United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/3-81-013
September 1981
Air
EPA
Survey of Cadmium
Emission Sources
LJ
-------
EPA-450/3-81-013
Survey
of
Cadmium Emission Sources
Property Of
c ^ /' - • •
£•-•-> '-uras-y
*T" T*II r f - •*
«P^J 27711
by
GCA Corporation
GCA/Technology Division
500 Eastowne Drive
Chapel Hill. North Carolina 27514
Contract No. 68-02-3168
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
September 1981
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards and Engineering
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air, Noise
and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion . Mention of company or product names does not constitute endorsement
by EPA. Copies are available free of charge to Federal employees, current
contractors and grantees, and non-profit organizations - as supplies permit
from the Library Services Office, MD-35, Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; or may be obtained, for a fee, from the
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
VA 22161.
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY , 1
2. INTRODUCTION 4
2.1 Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Cadmium 4
2.2 Mul ti -Media Nature of Cadmi urn Exposure 7
3. USES OF CADMIUM 13
3.1 Introduction 13
3.2 El ectropl ati ng 13
3.3 Pi gments 15
3.4 Plastic Stabilizers 16
3.5 Batteries 16
3.6 Miscellaneous Uses 16
4. SOURCES OF ATMOSPHERIC CADMIUM 18
4.1 Introduction 18
4.2 Fossil Fuel Combustion 20
4.3 Primary Nonferrous Smelters 32
4.4 Municipal Refuse Incineration 73
4.5 Sludge Incineration 96
4.6 Iron and Steel industry 105
5. AMBIENT CADMIUM CONCENTRATIONS 133
5.1 Introduction 133
5.2 Screen i ng 134
5.3 Dispersion Modeling 134
Appendix A Calculations for Primary Copper Smelters 149
Appendix B Calculations for Fuel Combustion 156
-------
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of a study to identify and quantify
the major nationwide sources of cadmium emissions, and to estimate ambient
cadmium concentrations resulting from these emissions. Section 122 of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 requires the Administrator to determine
whether atmospheric emissions of cadmium pose a threat to public health. This
report will be used in conjunction with the various health effects documents
as support for the Administrator's decision regarding the listing of cadmium.
Initial analyses indicated that a clear distinction exists between the
major cadmium emission sources and the minor sources. By reviewing available
literature, interviewing personnel at Federal, State, and local agencies, and
performing several plant visits, the major cadmium emission source categories
were identified to be the following: fossil fuel combustion emitting 534 Mg/yr
(588 t/yr); primary nonferrous smelters emitting 180-203 Mg/yr (197-222 t/yr);
municipal refuse incineration emitting 35 Mg/yr (38 t/yr); iron and steel
production emitting 13 Mg/yr (14 t/yr); and wastewater sludge incineration
emitting 13 Mg/yr (14 t/yr).
Cadmium emission estimates were developed for these source categories
using a variety of methods depending upon the available data. Fossil fuel
combustion cadmium emissions were estimated using cadmium emission factors and
annual fuel consumption data from the Department of Energy. Primary nonferrous
smelters and municipal refuse incineration cadmium emissions were developed
through plant by plant analyses. Iron and steel production and sludge incineration
cadmium emissions are based upon emission factors and annual throughput for
the industry. In addition to estimating annual cadmium emissions, this study
also discusses the processes and emission controls currently in use, the
geographical distribution and the compliance status of the various industries,
and compares the cadmium emission estimates determined in this study to other
such estimates from previous studies.
-------
For initial screening purposes, maximum potential ambient cadmium
concentrations associated with the major cadmium emission sources were
estimated by a "surrogate pollutant" approach by calculating maximum cadmium
to particulate and cadmium to lead ratios of the emission streams and
multiplying them by the appropriate National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for particulate and lead, respectively. Consequently, the ambient
cadmium concentrations estimated by this method correspond to the maximum
ambient cadmium levels if sources were allowed emissions which individually
result in ambient concentrations equal to the NAAQS's. In actual practice,
State regulation of individual sources restrict emissions to levels considerably
below those estimated by this method.
The maximum ambient cadmium concentrations predicted by this approach
for package incinerators and primary pyrometallurgical zinc smelters were
four to ten times higher than predicted for any other category. For these
two source categories, dispersion modeling of cadmium emissions was conducted
to develop more realistic estimates of ambient cadmium concentrations in the
vicinity of sources within these categories. Ambient cadmium concentrations
resulting from several emission sources in a geographical area were also
estimated by dispersion modeling. Two areas were modeled: a portion of
southern Arizona with six copper smelters and the New York City-northern New
Jersey metropolitan area which has a large number of fossil fuel-fired power
plants and municipal incinerators. In both cases the results of the dispersion
modeling compare favorably with measured ambient cadmium concentrations.
In addition to examining the major cadmium emission source categories as
determined by annual cadmium emissions, the primary cadmium smelting industry
was also examined. Although primary cadmium production is considered a minor
cadmium emission source emitting only 1.3 Mg/yr (1.4 t/yr), the high cadmium
content of the emission streams could produce ambient cadmium levels higher
than some larger sources. The surrogate pollutant approach was not utilized
for this source category because the emitted particulate is essentially all
cadmium. However, two primary pryrometallurgical cadmium smelters were
modeled to determine maximum ambient cadmium concentrations using site specific
data.
Table 1-1 presents the cadmium emission sources examined in this study
and the associated ambient cadmium concentrations. The concentrations presented
In this table correspond to the most refined estimation method.
-------
TABLE 1-1 MAXIMUM ANTICIPATED AMBIENT CADMIUM CONCENTRATIONS
Process
Maximum
anticipated ambient
cadmium concentration
(ng/m3)
Analysis
method
Primary cadmium smelters
Sludge incinerators
Primary lead smelters
Primary zinc smelters
Package incinerators
Blast furnaces
Electric arc furnaces
Open hearth furnaces
Coal combustion
Residual fuel oil combustion
Basic oxygen furnaces
Primary copper smelters
Municipal incinerators
Sintering
Coke ovens
261
128
122
108
60
44
33
19
19
9
6
2
2
1
0.05
Dispersion Modeling
Surrogate Pollutant
Surrogate Pol1utant
Dispersion Modeling
Dispersion Modeling
Surrogate Pollutant
Surrogate Pollutant
Surrogate Pollutant
Surrogate Pollutant
Dispersion Modeling
Surrogate Pollutant
Dispersion Modeling
Dispersion Modeling
Surrogate Pollutant
Surrogate Pollutant
-------
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CADMIUM
Cadmium is a relatively rare element in the earth's crust, ranking
between mercury and silver in abundance. Cadmium was first discovered
in 1817 as an impurity in pharmaceutical zinc carbonate, but was not
commercially extracted in the metal form until 1906. The pure form is
produced as a byproduct of zinc mining and smelting, from ores with a
typical cadmium-to-zinc ratio of 1:200.
Cadmium is a soft, malleable metal which is silver-white in color.
The metal has a bright luster which will dull on exposure to moist air
due to the formation of a thin coat of cadmium oxide. The properties
of cadmium are attributable to its location in the periodic table of the
elements. Cadmium is located in Group lib, Period V of the periodic
table along with zinc and mercury (see Figure 2.1-1). The atomic number
of cadmium is 48 and the atomic weight is 112.40. Some important properties
2
of cadmium are listed in Table 2.1-1. The metal is ductile, easily
soldered, and readily electrodeposited. Because of its position in the
electromotive series, it provides galvanic protection as a plating on
iron or steel and resists corrosion in seawater.
The melting and boiling points of cadmium are low compared to the
metals with which it is associated, as shown in Table 2.1-2. The low
melting and boiling points account for the volatility and high vapor
pressure of cadmium at moderate temperatures. However, nearly all
cadmium and cadmium compounds are in the solid state at the temperature
of most gas cleaning systems. The volatility of cadmium is important in
air pollution considerations.
Cadmium, as a member of Group lib, has a stable valence of two.
Vaporized cadmium is monatomic and, depending upon conditions, reacts
quickly to form the oxide, chloride, sulfate, and other compounds.
-------
la
H
3
Li
II
Na
19
K
37
Rb
55
Cs
87
Fr
2o
4
Be
12
Mg
20
Co
36
Sr
56
Ba
66
Ra
3b
4b
5b
6b
7b
21
Sc
39
Y
57
La
89
Ac
22
Ti
40
Zr
72
Hf
23
V
41
Nb
73
To
24
Cr
42
Mo
74
W
25
Mn
43
Tc
75
Re
8
IT
/ V
A
/ \
/ \
/ v
/ v
/ \
26
Fe
44
Ru
76
Os
27
Co
45
Rh
77
Ir
28
Ni
46
Pd
78
Pt
Ib
2b
29
Cu
47
Ag
79
Au
30
Zn
48
Cd
80
Hg
1
3o
5
B
13
At
31
Ga
49
In
81
TI
4a
I
r— — — H
©
c
14
ss
32
Ge
50
Sn
82
Pb
5o
— — — — — -
7
N
15
P
33
As
51
Sb
63
Bi
6g
0
0
16
s
34
Se
52
Te
84
Po
70
9
' F
7
Cl
35
Br
53
1
85
At
0
2
H®
10
m
18
Ar
36
Kr
54
Xe
86
Rn
Figure 2.1-1 Periodic table of the elements.
-------
TABLE 2.1-1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CADMIUM2
Crystal structure Hexagonal pyramids
Hardness 2.0 (Moh's scale)
Ductility Considerable
Density
20°C (68°F)(solid) 8.65 g/cm3
330°C (626°F)(liquid) 8.01 g/cm3
Melting point 321°C (610°F)
Boiling point 767°C (1412.6°F)
Specific heat
25°C (77°F)(solid) 0.055 g-cal/g
Electrochemical equivalent
Cd-H-ion 0.582 mg/coulomb
TABLE 2.1-2 COMPARATIVE MELTING AND BOILING POINTS3
Melting point Boiling point
Cadmium
Zinc
Lead
Copper
Iron
Cadmium Sulfate
Cadmium Chloride
Cadmium Oxide
°C
321
420
327
1083
1375
1000
568
°F
610
788
621
1981
2507
1832
1054
Sublimes at
°C
767
907
1620
2336
960
1559°C (28-
°F
1413
1665
2948
4237
1760
!8°F)
-------
Naturally occurring compounds such as cadmium sulfide (CdS), cadmium carbonate
(CdC03), cadmium oxide (CdO), and cadmium hydroxide (Cd(OH)2) have extremely
low solubility in water. The amount of cadmium which remains dissolved in
natural waters is conseouently quite low. Most cadmium found in aquatic
systems is associated with suspended solids.
2.2 MULTIMEDIA NATURE OF CADMIUM EXPOSURE
2.2.1 General
This section discusses the nature of human exposure to cadmium from the
food chain, the ambient air, and drinking water. Cadmium is released into the
environment from several major sources, and follows pathways through the air,
soil, or water before contacting humans. Man is exposed to cadmium by inhaling
cadmium in the air, eating cadmium in foods, drinking cadmium in water, and by
smoking tobacco. The major sources of cadmium, transport pathways, and
sources of human exposure to cadmium are diagramed in Figure 2.2-1. The most
important pathways are emphasized by the wider lines.
The major potential for exposure to cadmium occurs through the food chain
by soil contamination from the application of phosphate fertilizers, wastewater
sludge from publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), and from fallout and
washout of air emissions. About 35.5 percent of normal daily retention is
caused by ingestion of cadmium in food. For smokers, cigarettes have the
potential of being the second greatest source of exposure, depending on how
many packs are smoked per day. Drinking water is the second greatest source
of cadmium for non-smokers, causing about 10 percent of the normal daily
retention. Breathing ambinet air ranks lowest as a source of exposure, accounting
for about four percent of normal daily retention. The percent of cadmium intake
o
from food, air, and drinking water is presented in Table 2.2-1.
