns
Blast furnace charge preo
Blast furnace charge prep
Blast furnace cnarge oreo
31 ast furnace charge orep
Combined area fugitives
Combined process fugitives
TOTAL
Sinter machine
Zinc fum* stack
Blast/reverb furnaces
Combined area fugitives
Combined process fugitives
TOTAL
Sinter machine (main stack)
Blast furnace
Sinter returns fugitives
N1x1ng/pellet1z1ng cones.
Combined area fugitives
Combined process fugitives
TOTAL
Main stack: add plant (AP)
sinter machine blast furnace
Sinter discharge
Drums/conveyors
Rolls/conveying
Vib/conveyor belts
Returns conveyor
Sinter plant fugitives
Combined area fugitives
Combined process fugitives
TOTAL
Sinter machine (lead stack)
Blast furnace stacks
Zinc fume bagnous* stack
Pb unloading stack
fb bedding Bldg. stack
Cadmium oxide production
Combined area fugitives
Combined nrocess fugitives -
dust handl ing
TOTAL
Type*
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
F
F
H
H
H
F
F
H
H
H
H
F
F
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
F
F
H
H
H
H
H
H
F
e
Emissions
kg/yr
1,150.0
18.0
40.0
36.0
111.0
108.0
18.0
11.0
19.7
498.0
2,010.0
240.0
75.0
2,502.0
105.5
146.0
3,070.0
598.0
247.0
3.5
10. 0'
39.8
40.3
939.0
3,470.0
15.0
1.3
50.0
36.0
0.2
3.0
7.9
82.8
3,660.0
300.0
1,810.0
91.0
13. S
104.0
2,720.0
3.3
1,510.0
6,660.0
Control^
Saghouse
Baghouse
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
• Enclosures, *et
suppression
Enclosed conveyer.
dust storage.
8F air control ,
wet suppression
Sagnouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Wet suppression,
sweeping
BF fugitive
hoods, 8F air
control , dross
charging covers
and ventilation
Baghouse
Bagnouse
Baghouse
Scrubber
Met suppression.
sweeping
Baghouse
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Enclosure, wet
suppression
Baghouse
Baghouse
Sagfiouse
Baghouse
Saghouse
Baghouse
Enclosure, wet
suppression
«et suppression
of dust
aH * point source; F * fugitive source.
DBF » Slast furnace; AP • add plant.
10
-------
through the copper smelting process is shown in Figure 4. If the smelter
uses a roaster, approximately 15 percent of the incoming cadmium will be
volatilized in the roasting step. The remainder stays with the calcine and
is charged to the smelting furnace. If there is no roaster, concentrates
are charged directly to the smelting furnace. About one-third of the
'cadmium input to the smelting furnace is volatilized and two-thirds is
retained in the matte. The matte passes from the smelting furnace to the
converters where approximately 80 percent of the remaining cadmium is
volatilized. The remaining 20 percent of the converter input is entrained
in the converter slag which is returned to the smelting furnace or is
discarded.
Since copper ore concentrates contain a significant amount of sulfur,
most copper smelters also have acid plants to convert the S02-containing
off-gas streams to sulfuric acid. Off-gases from the converters, and less
often from the smelting furnace if a flash or electric smelting furnace is
used, are pretreated for particulate matter removal and vented to an acid
plant. At ASARCO-E1 Paso multiple hearth roasters are used with the off-
gases treated at an acid plant. The acid plant tailgas is virtually free
of particulate matter and cadmium. Pretreatment is usually accomplished by
an ESP followed by wet treatment devices.
A review of the cadmium emission sources and their corresponding
controls currently applied is presented in Table 2. Electrostatic
precipitators are the control most often used on process off-gases for
particulate control. Eleven smelters have an acid plant that employs
additional wet treatment devices to reduce particulate from process off-
gases from roasters and converters. The two plants that stand out as high
emitters are Phelps Dodge-Douglas and Kennecott-McGill. Neither facility
has acid plant control on the converter off-gases. In the case of Phelps
Dodge-Douglas, the converter off-gas stream is vented directly to the
atmosphere after ESP control, and for Kennecott-McGill the converter off-
gas stream is vented to the atmospnere after muiticlone controi. These cwo
plants are presently not operating. If the plants are restarted, then acid
plants would have to be installed in order to meet S02 standards. The
cadmium emissions from the two plants would then be sharply reduced.
11
-------
'.IACK
STACK
NIL
I
100 UN US CADMIUM
MCONUAItU'j
ACID J
J
4
'IAN I
>l>
VOUIIimD
KOASIIfi
(01* II 1)11 At )
8',
CALCINE '
STACK
t
ESP
2U VOLAIIUHO
SC.ELTING
FURNACE
•r
X"
i;
MATTE J
(OPTIONAL)
AC 10 PLANT
i
ESP
j
4/
1/OlAdl I/ID
CONVERTER
- teru-
8LISTER*
COPPER
1
Figure 4. Cadmium distribution in the copper smelting process.