2.2.2 Cadmium Exposure Through Food
The major pathway of cadmium contamination of food is uptake of cadmium
from the soil by edible plants. Cadmium exposure takes place when the plants
are eaten by man. Table 2.2-2 shows that as the concentration of cadmium
increases in neutral soil, the concentration of cadmium increases in the
edible portion of food crops. In general, the relative cadmium content of the
-------
Major environmental releases
of cadmium
MINING AND METALS
PRODUCTION
Air
Transport pathways
Fallout to cropland!, localized
POTWS
PHOSPHATES
around water
Surfoct water
Land
Surface woter
Land
Ground water
Surface water
\
.Direct uptoke ond sediment ingestlon
Application to soil
Discharge te Irrigation sources
\
Direct uptake ond sediment Ingestlon
Application to soil
Transport and discharge
to irrigation sources
Possible direct use for Irrigation
Discharge to Irrigation sources
CADMIUM PESTICIDES
Land
\
Direct uptake ond sediment Ingestlon
Application to soil
ELECTROPLATING
(Direct Discharge)
Surface water
Discharge to Irrigation sources
XJJiri
irect uptake ond sediment Ingestlon
Major sourest of human exposure
to cadmium
Transport and discharge to Irrigation sources
Possible direct use for Irrigation
Discharge to Irrigation sources
FOODS-'
Soil deposltlon-
» vegetables,
fruits, groins
i
I «.Tabocco
Finflsh and shellfish
MINING AND METALS
PRODUCTION
POTWS
PHOSPHATES
Air
Ground water
Surface water
Air
Surface water
Land
Ground water
Surface water
Ground water used for water supplies
Surface water uted for water supplies
Wind currents
Surface water used for wafer supplies
Ground water used for water supplies
Surface woter used for water supplies
CADMIUM PESTICIDES
Land
ELECTROPLATING
(Direct discharge)
INCINERATION
PETROLEUM
Surface water
Air
Air
Surface water used for water supplies
Wind currents
Wind currents
AIR S DRINKING WATER
Drinking water
Air Inhalation
Figure 2.2-1 Transport pathways for cadmium.'
8
-------
TABLE 2.2-1 MEDIA CONTRIBUTIONS TO NORMAL RETENTION
Medium
Ambient air
Water
Food
Cigarettes
No smoking
4.3
10.2
85.5
0.0
Percent of total retention
1 pack/day 3
3.0
7.3
61.0
28.7
packs/day
1.9
4.7
38.8
54.6
TABLE 2.2-2
CADMIUM IN FOOD CROPS GROWN IN SOILS OF
VARYING CADMIUM CONTENT9
Crop
(edible
portion)
Oats
Soybeans
Lettuce
Carrots
Potatoes
Tomatoes
Cadmium (ppm) i
the following
BDLa
0.21
0.29
0.66
0.24
0.18
0.23
n plants grown
concentration
2.5 ppm
1.50
1.88
7.22
2.53
0.89
0.99
in soil with
of cadmium:
5 ppm
2.07
2.51
10.36
2.65
1.09
1.03
BDL - Below detectable limits.
-------
four main categories of food appears to represent a concentrating of cadmium
as it passes up the food chain. Fruits and vegetables have the lowest cadmi.um
content, followed by grains and cereals, then dairy products, and finally
meats and seafoods, which contain twenty to a hundred times more cadmium than
the lower food levels. Tobacco is a plant which is consumed by smoking and
which is very efficient at absorbing cadmium from soils. When tobacco is
smoked, a portion of the cadmium is inhaled and deposited in the lungs.
The major means by which cadmium is deposited on soil are by phosphate
fertilizers, application of sludge, and air emissions. Phosphate fertilizers
produced from phosphate rock are applied to agricultural land in all fifty
states. The phosphate ores used in the manufacture of fertilizer vary in
cadmium content from 3 to 100 ppm depending on the geographical location of
the phosphate mines.
The application of sludge from, pub!ically owned treatment works to crop
land represents another source of cadmium contamination of soil used to grow
food. The concentration of cadmium in sludge varies widely. Industrial
sludge contains as much as 3,400 ppm cadmium while residential sludge contains
12
about one to five ppm. Sludge is applied to soil to replace micronutrients
and to add organic matter to the soil.
Releases of cadmium to the air may cause an increase in the level of
cadmium in nearby soils. Airborne cadmium travels downwind from the source,
settling onto soil. Air releases of cadmium occur from incineration of plastics
and pigments, the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum and the
smelting of primary nonferrous metals.
2.2.3 Cadmium Exposure from Ambient Air
The ambient concentration of cadmium, as with any air pollutant, varies
depending upon the location. Since cadmium usually occurs in the particulate
form, it is susceptible to settling, impaction, rainout, and other natural
means of removal from the air. Cadmium in the atmosphere is mainly in the
14
form of suspended aerosol particles such as oxides, chlorides, or sulfates.
Larger particles settle out very quickly, while smaller ones remain airborne
for long periods of time and are transported greater distances by wind or
10
-------
diffusion. Cadmium concentrations in the atmosphere in the United States are,
with very few exceptions, of the order of a few hundredths or thousandths of
micrograms per cubic meter of air.
2.2.4 Cadmium Exposure from Drinking Water
A minor source of cadmium exposure is through contaminated drinking
water. The level of cadmium in drinking water is expected to be low because
drinking water regulations limit cadmium concentration to 0.01 micrograms per
liter, and because wells supplying drinking water are in aquifers not likely
to be contaminated. In areas not known to be polluted by cadmium, the
concentration in water is less than one part per billion, both in natural
waters and drinking water. Cadmium is relatively insoluble and will precipitate
out of water into sediment.
11
-------
References for Section 2
1. Lucas, J.M. Cadmium: A Chapter from Mineral Facts and Problems,
1980 Edition. U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Preprint from Bulletin 671.
p. 1.
2. Deane, G.L., D. Lynn, and N. Surprenant. Cadmium: Control Strategy
Analysis. GCA Corporation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication No. GCA-TR-75-36-G.
April 1976. p. 13.
3. Reference 2, p. 11.
4. DeCarlo, V.J. Multimedia Levels of Cadmium. Battelle. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Toxic Substances.
Washington, D.C. EPA-560/6-77-032. September 1977. p. 1-1.
5. Bryson, H., et. al. Draft Final Report: Level II Materials Balance-Cadmium
ORB Associates, Inc. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Washington, D.C. September 1980.
p. 6-2.
6. Reference 5, p. 6-1.
7. Reference 2, p. 147.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Health Assessment Document
for Cadmium. Research Triangle Park, NC. Publication No. RTP-81-007.
May 1981. p. 1-25.
9. Reference 5, p. 6-30.
10. Reference 2, p. 125.
11. Reference 5, p. 6-4.
12. Reference 5, p. 6-11.
13. Reference 5, p. 6-18.
14. Reference 4, p. 3-3.
15. Reference 4, p. 2-15.
16. Reference 5, p. 6-38.
12
-------
3. USES OF CADMIUM
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The United States is the largest consumer of cadmium in the world, using
slightly more than one-fourth of the total world refined production. Nearly
5,000 megagrams (5,500 tons) of cadmium were used in the U.S. in 1979.
About two-thirds of U.S. cadmium demand in 1979 was met by imported metal and
ores.
There are four major uses of cadmium, all of which are dissipative.
Figure 3-1 shows the percentage of cadmium consumed in the U.S. for each of
the major uses. According to estimates, approximately 51 percent of the
cadmium consumed by the United States in 1979 was used for electroplating.
The manufacture of batteries required about 22 percent of the national consump-
tion of cadmium in 1979, while pigments required about 13 percent. The
fourth major use of cadmium in 1979 was for the manufacture of plastic stabilizers
which accounted for 11 percent of the cadmium used in 1979. Miscellaneous
uses account for the remaining three percent.
In the future, the relative percentage of cadmium used in the major
applications is expected to change. The manufacture of batteries and pigments
are expected to require a larger share of the cadmium used than is presently
consumed. Electroplating will require a smaller percentage of the market,
but actual tonnage consumed for electroplating should remain constant. The
total amount of cadmium used in the United States is expected to increase by
2
as much as fifty percent by the year 2000.
3.2 ELECTROPLATING
Cadmium has several properties which have led to its widespread use in
electroplating. A very thin coating of cadmium on iron and steel provides
excellent protection from corrosion. Cadmium is widely used for plating motor
vehicle parts, aircraft parts, marine equipment, hardware, household applicances,
13
-------
PLASTIC
STABILIZERS
ELECTROPLATING
51%
OTHER USES
3%
Figure 3-1 U.S. cadmium consumption, 1979.
14
-------
and miscellaneous industrial machinery parts to prevent corrosion. Cadmium
coatings have special resistance to the corrosive effects of seawater and
alkalies, making cadmium an excellent plating material for marine applications.
It is possible to obtain uniform deposition on intricately shaped objects, and
the coating tends to maintain a lustrous appearance for long periods of time.
Electrical contacts which are plated with cadmium have a low electrical resistance
Cadmium-plated parts are easily soldered. In addition, cadmium plating has
little effect on the strength of steel parts stressed in high-temperature
service.
Of all cadmium applications, electroplating seems to be the primary one
for which alternative materials are not available. No substitute can entirely
4
reproduce the properties of cadmium plate, particularly its lustrous appearance.
Zinc can be substituted for cadmium in electroplating except for applications
in alkaline environments, or where the plate must be very thin, or where
solderability or ductility of the plated surface is important.
3.3 PIGMENTS
Cadmium is used as a pigment in water-base paints, plastics, rubber,
inks, ceramic glazes, glass, textiles, enamels, and artists' colors. About
75 percent of cadmium pigments are used to color plastic. Because cadmium
pigments are non-bleeding and alkali-resistant, they are particularly suitable
for plastic automobile interior parts. The high-temperature stability of
cadmium pigments makes them desirable for high temperature plastic molding
operations.
The principal compounds used are cadmium sulfide or cadmium sulfoselenide.
Cadmium sulfide produces colors yellow to light orange, while cadmium
sulfoselenides produce colors orange to deep maroon. These primary pigments
are used or mixed with mercury, zinc, or barium compounds. Cadmium compounds
have outstanding covering power, good stability against heat, light, and
moisture, and good chemical resistance.
The best substitutes for cadmium in pigments are other inorganic compounds.
Certain hydrate ferric oxides and lead and zinc chromates can be substituted
for yellows, but they lack the heat stability in high temperature plastic
molding operations. Ferric oxides can be substituted for cadmium reds, but
they are not as brilliant.
15
-------
3.4 PLASTIC STABILIZERS
Cadmium salts of long-chain organic acids are used as stabilizers for
plastics. These stabilizers halt or slow the discoloration of polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) caused by the breakdown of PVC resin during molding.
Stabilizers containing cadmium are used in almost every plastic material
except plastics used for food packaging.
Organo-tin compounds can be used as substitutes for cadmium compounds
in plastic stabilizers, but they are more expensive than cadmium compounds.
Stabilizers of calcium-zinc composition are competitive in terms of both
performance and cost, and may replace cadmium in some stabilizer applications
in the future.
3.5 BATTERIES
Another major use of cadmium is in the manufacture of batteries. The
nickel-cadmium battery is the most prominent application in this category.
Some cadmium is used to make silver-cadmium batteries, where performance is
more important than cost. Nickel-cadmium batteries are initially more
expensive than lead storage batteries, but have a lifetime at least three
times that of the lead-acid battery. The principal use in the United States
is for small batteries of a sealed cell design because the batteries can be
repeatedly charged and discharged without buildup of internal pressure. The
nickel-cadmium battery is used in alarm systems, pacemakers, portable
appliances and tools, and calculators.
3.6 MISCELLANEOUS USES
Cadmium is used in a large number of miscellaneous applications. In 1979
and 1980, over 500 cadmium-related patents were issued worldwide. Cadmium is
an ingredient in alloys (primarily low-temperature solder), silver brazes, and
a special copper alloy used in automobile radiators. Silver-cadmium alloys
are used in making nuclear reactor control rods. Cadmium phosphates are used
for television tubes and fluorescent tubes. Silver-cadmium oxide is used for
electrical contacts in motor starting switches, relays, and circuit breakers.
Small amounts of cadmium are used in rubber catalysts, fungicides, superconductors,
lubricants, radiation detectors, leather tanning, and solar cells.
16
-------
References for Section 3
1. Lucas, J.M. Cadmium: A Chapter from Mineral Facts and Problems, 1980
Edition. U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. Preprint from Bulletin 671. p. 5.
2. Reference 1, p. 9.
3. DeCarlo, V.J. Multimedia Levels of Cadmium. Battelle. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Toxic Substances, Washington, D.C.
EPA-560/6-77-032. September 1977. p. 1-2.
4. Deane, G.L., D. Lynn, and N. Surprenant. Cadmium: Control Strategy
Analysis. GCA Corporation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication No. GCA-TR-7536-G, April 1976.
pp. 26-27.
5. Coleman, R., et al. Sources of Atmospheric Cadmium. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, N.C. EPA-450/5-79-006.
August 1979. p. 26.
6. Reference 1. p. 7.
7. Reference 4, p. 28.
17
-------
4. SOURCES OF ATMOSPHERIC CADMIUM
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This section presents information on the major source categories of
cadmium emissions. The contribution to nationwide cadmium emissions by the
major cadmium emission sources, fossil fuel combustion, primary nonferrous
smelters including cadmium production, municipal refuse incineration, sludge
incineration, and iron and steel production, is shown in Table 4.1-1. This
section presents process descriptions, geographical distributions, emission
control techniques, emissions estimates, compliance status, and a comparison
of the national emission estimates with other studies for all the major
cadmium emission sources.
In addition to the major cadmium emission sources, a number of minor
sources exist. The minor sources include motor oil combustion, rubber tire
wear, pigment manufacturing, plastic stabilizer manufacturing, battery
manufacturing, cement manufacturing, and fertilizer and fungicide application.
The annual cadmium emissions from these sources are considered small and
consequently were not examined in this study.
18
-------
TABLE 4.1-1 ESTIMATED ANNUAL CADMIUM EMISSIONS OF MAJOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
Annual uncontrolled
emissions
Source
Fossil Fuel Combustion
Coal
Residual oil
Distillate oil
Kerosene and jet fuel
Aviation and motor gasoline
Total
Primary Nonferrous Smelters
Primary zinc smelters
Primary lead smelters
Primary copper smelters
Primary cadmium smelters
Total
Municipal Refuse Incineration
Conventional incinerators
Package incinerators
Total
Wastewater Sludge Incineration
Iron and Steel Industry
Basic oxygen furnaces
Electric arc furnaces
Open hearth furnaces
Sintering
Blast furnaces
Coking
Miscellaneous
Foundries
Total
Total
Mg/yr
997
330
16.5
6.1
14.5
1,364
ND
ND
ND
ND
142
ND
73
114
106
54
22
18.7
22
Tr
3.7
340.4
t/yr
1,100
363
18.2
6.7
16
1,504
-.
—
—
—
159
—
80
126
117
59
25
20.8
24
Tr
4.1
375.9
Annual controlled Percentage of
emissions total controlled
Mg/yr
183 '
314
16.5
6.1
14.5
534
4.2
74 - 97
101
1.3
180 - 204
31.2
3.6
34.8
13
4.6
3.2
2.7
2.0
Tr
Tr
Tr
0.08
12.58
787.2
t/yr
202
345
18.2
6.7
16
588
4.6
82 - 107
111
1.4
197 - 224
34.3
4.0
38.3
14.4
5.0
3.5
3.0
2.3
Tr
Tr
Tr
0.09
13.89
865.0
emissions
68.1
24.2
4.4
1.7
1.6
100.0
Tr = Trace
ND = No data for estimate
19
-------
4.2 FOSSIL FUEL COMBUSTION
4.2.1 Introduction
Over 92 percent of United States energy consumption is generated by
fossil fuel sources. With the exception of natural gas, cadmium is
found in all of fossil fuels. Calculations indicate that as a group,
coal-fired and oil-fired power plants, and residual oil, distillate oil,
gasoline, and kerosene combustion are the largest sources of atmospheric
cadmium emissions, approximately 534 Mg (588 tons) in 1979.
4.2.2 Fossil Fuel Usage
Combustion of fossil fuel containing cadmium occurs in all sectors
of the U.S. economy: utility, industrial, commercial, residential and
transportation. A brief discussion of each sector is presented below.
In 1979, electric utilities accounted for 78 percent of the coal
consumed and approximately 8 percent of the petroleum products consumed.
Over 99.8 percent of the coal consumed was bituminous or lignite. Less
than 0.2 percent of the coal was anthracite. About 87 percent of the
petroleum product consumed was residual oil for oil-fired power plants.
Another 12 percent was distillate oil used for start-up of coal and
oil-fired power plants and in gas turbines. The electric utility sector
also used 0.8 percent of the total jet fuel production.
The industrial, commercial, and residential sectors burn fossil
fuels to meet heating needs. Hot water and steam boilers provide the
majority of industrial and commercial heat, while hot-air furnaces
burning distillate oil are used for space-heating in all three sectors.
Commercial equipment is normally classified in the capacity range of
0.21 to 8.8 gigajoules per hour (0.2 to 8 million BTU per hour).
Industrial heating equipment is normally classified in the capacity
range of 8.8 to 707 gigajoules per hour (8 to 700 million BTU per
hour).
20
-------
In 1979, 1.3 percent of the total coal consumption was in the residential
and commercial sectors, and 21 percent of the total coal consumption was in
the industrial sector. The commercial sector accounted for 15 percent of the
residual fuel oil consumption, and the industrial sector accounted for
21 percent. The residential and commercial sectors combined accounted for
45 percent of the total distillate fuel oil consumption and the industrial
sector accounted for 16 percent. The residential and commercial sectors used
nearly 69 percent of the kerosene produced in 1979 with the industrial sector
accounting for the remainder.
The transportation sector includes both on-highway and off-highway,
railroad, shipping, and aviation fuel usage. For coal, sales to railroad and
vessels accounted for less than 0.01 percent of total 1979 consumption. In
1979, the 16 percent of the total residual fuel oil which went to transportation
was consumed by the shipping industry. Distillate fuel oil consumption in
the transportation sector consists of on-highway diesel, off-highway diesel,
railroads and shipping. Transportation accounted for 36 percent of total
distillate fuel oil usage in 1979. The transportation sector consumed
99 percent of the total jet fuel, 100 percent of the total aviation gasoline,
and 98 percent of the motor gasoline in 1979.
4.2.3 Geographical Distribution
Fossil fuel combustion is distributed all over the United States.
Regional per capita energy consumption rankings vary depending upon the
sector. For the residential/commercial sector, highest per capita consumption
occurs in the Mountain and New England States; lowest per capita consumption
occurs in the South Atlantic and East South Central States. For the industrial
sector, the West South Central States have the highest and New England States
have the lowest per capita consumption. Highest per capita consumption in
the transportation sector occurs in the West South Central and Mountain
States; lowest per capita consumption takes place in the New England and
Middle Atlantic States.2
21
-------
4.2.4 Emission Control Techniques
In the utility and industrial sectors, control of particulate emissions
at coal-fired plants involves electrostatic precipitators (ESP), cyclones,
scrubbers, or fabric filters. In the commercial sector, ESPs or cyclones are
used or boilers are uncontrolled. Where SO control is required, the choice
J\
of method may affect the particulate control. Plants which use flue gas
desulfurization scrubbers usually use venturi scrubbers for particulate
control. Tables 4.2-1, 4.2-2, and 4.2-3 present the percentage usage of
each control device for all coal-consuming sectors except transportation.
Control devices are not generally used in the transportation sector.
Among plants and vehicles that burn residual or distillate oil, only
utility sector boilers use control devices to reduce particulate emissions.
Normal options include cyclones, scrubbers, or ESPs. Particulate emissions
from oil-fired plants are dependent on the grade of fuel fired, with heavier
grades resulting in higher particulate emissions. Tables 4.2-4 and 4.2-5 present
the percentage of utility sector plants using control devices.
4.2.5 Emissions
Table 4.2-6 presents the annual cadmium emissions from fossil fuel
combustion. Based on the fossil fuel supplied in 1979, 534 Mg (588 tons)
of cadmium were emitted into the atmosphere. Cadmium emissions were estimated
using Department of Energy data on fuel supplied to sectors of the U.S.
economy, and calculated nationwide average cadmium emission factors for
each fuel type and sector. The calculation required percentage breakdowns
by fuel type, burner type, and control device.
Table 4.2-1 presents the emission factor calculations for utility
sector coal combustion. Emission factors specific for fuel type, control
device, and burner type were multiplied by percent usage of control device
and percentage of total coal assigned to burner type. The resulting weighted
emission factors were totaled to give a nationwide average emission factor
weighted by coal usage. Since lignite stokers and anthracite-fired boilers
account for only 0.35 percent of utility sector coal consumption, their
emissions were not included in the cadmium emission calculations. Tables 4.2-2
and 4.2-4 present the similar calculations for industrial sector coal and
residential/commercial sector coal, respectively.
22
-------
TABLE 4.2-1 CALCULATION OF CADMIUM EMISSION FACTORS FOR UTILITY COAL
Coal type,
burner type,
control device
Bituminous (95. 8%)
Pulverized dry bottom
ESP
Centrifugal
Other3
No control
Pulverized wet bottom
ESP
Centrifugal
Other
No control
Cyclone
ESP
Centrifugal
Other
No control
Stokers
ESP
Centrifugal
Other
No control
Lignite (4.2%)
Pulverized
ESP
Cyclone
Scrubber
Stokers
Anthracite (0.27%)
Pulverized
Stokers
Percent Percent
of of
coal control
burned device
73
83
11
5
1
11
77
9
7
7
11
89
5
3
3
0.82
44
25
14
16
3.4
100
0.72
100
0.082b
0.096b
0.17b
NATIONWIDE
FACTOR FOR
pg/J
1.7
24
2.8
80
1.4
19
2.6
73
0.3
4.0
0.5
13
1.3
18
2.2
61
0.2
1.0
AVERAGE
Emission
factor
(#/1012 Btu)
(3.8)
(54)
(6.3)
(179)
(3.1)
(42)
(5.8)
(163)
(0.7)
(8.9)
(1.1)
(29)
(3.0)
(42)
(5.1)
(142)
(0.5)
(2.3)
CADMIUM EMISSION
COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS
Weighted
emission factor
pgTJ (#/10i2 Btu)
1.03
1.93
0.10
0.58
0.12
0.19
0.02
0.56
0.03
0.02
0.002
0.04
0.005
0.04
0.003
0.08
0.007
0.007
4.8
(2.40)
(4.49)
(0.23)
(1.36)
(0.28)
(0.44)
(0.05)
(1.31)
(0.07)
(0.05)
(0.005)
(0.09)
(0.01)
(0.09)
(0.007)
(0.19)
(0.02)
(0.02)
(11.1)
aOther - scrubber, fabric filter, etc.
Insignificant contribution.
References 3, 4.