-------
TABLE 2. INVENTORY OF EMISSIONS SOURCES AND CONTROLS
FOR PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS
Plant/Location
ASARCO, £1 ?aso, TX
ASARCO, Hayden, AZ
Cities Service
Coppernill, TN
Copper Range,
White Pine, MI
Inspiration Copper,
Miami, AZ
Kennecott Copper,
Garfleld, UT
Kennecott Copper,
Hayden, AZ
Kennecott Copper,
Hurley, NM
Source
Main stack 'smelting furnace)
Calcine slag matte tapping
Combined area fugitives
Converter fugitives
Cu unloading stack
Cu transfer stack
Cu bedding bldg. stack
TOTAL
Main stack (all processes)
Matte and slag tapping
Comoined area fugitives
Converter fugitives
TOTAL
Matte and slag tapping
Combined area fugitives
Converter fugitives
TOTAL
Main stack (all processes)
Matte and slag tapping
Combined area fugitives
Converter fugitives
TOTAL
Furnace/converter/AP stack
Matte and slag tapping
Combined area fugitives
Converter fugitives
TOTAL
Main stack (all processes)
Matte and slag tapping
Combi-ned area fugitives
Converter fugitives
TOTAL
Smelting furnace stack
Roaster/converter/AP stack
Caldne/matte/slag tapping
Combined area fugitives
Converter fugitives
TOTAL
Main stack (all processes)
Matte/ slag tapping
Comoined area fuqitlves
Converter fugitives
Type
y
F
F
F
H
rl
H
H
F
F
F
F
F
F
H
F
c
F
H
F
F
F
H
F
F
F
H
H
F
F
F
H
-
r
Emissions
kg/yr
998.0
53.0
54.2
54.0
204.0
10.2
104.0
1,270.0
775.0
42.0
54.5
33.0
954.0
9.0
46.3
14.0
69.3
102.4
1S.O
3.1
42.0
164.0
30.2
30.0
1.4
84.0
146.0
640.0
49 .0
27.5
137.0
854.0
57.0
25.5
48.0
3.7
77.0
211.0
827.0
36 .0
36 .0
98.0
Control
ESP
3agnouse 'matte)
£SP (calcine)
--
2°hoods,
bagnouse
Baghouse
Sagnouse
Sagnouse
ESP, AP
ESP
wet suppression
ESP
--
--
Reverb: ESP.
Converter:
baloon flue
--
•-
ESP, AP
--
•-
m _
ESP, AP
--
""
ESP
Cyclone,
scrubber, AP
--
*~
ESP. AP
"
Kennecott Copper,
McGIll, MY
TOTAL
Main stack (all processes)
Matte and slag tapping
Combined area 'ugitives
Converter fugitives
'OTAL
997.0
4,850.0
33.0
0.1
91.0
4,980.0
Reverb: ESP.
Converter:
cyclone
-------
TABLE.2 (cont.
. INVENTORY OF EMISSIONS SOURCES AND
FOR PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS
:ONTROLS
Plant/location
Source
Magma Copper,
San Manuel , AZ
Phelps Dodge,
Ajo, AZ
Phelps Oodge,
Douglas, AZ
Pnelps Dodge,
Hidalgo, MM
Pnelps Dodge,
Morencl, AZ
Smelting furnace stack
Converter/ AP I stack
Converter/AP 2 stack
Matte and slag tapping
Combined area fugitives
Converter fugitives
TOTAL
Main stack (all processes)
Matte and slag tapping
Combined area fugitives
Converter fugitives
TOTAL
Main stack (roaster,
smelting)
Converter stack
Calcine/matte/slag tapping
Contained area fugitives
Converter fugitives
TOTAL
AP stack
Slag furnace stack
Matte and slag tapping
Combined area fugitives
Converter fugitives
TOTAL
Converter/AP stack
Matte and slag tapping
Combined area fugitives
Converter fugitives
TOTAL
H
H
rf
F
F
F
H
F
F
F
H
H
F
F
F
H
H
F
F
F
H
F
F
F
«9'vr
378.0
19.3
19.3
37.0
5.3
240.0
749.0
1,990.0
12.0
0.2
32.0
2,030.0
3,540.0
12,000.0
101.0
2.5
160,0
15,800.0
1,640.0
16.3
54.0
31.1
147.0
1,880.0
42.0
31.0
36.7
85.0
195.0
tontroi
ESP
ESP, AP
ESP, AP
--
ESP, AP
--
ESP
ESP
Sagfiouse
(calcine only) ,
ESP (other)
--
ESP, AP
Scrubber
...