23
-------
TABLE 4.2-2 CALCULATION OF CADMIUM EMISSION FACTORS FOR INDUSTRIAL COAL
ro
Coal type,
burner type,
control device
Bituminous (100%)
Pulverized
ESP
Centrifugal
Scrubber
No control
Stokers
Centrifugal
No control
Percent Percent
of of
coal control
burned device
60
28
45
8
19
40
Emission
factor
pg/J
1.7
24
2.8
80
53 18
47 61
NATIONWIDE AVERAGE CADMIUM
FOR INDUSTRIAL SECTOR COAL
(#/1012 Btu)
(4.0)
(56)
(6.5)
(186)
(42)
(142)
EMISSION FACTOR
COMBUSTION
Weighted
emission factor
pg/J
0.29
6.48
0.13
9.12
3.82
11.47
31
(#/10i2 Btu)
(0.67)
(15.07)
(0.30)
(21.21)
(8.89)
(26.68)
(73)
References: 3, 4.
-------
TABLE 4.2-3 CALCULATION OF CADMIUM EMISSION FACTOR FOR RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL COAL
ro
en
Coal type,
burner type,
control device
Bituminous (64%)
Pulverized
ESP
No control
Stokers
Centrifugal
No control
Anthracite (36%)
Stokers
Centrifugal
No control
Percent Percent
of of
coal control
burned device
14
40
60
50
20
80
36
Emission
factor
pg/J
1.7
80
18
61
(#/1012 Btu)
(4.0)
(186)
(42)
(142)
20 0.22 (0.51)
80 0.73 (1.70)
NATIONWIDE AVERAGE CADMIUM EMISSION FACTOR FOR
RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL SECTOR COAL COMBUSTION
Weighted
emission factor
pg/J
0.10
6.7
1.8
24
0.02
0.21
33
(#/1012 Btu)
(0.22)
(15.6)
(4.2)
(55.8)
(0.05)
(0.49)
(76)
References: 3, 4.
-------
TABLE 4.2-4 RESIDUAL OIL CADMIUM CONCENTRATION FACTORS
Sector,
control
Utility
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Percent
of
plants
40
60
Cadmium
concentration,
ppmwa
1.15
2.3
Weighted
cadmium
concentration, ppmwa
.46
1.38
Concentration factor for residual oil in utility sector
Industrial
2.3
Uncontrolled
100
Concentration factor for residual oil in industrial sector
Commercial
Uncontrolled
100
2.3
Concentration factor for residual oil in commercial sector
Transportation
Uncontrolled
100
2.3
1.8
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
Concentration factor for residual oil in transportation sector 2.3
aParts per million by weight.
References: 3, 4, 5.
-------
TABLE 4.2-5 DISTILLATE OIL CADMIUM CONCENTRATION FACTORS
Sector,
control
Utility
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Percent
of
plants
40
60
Cadmium
concentration,
ppmwa
0.05
0.1
Weighted
cadmium
concentration, ppmwa
0.02
0.06
Concentration factor for distillate oil in utility sector 0.08
Industrial
Uncontrolled 100 0.2 0.1
Concentration factor for distillate oil in industrial sector 0.1
Commercial/Residential
Uncontrolled 100 0.2 0.1
Concentration factor for distillate oil in
commercial/residential sector 0.1
Transportation
Uncontrolled 100 0.1 0.1
Concentration factor for distillate oil
in transportation sector 0.1
aParts per million by weight.
References: 3, 4, 6.
27
-------
TABLE 4.2-6 ANNUAL CADMIUM EMISSIONS FROM FOSSIL FUEL COMBUSTION
Fossil
fuel
Coal
Utility
Industrial
Commercial /residential
Transportation
Total
Residual Oil
Utility
Industrial
Commercial
Transportation
Total
Distillate Oil
Utility
Industrial
Commercial /residential
Transportation
Total
Kerosene and Jet Fuel
Utility
Industrial
Commercial /residential
Transportation
Total
Aviation and Motor Gasoline
Industrial
Commerci al /resi denti al
Transportation
Total
ANNUAL CADMIUM EMISSIONS TOTAL
Fuel
supplied
in 1979
106 bblsa
528.8^
143.0°
9'! b
<.05b
681b
493
214
152
161
1020
70
191
513
432
1206
3
20
44
387
454
31
20
2529
2580
Annual
cadmium
emissions
Mg/yr (TRY)
57
118
8.0
-
183
133
73
53
55
314
.77
2.6
7.1
6.0
16.5
-
-
0.9
5.2
6.1
-
-
14.5
14.5
534
(63)
(130)
(8.8)
-
(202)
(146)
(80)
(58)
(61)
(345)
(.85)
(2.9)
(7.8)
(6.6)
(18.2)
-
-
(1.0)
(5.7)
(6.7
r
-
(16)
(16)
(588)
^Unless otherwise noted.
3Units for "Fuel Supplied in 1979" are Teragrams (Million short tons).
References: 1.
28
-------
Tables 4.2-4 and 4.2-5 present the comparable calculations for residual
oil and distillate oil, respectively. No data were available on actual
measurements of cadmium emissions from oil-fired boilers, so uncontrolled
cadmium emissions were estimated by assuming-that all cadmium present in
the fuel leaves the boiler in the flue gas. For controlled emissions,
3
controls have been reported to average 50 percent cadmium removal efficiency.
Weighted cadmium concentrations in the fuel oil were calculated to estimate an
average cadmium concentration factor for each fuel in each sector.
Appendix B-l presents an example of the calculations used to develop
annual cadmium emissions for coal combustion presented in Table 4.2-1.
Appendix B-2 shows a similar example for residual oil and distillate oil
cadmium emissions. Appendix B-3 indicates the calculation method for estimating
cadmium emissions from kerosene, jet fuel, aviation gasoline, and motor
gasoline. Because no actual measurements of cadmium emissions are available,
emission factors from the Energy and Environmental Analysis Report are used.
4.2.6 Compliance Status*
EPA established a new source performance standard in 1971 which limits
particulate emissions to a maximum of 43 nanagrams/J (0.1 Ib/MM BTU). This
standard was revised to 13 nanograms/J (0.03 Ib/MM BTU) in 1979. Particulate
standards range from a low of 9 nanograms/J (0.02 Ib/MM BTU) in Arizona,
District of Columbia, Nevada, and Vermont for plants larger than 10.6 terajoules/hr
(10,000 MM BTU/hr) to a high of 340 nanograms/J (0.8 Ib/MM BTU) for small
plants in Indiana, Iowa, and North Dakota. The emission standards of most
states for larger facilities range from 43 to 130 nanograms/J (0.1 to 0.3 Ib/MM
BTU). Emission regulations for smaller plants are generally between 86 to
260 nanograms/J (0.2 to 0.6 Ib/MM BTU).7
Q
The 1980 Report of the Council on Environmental Quality presents the
compliance status of 700 major coal-or oil-fired power plants. Eighty percent
or 559 plants were in compliance with emissions limitations. Eighteen percent
*
This is not a record for compliance or enforcement purposes. This information documents data
used in decision making by the Environmental Protection Agency in response to Section 122 of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
29
-------
or 124 plants were violating emission limitations and compliance schedules.
Seventeen plants were listed as "status unknown". No data were available on
industrial and commercial heating plant compliance with state regulations.
4.2.7 Comparison of National Emission Estimate with Other Studies
Measurements of cadmium emissions and cadmium content in fuels, and
distributions by fuel consumption of control devices and burner types were
combined to calculate annual cadmium emissions from fossil fuel combustion of
534 Megagrams (588 tons). In previous studies, Energy and Environmental
Analysis (EEA) estimated 68 Mg (75 tons), Oak Ridge National Laboratory estimated
131-1000 Mg (145-1100 Tons), EPA estimated 180 Mg (198 tons); and Sargent
estimated 118 Mg (130 Tons).6
Higher fuel consumption in recent years accounts for a portion of the
discrepancy between the estimates. As an example, the EEA study shows coal
Q O
consumption at power plants to be 3.56 x 10 Mg (3.91 x 10 tons) of coal.
8 8
This study uses the 1979 value of 4.8 x 10 Mg (5.28 x 10 ) tons of coal for
8 8
power plants plus an additional 1.38 x 10 Mg (1.52 x 10 ) tons in the industrial,
commercial/residential and transportation sectors.
Another difference between EEA's emission estimates and those reported in
this study reflect differences in applicability of control devices to residual
oil-fired utilities. EEA assumed that 99 percent of these plants are
controlled with cyclones. In this study control device applicability in this
industry sector was estimated to be only 40 percent based on a 1981 EPA
o
report. The referenced report also estimated a 50 percent efficiency for
installed control devices.
30
-------
References for Section 4.2
1. Energy Data Report - Annual Energy Balance, 1979. Energy Information
Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. Report
No. DOE/EIA 0181(79). June 1980. 14 pages.
2. The Energy Factbook. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. November, 1980.
3. Shin, C.C., R.A. Orsini, D.G. Ackerman, R. Moreno, E. Moon, L.L. Scinto,
and C. Yu. Emissions Assessment of Conventional Stationary Combustion
Systems; Volume III; Electricity Generation External Combustion Sources.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Research Triangle Park, NC.
EPA-600/7-81-003a. 1981.
4. Surprenant, N.F., W. Battye, D. Roeck, and S.M. Sandberg. Emissions
Assessment of Conventional Stationary Combustion Systems; Volume V:
Industrial Combustion Sources. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-600/7-81-003c. 1981.
5. Tyndall, M.F. F.D. Kodras, J.K. Puckett, R.A. Symonds, and W.C. Wu.
Environmental Assessment of Residual Oil Utilization - Second Annual Report.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC.
EPA-600/7-78-175. September 1978.
6. Coleman, R. et al. Sources of Atmospheric Cadmium, prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
and Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park,
N.C. EPA-450/5-79-006. August 1979. pg. 81.
7. Devitt, Timothy W., and N. Kulujian. Inspection Manual for the
Enforcement of New Source Performance Standards: Fossil-fuel-Fired Steam
Generators. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Publication
No. EPA 340/1-75-002. February, 1975.
8. Environmental Quality - 1980. Council on Environmental Quality, Washington,
D7C~:December 1980. pp. 180, 181.
31
-------
4.3 PRIMARY NON-FERROUS SMELTERS
Cadmium is found as an impurity in zinc, lead and copper ore deposits.
Zinc ores contain the highest concentrations of cadmium; concentrations in
lead and copper ores are much lower. Airborne cadmium emissions result from
the volatilization of this impurity during the pyrometallurgical processing of
these ores.
This section examines the airborne cadmium emissions associated with the
domestic production of zinc, lead, copper and cadmium. The annual controlled
cadmium emissions estimated for these sources are summarized in Table 4.3-1
TABLE 4.3-1 ANNUAL CADMIUM EMISSIONS FROM NON-FERROUS SMELTERS
Source Cadmium emissions
category Mg/yr t/yr
Zinc 4.2 4.6
Lead 74-97 82-107*
Copper 101 111
Cadmium 1.3 1.4
*The range in the annual cadmium emission estimate for lead smelters is due
to the uncertainty associated with the fugitive emission estimate for this
source category.
Only controlled emissions estimates are reported in this section because
the data acquired for these industries are for controlled sources. The
scarcity of uncontrolled emissions data and reliable control efficiencies did
not warrant calculation of uncontrolled emissions. The methods used to
calculate controlled cadmium emissions in order of decreasing reliability are:
smelter specific cadmium stack test data; cadmium/particulate ratios applied
to particulate emissions estimates; and emission factors for cadmium emissions
for various process operations relating cadmium emissions to production rate.
The emissions estimates presented in this section are for emissions
associated with normal operating conditions and do not account for variations
in emissions associated with process start up and upset or control equipment
32
-------
malfunction and bypass. Insufficient information was available to determine
the impact of these conditions on annual cadmium emissions; however, such
impact would likely result in higher annual cadmium emissions rates than
presented in this section.
Detailed information on annual operating times was generally lacking; in
its absence, 24 hours per day, 360 days per year operating time was assumed.
Moreover, many of the smelters employ Supplementary Control Systems (SCS),
whereby emissions are reduced through production curtailment when ambient air
quality monitoring data and meterology information indicate the possibility
of violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for sulfur dioxide.
Insufficient information was available to determine the impact of SCS's on
annual operating times and thus on annual cadmium emissions; however, such
impact would generally result in annual cadmium emission rates lower than the
estimates presented in this section.
4.3.1 Primary Zinc Smelters
4.3.1.1 Process Description Primary zinc smelters process zinc ore
concentrates to produce metallic zinc or zinc oxide. The zinc ore is typically
concentrated at the mine site and transported to the smelters for further
processing. The concentrates contain 50 to 60 percent zinc, primarily as the
1 12
sulfide, with cadmium concentrations ranging from 0.13 to 0.80 percent. '
For the purpose of this study the primary zinc industry is considered in
three process categories: electrolytic zinc production, pyrometallurgical
zinc production, and the direct pyrometallurgical production of zinc oxide.
The most common process is electrolytic recovery; five of the seven
domestic smelters employ this process. In electrolytic recovery, the zinc
sulfide concentrates are roasted to remove most of the sulfur and to form an
impure oxide called calcine. The calcine is leached with sulfuric acid to
form a zinc sulfate solution. The solution is purified through a series of
steps in which impurities are precipitated from the solution and removed by
filtration. The purified solution is then electrolyzed to obtain zinc metal
at the cathode.
33
-------
Roasting is the only major thermal process employed in the electroytic
processing of zinc ore concentrations. In roasting, only a small percentage
of the cadmium in the charge material is volatilized. In addition, all of
the smelters vent the off-gases from the roaster to sulfuric acid plants, the
tail gases of which contain negligible amounts of particulate matter.
Thus, the electrolytic production of zinc has been assumed to result in
negligible airborne cadmium emissions, and is not addressed further in this
section.
Only one plant, St. Joe Minerals Corporation, produces metallic zinc
pyrometallurgically. This company resumed operations at approximately
25 percent of its previous production capacity in early 1981, after having
been inoperative since 1979. 4 Another pyrometallurgical zinc smelter, New
Jersey Zinc Company, discontinued the production of zinc from concentrates
in the latter part of 1980. 5
The pyrometallurgical production of zinc, as practiced by the St. Joe
smelter, consists of three major processes: roasting, sintering the roasted
ore, and reducing the sinter material to metallic zinc. As in the electrolytic
method the ore concentrate is roasted to remove most of the sulfur. The
roasted ore is then mixed with sand, coke, returned sinter fines and other
recycled material, and pelletized. The pelletized material is then roasted
in downdraft sinter machines. The resultant sinter is crushed and screened.
The sinter fines are recirculated to the sinter mix.
The screened sinter, coke and recycled smelter materials are heated in
a rotary preheater and charged into an electrothermic furnace. Electricity is
introduced through graphite electrodes to develop the heat necessary for
smelting. At the operating temperature of the furnace, the zinc oxide is
reduced by the coke to form metallic zinc as a vapor. The vapor is then
condensed to form molten zinc. Furnace residue is discharged and treated for
2
recovery of coke and zinc.
Only one plant, ASARCO-Columbus, directly produces zinc oxide
pyrometallurgically from zinc concentrates. At this smelter, the ore
concentrates are roasted. The resultant zinc calcine is then mixed with
34
-------
coke breeze and densified in a rotary kiln. The densified calcines are
mixed with coke and recycle material and pelletized. The pelletized
material is charged to Wetherill furnaces, where the zinc calcine is reduced
to zinc vapor. The vaporized zinc is then ducted to a combustion chamber
where air is admitted and the zinc vapor oxidized to zinc oxide. The zinc
oxide is collected by a baghouse and is refined further by repeating the
reduction-oxidation process.
4.3.1.2 Geographical Location The locations of the seven domestic
zinc smelters are given in Figure 4.3.1-1.
4.3.1.3 Control Techniques The control techniques for process
emissions employed by the two operating pyrometallurgical zinc smelters are
listed in Table 4.3.1-1. Both smelters treat the off gases from their
roasters in sulfuric acid plants for sulfur dioxide removal. St. Joe controls
emissions from the sintering operations with a baghouse, while off-gases
from the electrothermic furnaces are vented to venturi scrubbers. The
ASARCO-Columbus smelter vents emissions from all point sources to baghouses,
which serve to collect the product zinc oxide.
Fugitive emissions from ore concentrate unloading, handling and storage
are controlled at the St. Joe smelter by enclosure. This smelter also
controls fugitive emissions from sinter preparation and recovery systems and
furnace feed and residue circuits by enclosure or hooding of emission points
with subsequent ventilation to baghouses. Fugitive emission controls of the
ASARCO-Columbus smelter have not been determined.
4.3.1.4 Emissions Estimates. Table-4.3.1-1 presents emissions est.1nwt.es
for the two operating pyrometallurgical zinc plants. The annual cadmium
emissions from these plants are estimated to be 4.2 Mg (4.6 T). Airborne
cadmium emissions from the roasters have been assumed to be negligible as
discussed previously. Cadmium emissions from electrothermic furnaces and
fugitive emission control at the St. Joe smelter are negligible relative to
emissions from the sintering operations and, thus, have not been listed.
35
-------
Company
1) AMAX, Inc.
2) ASARCO, Inc.
3) The Bunker Hill Co.
4) Jersey-Miniere Zinc. Co.
5) National Zinc Co.
6) St. Joe Minerals Corp.
7) ASARCO, Inc.
Location
Sauget, IL
Corpus Christi, TX
Kellogg, ID
Clarksville, TN
Bartlesville, OK
Monaca, PA
Columbus, OH
Type
Electrolytic
Electrolytic
Electrolytic
Electrolytic
Electrolytic
Pyrometallurgic
Pyrometallurgic
(ZnO only)
Figure 4.3.1-1 Locations of primary zinc smelters,
36
-------
TABLE 4.3.1-1 PRIMARY PYROMETALLURGICAL ZINC SMELTERS
SMlter
St. Joe Minerals
Corp.*
Monica, PA
ASARCO, Inc.b
Colu*bus, OH
INDUSTRY TOTAL
Capacity
Hg/yr
(tpy) Process
45,400 Roasters
(50,000)
Sinter plant
Electro thermic
furnaces
Total
20,000 Roaster
(22,000)
Dens1fy1ng kilns
UetheHll ZnO
furnaces
ZnO Rotary
Total
Process
rate
Hg/hr
(t/hr)
7.7
(8.5)
6.1
(6.7)
2.9
(3.2)
3.6
(4.0)
Eff1-
Control clency
technique %
Acid plants
(2 In series)
Baghouse 99
VentuH
scrubber
Acid plant
Baghouse 99.9
Baghouse 99.9
Baghouse 99.9
Paniculate Cadnlun
emissions missions
kg/hr
C/hr)
5.0
(11)
0.36
(0.8)
2.2
(4.9)
0.01
(0.02)
Mg/yr kg/hr
(tpy) (l/hr)
44 0.45
(48) (0.99)
1.7 0.045
(1.9) (0.10)
18.2 0.01
(20.1) (0.02)
0.73
(0.8)
Hg/yr
(tpy)
3.9
(4.3)
3.9
(4.3)
0.23
(0.25)
0.08
(0.09)
—
0.31
(0.34)
4.2
(4.6)
Ccupl lance
status
SIP - In
convl lance
SIP - In
compliance
This 1s not a record for compliance or enforcement purposes. This Information ctocunents data
used In decision Baking by the Environmental Protection Agency 1n response to Section 122 of the
Clean A1r Act Awndwnts of 1977.
37
-------
Footnotes for Table 4.3.1-1
a) Information on current operations of St. Joe Minerals Corp. was obtained
from a plant trip to this smelter and is summarized in reference 2.
Particulate emissions have been estimated from the particulate grain
loading determined by a 1979 stack test11 and the design capacity volumetric
flow rate of the sinter plant baghouse.
b) Information on ASARCO-Columbus was obtained from a 1980 air pollution
emission report.6 This report included process weight rates, equipment
utilization rates, control efficiencies and estimated particulate emissions.
There are no data available on cadmium emissions from zinc oxide production.
To estimate cadmium emissions, cadmium to particulate ratios calculated
from stack test data for a pyrometallurgical smelter1 were applied to
particulate emission estimates. To do so equivalence was assumed between
densifying and sintering and between reducing in retort furnaces and
reducing and subsequent oxidation in Wetherill furnaces, and the following
ratios applied:
Process Cd/PM
Sintering 0.13
Reducing 0.0046
38
-------
4.3.1.5 Compliance Status*
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Particulate Matter:
Both of the primary zinc smelters listed in Table 4.3.1-1 are in compliance"
with SIP limitations on particulate emissions.
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead:
Pennsylvania is still developing their lead SIP and will probably submit
it within the next six months.7 It is expected that the St. Joe smelter will
be in compliance. Ohio has completed the development of their SIP, but has
yet to submit it to the EPA regional office.8 It is expected that the
9
ASARCO-Columbus smelter will be in compliance.
New Source Performance Standard:
An NSPS has been promulgated for zinc smelters (40 CFR 60.170) which
limits particulate emissions from roasters and sinter machines; however, this
standard does not apply to either of the smelters listed in Table 4.3.1-1
4.3.1.6 Comparison of National Emission Estimates with Other Studies
Over the past several years, a number of studies have estimated annual cadmium
emissions for the primary zinc industry by material balance or application of
emission factors. For example, Energy and Environmental Analysis estimated
480 Mg (529 T); EPA estimated 584 Mg (644 T); Sargent and Metz estimated 92 Mg
(102 T); GCA estimated 454 Mg (500 T); and Mitre estimated 561 Mg (619 T).10
This study derived an estimate of annual cadmium emissions of 4.2 Mg (4.6 T)
from site-specific data on emissions, control techniques and efficiencies of
these smelters. This estimate is considerably lower than previous estimates
because of the reduction in emissions associated with the reduction in
pyrometallurigical processing. All but two of the primary zinc smelters have
converted from pyrometallurgical to electrolytic processing. In addition, the
two remaining pyrometallurgical smelters have recently reduced production,
with New Jersey Zinc ceasing ore processing operations altogether and St. Joe
reducing production to one-fourth of its capacity.
This is not a record for compliance or enforcement purposes. This information documents data
used in decision making by the Environmental Protection Agency in response to Section 122 of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
39
-------
References for Section 4.3.1
1. PEDCo Environmental Inc. Environmental Assessment of the Domestic Primary
Copper, Lead and Zinc Industries. Prepublication Copy. Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68-03-2537.
October 1978.
2. Memo to Copeland, John, EPA from Anderson, E., GCA Corp. June 1981.
Report of trip to St. Joe Minerals Corp., Monaca, PA.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Control Techniques for Particulate
Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume 2 (Preliminary Draft).
Research Triangle Park, NC. July 1980.
4. Telecon. Peze, J., Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
with Anderson, E., GCA Corp. March 2, 1981. St. Joe Zinc Corp. operations.
5. Telecon. McGrogan, Jack, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources with Anderson, E., GCA Corp. January 5, 1981. New Jersey Zinc
Co. operations.
6. Letter and attachments from Zwayer, M., Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency to Anderson, E., GCA Corp. January 9, 1981. ASARCO, Inc.,
Columbus, OH.
7. Telecon. Swanson, N. EPA, Region III with Anderson, E., GCA Corp.
March 4, 1981. Status of Pennsylvania's Lead SIP-
8. Telecon. Kelly, J., EPA with Anderson, E., GCA Corp. April 6, 1981.
Status of Ohio's Lead SIP-
9. Telecon. Zwayer, M., Ohio Environmental Protection Agency with
Anderson, E., GCA Corp. March 6, 1981. ASARCO-Columbus operations.