--
ESP, AP
„_
--
AH - point source; F « fugitive source.
-------
Process fugitive emissions for each copper smelter also are presented
in Table 2. The largest source of fugitive emissions is the converters.
An emission factor for process fugitive cadmium emissions from converters
was developed from a test performed in 1983.n Emission factors for matte
and slag tapping fugitive emissions from reverberatory furnaces were taken
from the previous source survey (GCA, 1981).12 These factors indicate that
process fugitive emissions are about three times greater from converters
than from reverberatory furnaces-roughly the same proportion as the point
source emissions discussed previously. Process fugitive emissions from
roasters were considerably lower than fugitive emissions from the
reverberatory furnace and the converter. Process fugitive emissions from
roasters and smelting furnace tapping operations (matte and slag) are
generally captured by local ventilation systems. Roaster emissions are
typically controlled in a baghouse or ESP, while the furnace tapping
emissions are typically discharged to the atmosphere uncontrolled. Six
smelters have some degree of secondary or fugitive emissions capture. In
only two cases, the ASARCO El Paso and Hayden smelters, are the capture
systems considered to be effective and the captured emissions controlled.
The El Paso smelter uses a baghouse for control and the Hayden smelter uses
an ESP. Except for these plants no primary copper smelters employ process
fugitive controls on roasters, smelting furnaces, or converters.
HI. PUBLIC HEALTH RISKS
A. Approach
Risk assessment is the process used by EPA to develop quantitative
estimates of public health risks associated with individual and population
exposure to a hazardous or toxic air pollutant. The resultant estimates
are considered by EPA to be rough but plausible upper-bound approximations
of the risks. Two measures of risk are calculated. One is maximum
individual risk and the other is aggregate risk. Maximum individual risk
(MIR) is an estimate of the probabincy of contracting cancer experienced
by the person or persons exposed to the highest predicted annual average
concentration of the pollutant. Aggregate risk is an estimate of the
increased number of cancer cases for the entire population exposed. It is
expressed in terms of annual incidence or number of cancer cases per year.
15
-------
The estimates are calculated by coupling a numerical constant that
defines the statistical exposure-risk relationship for a particular
hazardous pollutant with estimates of public exposure to the pollutant.
The numerical constant used by EPA in its analysis of carcinogens is called
a unit risk factor. It represents an estimate of the increase in lifetime
cancer risk occurring to a hypothetical individual exposed continuously
over a lifetime (70 years) to a concentration of 1 microgram per cubic
meter (ug/m3) of the pollutant in the air the individual breathes. For
cadmium, the unit risk factor is estimated to be 1.8x10-3 or 1.8 chances in
1,000.13
Estimates of public exposure are derived using an atmospheric
dispersion model and census data contained in EPA's Human Exposure Model
(HEM).14 Dispersion models are used to predict concentrations of a
pollutant in the ambient air at varying distances and directions from a
stationary emission source. By combining the predicted ambient
concentrations with population distribution data, both the number of people
exposed and their levels of exposure can be calculated. Needed inputs to
the model include plant location (latitude and longitude) and source
specific data including the height and area of the release point,
temperature and velocity of exit gases, and emissions rate for each source
to be modeled.14 Details of the methods used to develop the health risk
estimates for both source categories are described below.
!• Primary lead smelters. The inputs to the HEM, including emission
estimates and stack parameters, for primary lead smelters were generated
from Section 114 request responses, test reports, trip reports, State
implementation plans (SIP's) for lead emissions, and the previous source
survey (Radian, 1985). Although two smelters are currently closed, plans
are for both smelters to reopen when the market for lead improves.
Therefore, all five primary lead smelters were included in the risk
assessment.
All stack sources ac lead smeiters were modeled individually.
Fugitive emission estimates were modeled in separate groups. Process
fugitive emissions were modeled in several different ways based on how the
States had estimated the emissions. At ASARCO-East Helena and ASARCO-
16
-------
Glover,.process fugitive emissions tests had been conducted by MRI in
1977.15 At these smelters, the buildings from which the process fugitives
escaped (the sinter building, the blast furnace building, and the dressing
building) were modeled as individual sources. For the other smelters the
lead SIP estimates for lead process fugitives were multiplied by a
cadmium-to-lead ratio and modeled as a group. Open fugitives were modeled
as one source consisting of ore storage and slag pile emissions.
2- Primary copper smelters. The HEM inputs for primary copper
smelters were generated from Section 114 request responses, EPA-sponsored
and State-sponsored tests, trip reports, the Background Information
Document for Arsenic emissions (Reference 4), and the previous cadmium
source survey for primary copper smelters (GCA, 1981). All 14 copper
smelters, whether operating, closed, or scheduled for closure, were
included in the risk assessment. This was done because the modeling of all
14 smelters was manageable and because of uncertainties regarding whether
closures and reopenings will actually occur.