10. Coleman, R. et al. Sources of Atmospheric Cadmium. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC. Publication
No. EPA-450/5-79-006. August 1979.
11. Telecon. Thompson J., EPA Region III with Anderson, E., GCA Corp.
May 15, 1981. Particulate emission test conducted on St. Joe Minerals
Corp. sintering operation, May 1979.
40
-------
4.3.2 Primary Lead Smelters
4.3.2.1 Process Description. Lead is produced at primary lead smelters
from lead ore concentrates. The concentrates, containing 50 to 75 percent
lead as lead sulfide, are normally produced'at the mine site from ores
containing three to eight percent lead. The production of metallic lead
from these concentrates involves three basic processes: sintering, blast
furnace reduction, and refining.
In the sintering process, the ore concentrates are blended with
recycled sinter, flue dusts, sand and other inert materials, pelletized, and
roasted in updraft sinter machines. During the roasting process the lead
sulfide in the concentrates is oxidized to lead oxide and sulfur dioxide.
Simultaneously, the charge material is agglomerated to form a dense,
permeable material called sinter. The sinter is crushed and screened for
the removal of fines, which are recycled.
The screened sinter is then mixed with coke and fluxing materials, and
charged into a blast furnace. At the operating temperature of the blast
furnace, the coke reduces most of the metallic oxides to yield a molten mass
of metal, which can separate into as many as four layers, depending on
the composition of the charge. Some of the metallic impurities interact with
the flux to form a slag, which typically contains high concentrations of zinc.
Copper, if present in lead ores, reacts with residual sulfur to form a matte that
separates into a layer beneath the slag. If the charge is high in arsenic
and/or antimony, a speiss layer will form under the matte, containing arsenides
and antinomides of iron and other metals. The bottom layer of lead bullion
is 94 to 98 percent lead. Upon completion of the process, the slag is
discharged to a fuming furnace to recover the zinc in the slag as zinc oxide.
Matte and speiss are sent to a copper smelter for recovery of copper.
The lead bullion is then refined to eliminate remaining impurities. In
the refining process, the bullion is transferred to a series of dressing
kettles, where impurities are selectively removed as drosses from the lead.
The drosses are treated further in a reverberatory or retort furnace for the
2
collection of lead and the concentration of other metal values.
41
-------
4.3.2.2 Geographical Location There are currently six primary lead
smelters in operation in the United States. The locations of these smelters
are listed in Figure 4.3.2-1.
4.3.2.3 Emission Control Techniques As shown in Table 4.3.2-1,
baghouses are used extensively for the control of particulate matter in the
off gases from sinter machines, blast furnaces and dross furnaces. In many
cases, the blast furnace and dross furnace are served by the same baghouse.
At four of the six smelters, the sintering operations produce both a strong
and a weak sulfur dioxide stream. The strong stream is treated in a sulfuric
acid plant, while the weak stream is vented to a baghouse. Of the other two
smelters, one recirculates the off gases of the blast furnace to attain a
single stream with a sufficient concentration of sulfur dioxide to be treated
by an acid plant; the other smelter vents all of the off gases from the
sinter machine to a baghouse.
Major sources of fugitive emissions include: the handling, treating and
charging of recovered sinter into the sinter machine; the handling and
transfer of lead ore concentrate, zinc fuming furnace vents, blast furnace
and dross furnace leakage and tapping operations. Fugitive emissions from
sinter preparation and recovery systems have been controlled by hooding or
enclosure of emission points and exhausting captured emissions to a control
device, and by evacuation of the emissions from the sinter building to a
control device. Fugitive emissions from the storage, handling and transfer
of concentrate have been controlled by wet suppression or enclosure. Fugitive
emissions from blast furnaces have been controlled at some smelters by enclosure
of the source or by the use of fixed or movable hoods with subsequent venting
to a control device.
4.3.2.4 Emissions- Table 4.3.2-1 presents emissions estimates for the
six primary lead smelters in the United States. The annual cadmium emissions
from these smelters are estimated to be 74-97 Mg (82-107 tons). Controlled
pofnt sources account for 41 Mg (45 tons), while 33-56 Mg (37-62 tons) are front
fugitive sources. Annual emissions from Bunker Hill account for the majority
of the emissions from the primary lead industry, with point sources emitting
30 Mg/yr (33 T/yr) and fugitive sources contributing 17 Mg/yr (19 T/yr).
42
-------
"---. I
vT—'
U-r-
Company
1) AMAX-Hotnestake Lead Tollers
2} ASARCO, Inc.
3) ASARCO, Inc.
4) ASARCO, Inc.
5) The Bunker Hill Co.
6) St. Joe Minerals Corp.
Location
Boss, MO
East Helena, MT
Glover, MO
El Paso, TX
Kellogg, ID
Herculaneum, MO
Figure 4.3.2-1 Locations of primary lead smelters.
43
-------
TABLE 4.3.2-1 PRIMARY LEAD SMELTERS
Capacity
"9/yr
Smelter (tpy)
The Bunker H111 Co.b 118,000
Kallogg, ID (130,000)
ASARCO. Inc.' 109,000
East Helena. MT (120,000)
AMAX - Hcmestake 127,000
Lead Tollers" (140,000)
Boss, MO
ASARCO, Inc.k 100,000
Clover. MD (110,000)
This Is not a record for co
used 1n decision making by
Clean A1r Act Amendments of
Process
Sinter machine -
Strong SO, stream
Ueak SOi stream
Blast furnace
Refining0
Electric furnace
Dross reverteratory
furnace
Zinc fuming furnace
Feed preparation
Fugitives*
Total
Sinter machine -
Strong SOi stream
Ueak SO! stream
Blast furnaces (1/2)
Dross reverberatory
furnace
Z1nc fuming furnace
Fugitives9
Total
Sinter machine -
Strong SO, stream
Ueak SO] stream
Blast furnace
Dross retort furnace
Sinter preparation
1 return system1
Fugitives^
Total
Sinter machine
Blast furnace
Crossing kettles
Sinter plant.
ventilation
Fugitives'
Total
Process
rate
Mg/hr
(t/hr)
75
(83)
44
(49)
44
(49)
-
10
(11)
29
(32)
73
(81)
29
(32)
29
(32)
6.2
(6.8)
25
(28)
31
(34)
1
28
(31)
6.2
(6.8) J
68
(75)
46
(51)
68
(75)
Eff1-
Control clency
technique X
Acid plant
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
--
Acid plant
Baghouse 99
Baghouse 99
Baghouse 99
Acid plant
Baghouse 99
Scrubbers (9) 98
Baghouse 99
Baghouse 99
BagtKHise and 99
scrubber
Partlculite
emissions
kg/hr Hg/yr
(»/hr) (tpy)
SO 430
(110) (470)
16 140
(35) (150)
11 95
(24) (105)
7.3 63
(16) (70)
410 3500
(900) (3900)
30 262
(67) (289)
10 86
(22) (95)
7.7 66
(17) (73)
8.6 74
(19) (82)
79 284
(87) (360)
5.0 43
(11) (48)
1.7 15
(3.7) (16)
8.6 75
(19) (83)
C
em
kg/hr
(l/hr)
2.8
(6.1)
0.73
(1.6)
0.02
(0.04)
0.03
(0.07)
2.0
(4.4)
0.080
(0.067)
0.32
(0.70)
0.010
(0.022)
0.086
(0.19)
0.58
(0.64)
0.005
(0.011)
0.05
(0.11)
0.026
(0.057)
issions
(tw)
23
(26)
6.2
(6.9)
0.15
(0.17)
0.27
(0.30)
17
(19)
47
152]
0.26
(0.29)
2.7
(3.0)
0.085
(0.094)
0.74
(0.82)
3.8
(4.2)
2.4
(2.7)
0.82
(0.87)
4.7 - 24
(5.2 - 27)
7.9 - 28
(8.8 - 31)
0.05
(0.05)
0.45
(0.50)
0.23
(0.25)
0.18
(0.20)
0.9
(1.0)
Compl Unce
status
SIP - Out of
compl Unce
SIP - In
compliance
SIP, In
compliince
SIP - In
compliance
mpl lance or enforcement purposes. This Information documents data
the Environmental Protection Agency 1n response to Section 122 of the
1977.
CONTINUED
44
-------
TABLE 4.3.2-1 (continued)
Capacity
Hg/yr
Smelter (tpy)
ASARCO, Inc." 109.000
E1 Paso, TX (120,000)
St. Joe Lead Corp.q 204,000
Herculaneun, MO (225,000)
IHOUSTRT TOTAL
Process Paniculate
rate Effl- emissions
fig/nr tontrol dency kg/hr Hg/yf
Process" (t/hr) technique 1 (l/hr) (tpy)
Sinter machine 29 Acid plant
(32)
Blast furnace \
furnace ?
Dressing kettles )
Z1nc fuming furnace Baghouse -- i
Oeleadlng kilns Baghouse — '
Sinter plant, Baghouse — 20 172
ventilation0 (45) (190)
Fugitives"
Total
Sinter machine - 77
Strong SO, stream (85) Add plant 99
Weak SO: stream \
Blast furnaces (2/3) 77 ( Baghouse 99
(85) /
Dross reverberatory 4.5 /
furnace (5)
Sinter preparation Scrubbers (5) 98
a return system1"
Fugitives^
Total
Cadmium
emissions
kg/hr Hg/yr
(l/hr) (tpy)
2.7
(3.0)
0.18"
(0.20)
0.08 0.67
(0.17) (0.74)
0.74
(0.82)
4.3
(4.7)
6.2
(6.8)
1.6
(1.8)
2.1 - 4.8
(2.3 - 5.3)
9.8 - 13
(11 - 14)
74 - 97
(82 - 107)
Compliance
status
SIP - In
compliance
NSPS - Out of
compliance
SIP - In
compliance
This Is not a record for compliance or enforcement purposes. This Information documents data
used 1n decision making by the Environmental Protection Agency 1n response to Section 122 of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
45
-------
Footnotes for Table 4.3.2-1
a) Capacity data from reference 28.
b) Information on Bunker Hill's point source emissions and associated process
parameters was derived from an incomplete copy of a summary of the results
of stack tests conducted at the smelter in 1974.9 Listed particulate
emissions were determined from front-half catch; cadmium emissions were
determined from the total catch. Sources constituting negligible sources
of cadmium emissions (i.e. slag granulators) were not included. Process
information for the zinc fuming furnace was obtained from reference 11.
c) The process emission sources listed under refining are those which were
measured by the emission test on the smelter main stack; they do not
represent a comprehensive listing of processes associated with refining.
d) This category includes emissions from: pelletizing dryer, ore
preparation plant rodmill and baghouse, and sinter tank return.
e) The fugitive emission estimate is based on the result of emissions tests
conducted at this smelter in 1974, reported in reference 10. Particulate
concentrations were measured using a portable dust sampler and high
volume samplers. These concentrations were used in conjunction with
volumetric flow data to estimate fugitive emission rates. For large
areas where volumetric flow measurements were not possible, fugitive
emission rates were estimated based on observed meteorological conditions.
It was estimated that approximately 80% of the plant's fugitive dust
emissions were measured and that the emission rates based on these
measurements are within +50% of the actual values.
f) All information about ASARCO-East Helena was derived from references 12-15.
Point source emission estimates were taken from a summary of the results
of stack tests conducted at the plant in September of 1979.12 Particulate
and cadmium emission rates were determined from total catch.
g) Fugitive emissions were calculated from data tabulated in reference 15.