The emissions from copper smelters were grouped by source types for
the HEM modeling. All stacks were modeled as individual sources. In
addition, each smelter was modeled with three types of fugitive emissions:
area fugitive emissions, combined process fugitive emissions, and converter
fugitive emissions. Area fugitives are comprised of emissions from ore
storage and slag piles. Combined process fugitives include emissions from
matte and slag tapping of the smelting furnace, and, if roasters are used,
calcine transfer emissions. Converter fugitive emissions, the major
fugitive source, were modeled separately.
8. Results
1. Primary lead smPltPrs. Taole 3 shows the emissions, maximum
individual risk, and annual incidence for each plant. Three smelters had
maximum individual risk exceeding or approaching IxKT4: ASARCO-E1 Paso
ASARCO-East Helena, and AMAX-Boss. ASARCO-E1 Paso clearly has the highest
maximum individual risk (2.03xlQ-3), and El Paso's annual incidence of
0.056 is 78 percent of the total incidence for the source category Table
3 also shows that the HEM model predicts that there is less than one person
located at the point of maximum risk meaning, in general, that the
17
-------
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS AND RISKS FOR PRIMARY LEAD SMELTERS
00
Plant/Location
ASARCO, El Paso, TX
ASARCO. fcast Helena, MT
ASARCO, Glover, MO
AMAX, BOiS, MO
St. Joe, Herculaneum, MO
Operating
Status
Closed
Open
Open
Closed
Open
Cadml urn
Emissions,
kg/yr
6,820
3,070
940
2,010
8,660
21,500
Maximum
Individual
Risk
2.00xlO-3
1.30xlO-4a
7.16xlO-7
9.58xlO'5a
3.47x10-5
Incidence
case/yr
0.056
0.0005
0.0002
0.0004
0.015
0.072
People
Maximum
concen-
tration
<1
<1
123
<1
3
exposed to:
Total
493,000
48,600
97,300
52.800
1,500,000
a Review of USGS maps Indicates It Is unlikely that anyone resides at location of maximum risk predicted by HEM.
More plausible MIR estimates are 5.97x10-5 for ASARCO-East Helena and 4.5x10-5 for AMAX-Boss.
-------
population i'mmediatsly surrounding the. smelter is sparse.3 Subsequently,
USGS topographic maps were analyzed to determine the location of the point
of maximum concentration predicted by the HEM. The maximum concentration
and point of maximum risk was predicted to be 200 meters from the center of
each smelter. For the ASARCO-East Helena smelter, this point appeared to
be on plant property. A more plausible point of maximum risk lies at 500
meters from the center of the plant. Using this point, a more plausible
value for maximum individual risk is 5.96xlO"5. The AMAX-Boss smelter is
located in a national forest. The more plausible point of maximum risk is
1,000 meters from the smelter. The more plausible maximum individual risk
that corresponds to this point is 4.5x10-5. For the ASARCO-E1 Paso smelter
it was concluded that people could reside at the point of maximum
concentration.
2. Primary copper smelters. Table 4 shows the emission rate and
public health risks for each smelter. All smelters have less than 1x10-4
MIR and incidence below 0.01 case per year. The total annual incidence for
the source category is 0.008 case. The highest risks and incidences in the
copper category were for fugitive emissions from copper converters and
smelting furnaces. However, these sources had lower risks than most of the
sources in the lead category. The converter fugitives with the highest MIR
all had risks considerably lower than 1x10-4. The highest risk for any one
source (3.9x10-5) was for converter fugitives at Magma Copper, San Manuel,
Arizona.
IV. POTENTIAL FOR IMPROVED CONTROL
A. Primary Lead Smelters
The potential for improved control was evaluated at the sources that
drive the health risks at the three high-risk primary lead smelters
aThe HEM model uses population data from the 1980 census. Population is
divided into block enumeration groups wnicn are defined rougnly oy the
numoer_of people a census taker can cover in 1 day. Each enumeration group
is assigned a location. If an enumeration group is within 3.5 km of the
source, the enumeration group's population is apportioned among 96 receptor
sites at which the HEM model predicts pollutant concentration. If there is
only one block enumeration group within 3.5 km and its population is less
than 36 persons, fewer than one person is assigned to each receptor site.
19
-------
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS AND RISKS FOR PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS
10
O
Plant/Location
ASARCO, El Paso, TX
ASARCO. Hay den, AZ
Cities Service,
Copperhlll. TN
Inspiration Copper,
Miami, AZ
Kennecott Copper,
Garfleld. UT
ASARCO (Ray Smelter)
Hayden, AZ
Kennecott Copper,
Hurley. M
Kennecott Capper,
McGIll, AZ
Copper Range,
White Pine, MI
Magma Copper,
San Manuel , AZ
Phelps Dodge, Douglas, AZ
Phelps Dodge, AJo, AZ
Phelps Dodge, Hidalgo, NM
Phelps Dodge, Morencl, AZ
Operating
Status
Open
Open
Closed
Open
Closed
Closed
Open
Closed
Open
Open
Closed
Closed
Open
Closed
Cadmium
Eml sslons.
kg/yr
1,270
950
70
150
850
210
1,000
4,980
160
750
15,790
2,030
1,880
190
Maximum
Individual
Risk
3.90xlO-5
5.35xlO-5
3.56xlO-5
2.14x10-5
2.50X10'7
3.93x10-5
5.42x10-5
4.61x10-5
9.43x10-6
5.84x10-5
5.41x10-5
1.37x10-5
6.37xlO-6
4.60x10-5
People exposed to:
Incidence
case/yr
0.0042
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0005
0.0001
0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0002
0.0017
0.0003
0.0001
0.0003
Maximum
concen-
tration
<1
1
<1
<1
2
1
<1
<1
<1
<1
1
114
909
2
Total
493,000
46,800
164,000
35,700
810,000.
46,800
26,300
7,350
16,900
211,000
31,100
6^600
2,*560
25,500
30,300
0.0079
-------
described previously. These high risk sources are shown in Table 5. Three
sources at ASARCO-E1 Paso are responsible for more than 95 percent of the
incidence at this smelter: the cadmium oxide product collection baghouse,
combined process fugitives (70 percent of which is due to blast furnace
baghouse dust handling), and the blast furnace baghouse stacks.
Cadmium oxide, produced from roasting cadmium-bearing blast furnace
baghouse dust, is blown to a product collection baghouse. Emissions from
the baghouse are vented to a large louvered cupola. Although the outlet
particulate matter concentration is low, 0.0125 gr/dscf, 66 percent of the
particulate matter is cadmium. Furthermore, the emissions are very
poorly dispersed due to the low stack velocity (0.1 m/s) and stack height
(14 m). The poor dispersion, plus the high emission rate of 2,720 kg/yr,
combine to boost the MIR for this source.
Another high risk source at the El Paso smelter is process fugitive
emissions. Seventy percent of the process fugitive emissions rate is due
to the blast furnace baghouse dust handling. The TACB has estimated the
lead emissions from this source for the SIP. The cadmium emissions were
estimated to be 1,610 kg/yr using a cadmium-to-lead ratio supplied by
ASARCO. The MIR from fugitive emissions is 3.54x10-4, and the annual
incidence is 0.014 case/yr. However, if this plant is reopened then the
lead SIP would require that these process fugitives be controlled. The
blast furnace baghouse at El Paso has six separate cellars where dust
catches are stored. To remove this dust, which is up to 18 percent
cadmium, plant personnel open the cellar doors and transfer the dust by
bucket loader to a railcar for transport to the cadmium plant. Water is
sprayed on the bucket loader's path and on the dust in the railcar during
dumping to minimize fugitive emissions.
The third significant source at the El Paso smelter is the blast
furnace. These emissions are controlled by a large baghouse and are vented
through six stacks. Test reports have shown that the outlet grain loading
is 0.0046 gr/dscf of pamculate matter and 0.00039 gr/dscf of cadmium.16
At ASARCO-East Helena and AMAX-Boss the process fugitive emissions
controlled the majority of the risk although both of these sources had
MIR's less than IxlO'4. At ASARCO-East Helena the process fugitives were
primarily from the blast furnace and dross furnace. Controls for this
21
-------
10
t-0
TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF HIGH RISK SOURCES AT LEAD SMELTERS
Plant/Location
ASARCO. £1 Paso. Tex.
ASARCO, last Helena. Mont.
AMAX, Boss. Mo.
Source
CdO bag house
Process fugitives
Blast furnace stacks
Process fugitives
Process fugitives
Cadmium
emissions.
kg/yr
2.722
1.613
1.814
146
498
People
493.000
493.000
493.000
48.600
52.800
Maximum risk
1.57x10"'
3.54x10""
9.71x10
1.11x10-"*
8.26xlO"Sfl
Annual
Incidence.
case/yr
0.025
0.014
0.012
0.0001
0.0004
*Rev1ew of USGS maps Indicates It 1s unlikely that anyone resides at the location of maximum risk 5
predicted by the HEM. More plausible MIR estimates are 4.06xlO~ for ASARCO-East Helena and 3.90x10
for AMAX-Boss.