This study estimated fugitive emission rates from high volume sampler
measurements for the ASARCO smelters in East Helena and Glover. These
measurements were not comprehensive; however, for emission sources not
included, emissions were not visually evident. Thus, the figures may be
taken to be approximately representative of fugitive emissions from these
smelters.
h) Information on the AMAX smelter operations has been drawn from
references 17-22. Cadmium emissions from the smelter were estimated .by
applying a cadmium/particulate ratio of 7.4 x 10"3 derived from a 1973
stack test on the smelter's rate from a 1977 test.19 Process weight
46
-------
rates and equipment utilization times were determined from AMAX's response to
the Missouri emissions inventory questionnaire.18 Annual operating times of
8007 and 8424 hrs/yr were used for the sinter machine and blast furnace respective!
i) The cadmium emissions estimate for this source was determined from the
application of a cadmium/particulate ratio for fugitive emissions from the
sinter transfer area at the Bunker Hill smelter to estimated particulate
emissions. Particulate emissions were estimated using stack test results
that were available for four of the nine scrubber outlets.19 Equivalence
between tested and untested emission points was assumed in the same
manner employed in the Missouri Lead SIP.8
j) Fugitive emissions from AMAX and St. Joe were estimated using lead
emission estimates from the Missouri SIP8 and cadmium to lead ratios for
the relevant process sources from fugitive emission tests at ASARCO-Glover,
ASARCO, East Helena and Bunker Hill-10"15
k) Information on ASARCO-Glover operations has been drawn from references 8,
16, 23-25. Cadmium emissions have been estimated by applying cadmium to
particulate ratios from ASARCO-East Helena to particulate emission rates
from 1980 stack tests.24'25 It was assumed that the cadmium concentrations
in the weak gas and total gas streams from sinter machines are the same.
1) Cadmium emissions from the ASARCO-Glover sinter plant ventilation system
were estimated by applying a cadmium/particulate ratio of 3.0 x 10~3
for fugitive emissions from the plants sinter building15 to particulate
emission test result24'25
m) The El Paso smelter has been modified during the past few years. There
are no emissions data available for the current operations of the blast
furnace. Thus, cadmium emissions were estimated by the extrapolation of
ASARCO-East Helena data.
n) The joint emissions from the zinc fuming furnace and deleading kilns
were approximated by doubling the extrapolated emissions estimate for
zinc fuming furnace emissions.
o) Cadmium emissions from the ASARCO-E1 Paso sinter plant ventilation
system were estimated by applying a cadmium to particulate ratio of
3.8 x 10"3 for ASARCO-East Helena sinter plant fugitive emissions15
to particulate emission test results26 for the El Paso plant.
p) Fugitive emissions for ASARCO-E1 Paso were estimated by assuming
equivalence between this plant and the East Helena plant and extrapolating
the emission rate from East Helena.
q) Information on St. Joe's operation was taken from references 8, 16, 27.
Emissions from this smelter have been estimated by the extrapolation of
ASARCO-East Helena data.
47
-------
r) Cadmium emissions from the five scrubbers controlling the sinter preparation
and return system have been estimated by applying a cadmium/lead ratio
for the sinter transfer area at Bunker Hill10 to the lead emissions
estimate listed in the Missouri Lead SIP.8
43
-------
Due to a lack of emissions data, emissions from the refining process
generally have not been estimated. It has been assumed that cadmium emissions
from refining are negligible relative to the listed process sources, because
the operating temperatures of the process equipment employed in refining
would not result in any appreciable volatilization of the cadmium remaining
in the lead bullion.
Similarly, cadmium emissions from sulfuric acid plants have not been
estimated. Stack test results for the acid plant at the ASARCO-E1 Paso
smelter, which is representative of acid plants used in the industry, show a
low particulate emission rate. Thus cadmium emissions from acid plants can
be assumed to be negligible and therefore, emissions from acid plants have
not been included in the estimates of Table 4.3.2-1.
Cadmium emissions data for fugitive emissions were available for Bunker
Hill, ASARCO-Glover and ASARCO-East Helena. For AMAX and St. Joe, fugitive
emissions were determined using estimates of lead emissions from the Missouri
Lead SIP and cadmium to lead ratios for associated process sources from
fugitive emission tests at ASARCO-Glover, ASARCO-East Helena and Bunker Hill,
as appropriate. Where more than one ratio was available an upper and lower
estimate was generated; this resulted in a range of estimates.
4.3.2.5 Compliance Status *
National Ambient Quality Standard for Particulate Matter:
With the exception of the Bunker Hill smelter, all of the primary lead
smelters are in compliance with SIP limitations on particulate emissions.
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead:
Violations of the NAAQS for lead have been monitored at all of the
primary lead smelters except the ASARCO-Glover smelter. The current status
of the development of state implementation plans for the lead standard in the
states where these smelters are located is as follows: Missouri's plan has
This is not a record for compliance or enforcement purposes. This information documents data
used in decision making by the Environmental Protection Agency in response to Section 122 of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
49
-------
been approved; Texas is revising its plan with submittal expected in 1981;
Montana is developing a lead SIP for the East Helena region with submittal
expected in 1982;6 the implementation plan for Idaho is still in the
development stage. The completion date of Idaho's plan is uncertain at this
time since the State's air pollution control program was recently eliminated
by the State legislature. Missouri's SIP addresses emissions from three of
the primary lead smelters: AMAX, ASARCO-Glover and St. Joe Lead. As
described in the draft plan, the overall reduction (from 1979 levels) in lead
o
emissions from these three smelters is 47 percent.
New Source Performance Standard:*
A New Source Performance Standard for primary lead smelters has been
promulgated (40 CFR 60.180) which limits particulate emissions from sinter
machines, blast furnaces, and dross reverberatory furnaces to (50 milligrams
per normal cubic meter (0.022 grains per dry standard cubic foot). The
particulate emissions from the sinter plant ventilation baghouse at ASARCO-E1
Paso exceed this limitation.
4.3.2.6 Comparison of National Emission Estimates with Other Studies
Previous studies have estimated annual cadmium emissions for the primary lead
smelters by material balance or the application of emission factors. For
example, Energy and Environmental Analysis estimated 1.8 Mg (2 T); GCA
estimated 50 Mg (65 T); EPA estimated 148 Mg (163 T); MITRE estimated 50 Mg
(55 T); and Davis and Oak Ridge National Laboratory both estimated 952 Mg
(1050 T).29
This study derived an estimate of annual cadmium emissions of 74-97 Mg
(82-107 T) through a site-specific assessment, in which cadmium emissions data
for point and fugitive emission sources were obtained for three of six
smelters. This site-specific assessment indicated considerable variation in
cadmium emissions among the smelters. This variation could account for the
broad range in estimates made by the less detailed studies conducted previously
This is not a record for compliance or enforcement purposes. This information documents data
used in decision making by the Environmental Protection Agency in response to Section 122 of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
50
-------
References for Section 4.3.2
1. PEDCo Environmental Inc. Environmental Assessment of the Domestic
Primary Copper, Lead and Zinc Industries. Prepublication Copy. Prepared
for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68-04-2537.
October 1978.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Control Techniques for Particulate
Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume 2 (Preliminary Draft).
Research Triangle Park, NC. July 1980.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical Guidance for Control
of Industrial Process Fugitive Particulate Emissions. Research Triangle
Park, NC. Publication No. EPA 450/3-77-010. March 1977.
4. Letter with attachments from Draper, G., EPA, Region VI to Anderson, E.,
GCA Corp. April 1, 1981.
5. Federal Register 46: 23412. April 1981.
6. Telecon. Kelly, J., EPA with Anderson, E., GCA Corp. February 12, 1981.
Status of lead state implementation plans.
7. Environmental Reporter 11(5): 2203. April 10, 1981.
8. Missouri Department of Natural Resources. Missouri's Air Pollution
Control Plan for Lead. Draft. 1980.
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X. Point Atmospheric
Emission Summary for the Bunker Hill Smelter. 1974. (incomplete
citation).
10. Jutze, G.A. and L.A. Elfers. In Plant Fugitive Dust Emission Measurements:
Bunker Hill Lead Smelter. PEDCo Environmental Specialists, Inc.
Cincinnati, OH. September 1975.
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Evaluation of Zinc Fuming Furnace
Fugitive Emissions: Bunker Hill Lead Smelter, Kellogg, ID. Denver, CO.
Publication No. EPA-330/2-77-010. April 1977.
12. Pacific Environmental Services. Emission Measurements at the ASARCO
Lead Smelter in East Helena, Montana. Volume II: Results, Calculations
and Appendices. May 1980.
13. Memo from Davenport, M., EPA Region X to files. July 22, 1980. Particulate
and Lead Stack Test at ASARCO Lead Smelter, East Helena, MO on
September 20-29, 1979.
5]
-------
14. Memo from Davenport, M., EPA Region X to Vinson, L., EPA Region X.
July 1, 1980. Primary Non-ferrous Smelter Progress Report for ASARCO,
East Helena.
15. Constant, P., M. Marcus and W. Maxwell. Sample Fugitive Lead Emissions
from Two Primary Lead Smelters. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication No. EPA-450/3-77-031.
October 1977.
16. Radian Corp. Interim Progress Report: Exhibit A Work. Draft.
December 5, 1980.
17. Phillips, W.R. EPA Region VII Inspection Report: AMAX Lead Company
of Missouri, Buick Smelter. July 15, 1980.
18. Letter with attachments from Whitaker, W.E., AMAX Lead Company to
Jacobs, L.D., EPA, Region VII. July 22, 1980. Response to Missouri
Emissions Inventory Questionnaire.
19. STW Testing, Inc. Test Report: Emission Tests of Particulates for
Sinter Plant Ducon Outlet, Furnace Ducon, Smooth Roll Ducon and Baghouse
at AMAX Lead Company, Boss, Missouri. December 1977.
20. Telecon. Reynolds, B., Missouri Department of Natural Resources with
Anderson, E., GCA. April 3, 1981.
21. Wixson, B.G., ed. The Missouri Lead Study. Final Progress Report to
the National Science Foundation. NSF Grant AEN 74-22935-Aol. May 1972
to May 1977.
22. Gibson, F.W. The Buick Smelter of Amax - Homestake Lead Tollers. In:
AIME World Symposium on Mining and Metallurgy of Lead and Zinc.
Volume II: Extractive Metallurgy of Lead and Zinc. C.H. Gotten'!!
and J.M. Cigan (eds.). New York, AIME. 1970. p. 738-776.
23. Letter from attachments from Nikkila, N., Missouri Department of
Natural Resources to Anderson, E., GCA Corp., April 8, 1981. Results
of emission tests at ASARCO-Glover.
24. Letter with attachment from Crawford, T., Missouri Department of
Natural Resources to Anderson, E., GCA Corp., April 21, 1981.
25. Paul, R.B. The Glover Lead Smelter and Refinery. In: AIME World
Symposium of Lead and Zinc. Volume II: Extractive Metallurgy of Lead
and Zinc. C.H. Cotterill and J.M. Cigan (eds.). New York, AIME.
1970. p. 777-789.
26. Letter with attachements from Draper, G., EPA, Region VI to
Anderson, E., GCA Corp. April 1, 1981. Non-ferrous smelters in Region VI
27. Beilstein, Donald H. "The Herculaneum Lead Smelter of St. Joe Minerals
Corporation." I: AIME World Symposium on Mining and Metallurgy of
Lead and Zinc. Volume II: Extractive Metallurgy of Lead and Zinc.
C.H. Cotteri!! and J.M. Cigan (eds.). New York, AIME. 1979. p. 702-737.
52
-------
28. Rathjen, J.A. and T.J. Rowland. Lead. Reprint from Bureau of Mines
Minerals Yearbook 1978-79.
29. Coleman, R. et al. Sources of Atmospheric Cadmium. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC. Publication
No. EPA-450/5-79-006. August 1979.