-------
sourca have been installed as a result of the requirements of the Montana
lead SIP. These controls include: blast furnace air controls, blast
furnace secondary hooding vented to a baghouse, covers for the dross
kettles, and improved ventilation for the dross kettles. At AMAX-Boss the
primary emission source was baghouse dust handling. The controls present
for this source include a covered conveyor for transfer of recycled dusts,
an enclosed dust storage building, and pug mill wetting of baghouse dusts
prior to storage.
All high risk sources in Table 5 were investigated for possible
improvements in control. For three of the five sources best available
control is considered to be in place. The blast furnace emissions at
ASARCO-E1 Paso are controlled by a baghouse, and the outlet grain loading
have been tested to be 0.0046 gr/dscf total particulate.13 Further
emission reductions are not likely.
For ASARCO-East Helena, a number of control devices have been required
by the lead SIP to control process fugitive emissions from the blast
furnace and dross furnace (see Section III.B). These controls are
considered to be best available technology. Process fugitive control at
AMAX-Boss also is considered to be best available technology. To control
process fugitives from dust handling, AMAX has enclosed storage buildings
and installed a covered conveyor for dust transfer.
For the two remaining high-risk sources, the cadmium oxide baghouse
and process fugitives from dust handling at ASARCO-E1 Paso, improved
controls are technically feasible. Table 6 shows the possible control
improvements for these high-risk sources at ASARCO-E1 Paso along with the
associated costs and cost effectiveness.
For the cadmium oxide baghouse at ASARCO-E1 Paso, the emissions have
been estimated by mass balance to be approximately 2.7 Mg/yr. This
estimate corresponds to an outlet grain loading of 0.012 gr/dscf.b
Baghouse experts consulted believe that 0.005 gr/dscf may be achievable,
DThis grain loading is based on the emissions estimate of 2,722 kg/yr of
cadmium and the gas flow rate. Both were provided on ASARCO's Section 114
information request response. The stack has a 5.5 meter equivalent
diameter with an exit velocity of approximately 0.1 m/s. The configuration
and placement of this stack preclude-emission testing for this source. The
emission estimate is based on a TACB mass balance or the cadmium plant.
23
-------
M
TABLE 6. COSTS OF IMPROVED CONTROL FOR HIGH-RISK SOURCES AT LEAD SMELTERS
PI«it/Loc*tlon
ASAftCO. El Peso. I««.
'
AS AMD.
(*tt Helen*. Mont.
MAX. Boss. Mo.
Source
CdO b*ghouse
Process fugitives
(dust hendllng)
BUst fumtct bug-
house itftcks
Process fugltlxs
Process fugitives
Source
category
Pb
Pb
Pb
Pb
Pb
Ealsston Na*l«a
reduction, risk «fter
(•proved control Mg/yr control
Switch to better b*g 1.U3 t.2falO~4
Enclose transfer points 1.210 i.SS.10"5
Best Av*ll4ble lechnology
(BAI) In pUce
BAI In pi ice
BAT In pUce
Annuel Cost
Incidnce Costs. ( **f«ct JKCfili
(reduction) Cepltel Amutl VMg V\\tt
0.01 (O.OU) 31.900 e.700 4.100 44e.OOO
0.001 (0.013) Hone* Hone* Mindeted by feus
for lead SIP.
Will put In
piece befoi e
pUnt reopens.
Sl*nd«ted by TAlB lor leed SIP. !e«>rov«
-------
and, based on the limited data available, one possible means for reducing
the emissions is changing the type of bag material used.c One bag
manufacturer would guarantee to meet 0.005 gr/dscf or less.17 The capital
cost in Table 6 reflects the cost to purchase and install 135 felt-type or
Goretex-type bags. The annual ized cost reflects the incremental cost
difference between use of the current bags and use of the new, more
expensive bags. The cost/benefit ratio for this source is far lower than
the cost of other options, such as installing a new control system.
Goretex-type bags. The annualized cost reflects the incremental cost
difference between use of the current bags and use of the new, more
expensive bags. The cost/benefit ratio for this source is far lower than
the cost of other options, such as installing a new control system.
However, this cost/benefit ratio is an uncertain figure because of the
uncertainty of the emission estimate and because the diagnosis of the
problem is based on limited information. Further onsite investigation is
needed before the true emission reduction can be assessed.
The second high-risk source at El Paso, process fugitives from blast
furnace baghouse dust handling, can also be controlled. The State of Texas
has mandated control for this source in the SIP for lead emission
reductions. The future handling of any dust containing greater than 1
percent lead must be done in an enclosed space ventilated to a fabric
filter. Should ASARCO decide to reopen the lead smelter, they plan to
construct an enclosure for blast furnace dust handling. Thus, although
control is not now in place, it will be installed before the lead smelter
reopens. Based on a 75 percent control efficiency, the MIR after control
will fall from 3.54xlCT4 to 8.85xlO'5.
baghouse seems to be well operated and maintained with an air-to-cloth
ratio of 1.04:1. Since the A/C ratio is already low, reducing ;his
ratio would not significantly reduce emissions. Therefore, additional
filtering area or a new baghouse are not plausible solutions. Further, the
mean particle diameter for cadmium oxide is approximately 1 micrometer.
With a small particle size such as this, particle bleed-through is a
potential problem particularly with the woven bag currently in use. A
plausible solution is changing to a falt-type or Goretex -type coated bag.
25
-------
B. Primary Copper Smelters
A summary of the highest converter and reverberatory furnace risks
are presented in Table 7. The sources in this table represent the sources
of highest risk within the category, but MIR's for all sources are less
than IxlO'4. In addition, these data show that cancer incidence is
extremely low for the copper source category.
The other emission source that was investigated further was the
converter stack at Phelps Dodge in Douglas, Arizona. This source had the
highest cadmium emission rate in either source category, 12 Mg/yr.
However, because of the extensive dispersion and the low population
density, the incidence and MIR are relatively low, 0.0011 case/yr and
6.5xlO'4, respectively. Converter process emissions result from the off-
gases of the molten matte undergoing conversion; the off-gas stream is
drawn through an ESP. Most copper smelters vent these emissions to an
acid plant for further treatment. The Douglas smelter vents it to the
atmosphere because they do not have an acid plant. This not only results
in high cadmium and particulate matter emissions, but also a high S02
emission rate. The Douglas plant is scheduled for closure in January 1987
by agreement between Phelps Dodge and EPA because of the high S02 levels in
the area.
Improved control is technically feasible for copper smelters;
fugitive arsenic emissions from converters and reverberatory furnaces have
been identified and evaluated, and control costs are presented in the •
Arsenic BID.4 Table 8 summarizes the costs of the improved control.
Improved control for converters, consisting of air curtain secondary
hoods vented to a baghouse, was evaluated to have a 90 percent capture
efficiency.4 Likewise, conventional hoods vented to a baghouse were rated
at 90 percent capture efficiency for controlling the reverberatory
fugitives.4 Thus, use of these controls could reduce cadmium emissions and
risk approximately ten-fold. However, if these controls were implemented,
the costs (as shown in Table 8) would be high. The copper converters and
reverberatory furnaces for which improved control was assessed were chosen
because they had the highest risks and incidences in the copper category
and because it was possible to use the technical data and costs in the
26
-------
TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF HIGH RISK SOURCES AT COPPER SMELTERS
Plant/Location
Magma, San Manuel , AZ
Phelps Dodge, Douglas, AZ
ASARCO, Hay den, AZ
Kennecott, Garfield, UT
ASARCO, tl Paso, TX
Source
Converter fugitives
Converter fugitives
Matte/slag tapping
Converter stack
Converter fugitives
Converter fugitives
Matte/slag tapping
Cadmium
Emissions
Icg/yr
240
160
3,500
12.000
83
137
53
People
211,000
31,000
31,000
3 1 ,000
46,800
810,000
493,000
Maximum Risk
3.90x10-5
2.31x10-5
3.07x10-5
6.59xlO~6
1.40x10-5
1. 31xlO-7
1.04x10-5
Annual
Incidence
case/yr
0.00013
0.00018
0.00016
0. 00111
0.00004
0.00022
0.00045
-------
TABLE 8. COSTS OF IMPROVED CONTROL FOR HIGH-RISK SOURCES AT COPPER SMELTERS
Plant/Location
Hagma Copper,
San Manuel. AZ
Kennecott,
airfield, UT
("helps Dodge,
oo Douglas. AZ
Source
Source Ca tegory
Converter Cu
fugitives
Converter Cu
fugitives
Converter Cu
fugitives
Reverb furnace Cu
Converter stack Cu
[Mission
Reduction
Improved Control Hg/yr
Air curtain secondary 0.216
hoods vented to
baghouse
Air curtain secondary 0.123
hoods vented to
baghouse
Air curtain secondary 0.144
hoods vented to
baghouse
Hooding for Mtte and 0.091
slag tapping
99 percent efficient 9.68
HailM
Risk After
Control
3.9xlO-6
1.3U10-8
2.3U10-6
3.07x10-6
1.26xlO-6
Annual ~ ~ ~~
Incidence Costs
(reduction) Capital
0.00001 (0.00012) 1.3x10?
0.00002 (0.0002) 5.2x10*
0.00002 (0.00016) 9.8X106
0.00002 (0.00014) 1.8x106
0.00021 (0.0009) 7-SxlO6
Annual
4.0x106
I.3xl06
2.8x106
5.1x105
6.0x10*
Cost Effectiveness
t/Hg
1.35x10'
1.1 xlO7
1.97xl07
5.6x106
6.23x10*
J/L 1 f e
3. 45x1010
6.6xl09
1.71xlO>°
3.5x10^
6.7x108
ESP (baseline 1s
94.8 percent)
-------
Arsenic BID to evaluate the cost effectiveness for reducing cadmium
emissions. Also, by choosing the sources of highest risk for the
cost-effectiveness evaluation, the most optimistic estimates for cost
effectiveness were obtained because risk and incidence reductions were
maximized.•
The one process point source for which improved control costs were
calculated was the converter stack at Phelps Dodge-Douglas. The current
ESP control is 94.8 percent efficient as calculated from the emission
estimate. Improved control evaluated for this source is a 99-percent
efficient ESP. The major benefit derived from additional control is a
reduction in the incidence from 0.001 case/yr to 0.0002 case/yr. The MIR
would also be reduced.
29
-------
V. REFERENCES
1. Telecon. B. Nicholson, MRI, with J. Richardson, Senior Environmental
Scientist, ASARCO, Inc. Salt Lake City, Utah, August 18, 1986.
2. Telecon: B. Nicholson, MRI, with M. Kearney, Director of Safety,
Health, and Environmental Services, Homestake Lead Tollers. Boss,
Missouri. September 15, 1986.
3. Minerals Facts and Problems: Chapter on Lead. Bureau of Mines, 1985
edition, p. 18.
4. Inorganic Arsenic Emissions From Low Arsenic Primary Copper
Smelters — Background Information for Proposed Standards. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency Publication No. EPA-450/3-83-010a.
April 1983.
5. Minerals Facts and Problems: Chapter on Copper. Bureau of Mines,
1985 edition, p. 23.
6. Background Information For New Source Performance Standards: Primary
Copper, Zinc, and Lead Smelters. Volume I: Proposed Standards.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Publication
No. EPA-450/2-74-002a. October 1974.
7. Proposed Revisions to the State Implementation Plan for the Control
of Lead Air Pollution - El Paso County. October 11, 1983.
8. Telecon. B. Nicholson, MRI, with J. Richardson, ASARCO, Inc.
August 7, 1986.
9. State of Montana Air Quality Implementation Plan: Lead.
September 16, 1983. pp. 5-72 - 5-92.
10. Letter from J. Richardson, ASARCO, Inc. Concerning cadmium NESHAP
supplementary information. August 6, 1986.
11. Evaluation of an Air Curtain Hooding System for a Primary Copper
Converter - ASARCO, Inc., Tacoma, Washington. PEDCo Environmental,
Inc. December 1983.
12. Uodate of Cadmium Emissions Estimates ror Monferrous Smeltars. Memo
from Elizabeth Anderson, GCA, to John Copeland, EPA-ESED-ISB, during
cadmium source survey. May 26, 1981.
13. Notice of Intent to List Cadmium Under Section 112 of the Clean Air
Act published in Federal Register, 50 FR 42000. October 16, 1985.
30
-------
14. User's Manual for the Human Exposure Model (HEM). Pollutant
Assessment Branch, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 1985.
15. Sample Fugitive Lead Emissions From Two Primary Lead Smelters. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency Publication No. EPA-450/3-77-031.
October 1977.
16. Telecon. B. Nicholson, MRI, with 0. Richardson, ASARCO, Inc.
August 11, 1986.
17. Telecon. B. Nicholson, MRI, with T. Fisher, W. L. Gore and
Associates. August 11, 1986.
31
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing;
1 "EPORT NO
EPA-450/3-88-006
3 RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION MO
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Cadmium Emissions From Primary Lead and Primary
Copper Smelting - Phase I Technical Report
5. REPORT DATE
LQi^rt
6. PERFORMING ORGANiZAT'CN CODE
7 AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NJO
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
1 1. CONTRACT. GRANT r^J
68-02-3817
2 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
DAA for Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13 TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
A technical report on cadmium emissions from primary lead and primary
copper smelting. Descriptions of these industries and .associated air pollution
control equipment are presented. Cadmium emission estimates for all U.S. plants
in these two source categories and health risks from exposure to these emissions
from each plant are discussed.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Air Pollution
Pollution Control
Cadmium Emissions
Primary Lead Refining
Primary Copper Refining
18 DISTRI8UTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air Pollution Control
19 SEC'JRtTY CLASS (This Report/
Unclassified
20 SECURITY CLASS iThis pagei
j Unclassified
c. COSATI Held/Group
13B
21 NO. OF PAGES
36
22. PRICE
= PA Form 2220-1 (Sev. 4-77) PREVIOUS eoi TION \ s OBSOLE TE
_J
------- |