53
-------
4-3.3 Primary Copper Smelters
4.3.3.1 Process Description
Copper is produced at primary copper smelters from copper ore concentrates.
The concentrates, containing 20 to 30 percent copper as copper sulfide, are
normally produced at the mine site from ores containing less than one percent
copper. The production of metallic copper from these concentrates involves
four basic operations: roasting, smelting, converting and refining.
The copper concentrates may be roasted to eliminate a portion of the sulfur,
to remove volatile impurities such as arsenic, and to preheat the material
for charging into the smelting furnace. Approximately half of the primary
smelters roast concentrates prior to smelting; the other half smelt the
2
concentrates directly.
In the smelting operation, roasted or raw concentrates are melted in a
smelting furnace with limestone and silicaceous flux. Copper in the charge
combines with sulfur to form cuprous sulfide. Excess sulfur reacts with iron
to form ferrous sulfide. The combination of these two sulfides, known as
matte, separates by gravity from the slag. The slag is tapped from the
furnace and discarded and the matte is withdrawn for transfer to converters.
In the converting operation, the copper sulfide in the matte is oxidized
to form blister copper (about 99 percent copper). Copper converting is a
batch process consisting of two modes of operation. In the first, referred
to as the slag blow, air is blown through the charge of molten matte and
siliceous fluxes and the resultant iron-bearing slag is removed, leaving
molten copper sulfate. This process proceeds in a stepwise manner until a
sufficient charge of molten copper sulfate (white metal) has accumulated,
when the copper blow, the second state of the converting process, begins. In
the copper blow, air is blown through the metal to oxidize it to blister copper.
Depending upon the copper concentration of the matte, one converter cycle
lasts nine to seventeen hours, with the slag blow typically comprising 80 to
4
90 percent of the cycle.
Eleven of the fifteen smelters fire refine the blister copper from the
converters. In fire refining, air is forced into the molten blister copper
bath, oxidizing impurities and some of the copper. Fluxes may be added to
54
-------
slag off other undesirable constituents. When the copper oxide content
reaches about one percent, the slag is skimmed. After the oxidation is
complete, the bath is deoxidized with green logs (poling) or reformed gas.
When this process has reached the desired stage, the molten copper is poured
into molds to make anodes for electrolytic refining. The furnaces employed
3
in fire refining are typically referred to as anode furnaces.
4.3.3.2 Geographical Location
There are currently 15 primary copper smelters in operation in the United
States. The locations of these smelters are given in Figure 4.3.3-1.
4.3.3.3 Emission Control Techniques
The control techniques for process emissions employed by individual
copper smelters are listed in Table 4.3.3-1. Control devices for particulate
emissions from roasting, smelting, and converting operations include
mechanical collectors (cyclones and settling flues), hot and cold electrostatic
precipitators (ESP's), fabric filters, and scrubbers. Electrostatic
precipitators are by far the most commonly applied control technique. The
application of venturi scrubbers at copper smelters is limited to a few
smelters where they are used to augment gas stream precleaning systems and to
provide additional cooling prior to acid manufacturing. Similarly, the
application of baghouses is limited; only one smelter currently uses baghouses
for the control of particulates in smelter off gases.4
Off gases from smelter equipment which produce relatively high
concentrations of sulfur dioxide, inlcuding converters, fluid bed roasters,
and non-reverberatory smelting furnaces, are generally treated in single or
double contact acid plants for sulfur dioxide removal.5
Off gases from reverberatory furnaces are typically treated in hot or
cold ESPs. Hot ESPs handle gases at temperatures up to370°C (700°F). Cold ESP
systems cool off gases by radiation or water sprays to about 150°C (302°F) prior to
collection. The cold ESP operating temperatures result in higher control
efficiencies for some trace metals.
55
-------
-—r---__
/ ~~---
9 /
i
'T--
I ^ «
\ I
""•?- '
' ----,_(
72 /
10 14' 8
12
^ X
L---I r-*'X
Company
1) ASARCO, Inc.
2) ASARCO, Inc.
3) ASARCO, Inc.
4) Cities Service Co.
5) Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co.
6) Kennecott Copper Corp.
7) Kennecott Copper Corp.
8) Kennecott Copper Corp.
9) Kennecott Copper Corp.
10) Magma Copper Co.
11) Phelps Dodge Copper Corp.
12) Phelps Dodge Copper Corp.
13) Phelps Dodge Copper Corp.
14) Phelps Dodge Copper Corp.
15) Copper Range Co.
Figure 4.3.3-1. Locations of primary copper
Location
El Paso, TX
Hayden, AZ
Tacoma, WA
Copperhill, TN
Mi am i, AZ
Garfield, UT
Hayden, AZ
Hurley, NM
McGill, NV
San Manuel, AZ
Ajo, AZ
Douglas, AZ
Hi!dago, NM
Morenci, AZ
White Pine, MI
smelters
56
-------
TABLE 4.3.3-1 PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS
Capacity'
Hg/yr
Shelter (tpy)
Magn Copper Co.c 181.400
San Manuel. AZ (200,000)
Phelps Dodge Corp.d 160.500
Morend. O. (177,000)
Phelps Dodge Corp.' 63,500
AJo, AZ (70,000)
Phelps Dodge Corp.9 115,000
Douglas, AZ (127,000)
Kennecott Copper 43,350
Corp.' (50,000)
HcGill, HY
Process
rate Eff1-
Hg/hr Control clency
Process0 (t/hr] technique I
Reverberatory 72 ESP
furnaces (2/3) (159)
Converters 74 SCAP (2 in
(163) parallel)
Fugitives
Total
Fluid bed roaster SCAP
Reverberatory 64 ESP
furnaces (4/5) (70)
Converters (3-4/9) 94 SCAP
(104)
Fugitives
Total
Reverberatory 44 ESP 96. 7f
furnace (48)
Converters (1-2/3) 27 SCAP
(30)
Fugitives
Total
Kultl hearth 68 ESP
roasters (11-13/24) (75)
Reverberatory 77 ESP
furnaces (2/3) (85)
Converters (2/5) 63 ESP 96. 5h
(69)
Fugitives
Total
Reverberatory 43 ESP 19^
furnaces (1/2) (47)
Converters (1/4) 11 Hultlclones 85*
(12)
Fugitives
Total
Paniculate Cadmium
emissions emissions
kg/hr Mg/yr kg/hr Mg/yr Compliance
(«/hr) (tpy) (l/hr) (tpy) status
808 6970 0.082 0.72 SIP. In
(1780) (7690) (0.180) (0.79) violation
5.72 49 0.001 0.009
(12.6) (54) (0.003) (0.01)
2.8
(3.1)
3.5
(3.9)
SIP, In
violation
545 4700 0.42 3.57
(1200) (5180) (0.92) (3.»4)
196 1700 0.18 1.54
(432) (1870) (0.39) (1.70)
2.4
(2.7)
7.5
(8.3)
SIP, In
267 2300 0.21 1.8 violation
(588) (2540) (0.46) (2.00)
0.6
(0.7)
2.4
(2.7)
j SIP, 1n
321 2780 0.10 0.84 violation
(70S) (3060) (0.22) (0.93)
102 202 0.62 1.24
(225) (223) (1.37) (1.37)
1.8
(2.0)
3.9
(4.3)
SIP, In
636 4750 0.59 4 39 violation
(1400) (5240) (1.29) (4.84)
0.7
(0.8)
5.1
(5.6)
This Is not a record for compliance or enforcement purposes. This Information docunents data
used 1n decision Baking by the Environmental Protection Agency 1n response to Section 122 of the
Linn Atr Act AMpndnents of 1977.
CONTINUED
57
-------
TABLE 4.3.3-1 (continued)
Pro
Capacity ra
•s/y h "5
Smelter (tpy) Process (t/
Kennecott Copper 72,600 Fluid bed roister '
Corp.l (80.000) ((
Hiyden. U
Converters (3/3) 4
('
*ess Paniculate Cldnlu"
te Eff1- emissions emissions
/hr COfltrol ciency ~lg/Rr Hg/yr kg/hr
hr) technloue I (l/hr) (tpy) (»/hr)
>a
>4) DCAP 98.4™ 8.2 71 0.002
10 (As) (18) (78) (0.005)
M)
Reverberator? 37 ESP 96n 9.5 63 0.004
fu™« (41) (Cd) (21) (91) (0.009)
Fugitives
Total
Kemecott Copper 72,600 Reverberatory 34 ESP — 208 1800 0 09
up0?1 - (W.OOO) furn.ce (1/2) (37) (4S8) (1960) (0.197)
Hur I cy , M
Converters (3/4) 24 DCAP - 10 86 0.002
(26) (22) (95) (0.006)
Fugitives
Total
ASARCO. Inc.p 163.000 Nultlhearth
Hiyden, AZ (180,000) roisters (6-10/12) ?,
Reverberatory '26
furnaces (2/2)
2 ESP — 56 486 0.03
7) (124) (536) (0.067)
Converters (5/5) 34 SCAP — 22 192 0.00«
(38) (49) (212) (0.013)
Fugitives
ToUl
ASARCO, Inc.1* 104,000 Nultlheirth
El Paso. TX (115,000) roisters (4/4)
Acid plant at
lead smelter
Reverberatory 42 ESP 96.7 ) 20 169 0.011
fumice (4«) | (43) (186) (0.023)
Converters
Fugitives
Toul
DCAP 99.3s
(As)
Copper Range Co." 81.600 Reverberitory 28 ESP -- 0.42
White Pine. MI (90.000) funuces (2/2) (31) (0.92)
Converters (2/2) 42 ESP -- 0.27
(46) (0.60)
Fugitives
Total
"g/yr
(tpy)
0.02
(0.02)
0.04
(0.04)
1.1
(1.2)
1.2
(1.3)
0.77
(0.85)
0.03
(0.03)
1.1
(1.2)
1.9
(2.1)
0.26
(O.W)
0.05
(0.06)
3.4
(3.7)
3.7
(4.1)
0.09
(0.10)
0.091
(0.1)
0.2
(0.2)
2.7
(3.0)
0.47
(0.52)
1.3
(1.4)
4.4
(4.9)
Compliance
status
SIP. In
coBpl lance
SIP. 1n
coipllince
SIP, probiblyq
1n coapllince
SIP, In
compMince
SIP. In
coapHince
This 1s not 1 record for compliance or enforcement purposes. This Information documents diti
used In decision miking by the Environmental Protection Agency In response to Section 122 of the
Clean A1r Act Amendments of 1977.
CONTINUED
58
-------
TABLE 4.3.3-1 (continued)
Process
Capacity rate
Ng/yr h Mg/hr
Smelter (tpy) Process0 (t/hr)
ASARCO, Inc* 90,700 Nultlhearth 47
Tacona, HA (100,000) roasters (5-6/10) (52)
Reverberatory 54
furnaces (1/2) (59)
Converters (2/4) 24
(26)
Fugitives
Total
Inspiration Copper 136,000 Electric furnace
Co. (150,000)
Inspiration, AZ Converters (3/5)
Fugitives
Total
Phelps Dodge Corp. 127,000 Flash furnace
Hlldago, AZ (140,000)
Converters (3/3)
Fugitives
Total
CHIts Service Co. 20.000 Fluid bed roaster
Copperhlll, TN (22.000)
Electric furnace
Converters (1/2)
Fugitives
Total
Kennecott Copper 254,000 Noranda continuous
Corp. (280,000) smiting
Garfleld. UT
Fugitives
Total
INDUSTRY TOTAL
Paniculate Cadmium
Eff1- emissions emissions
Control dency kg/hr Hg/yr kg/hr Mg/yr
technique I (»/hr) (tpy) (l/nr) (tpy)
Baghouse
ESP -- 123 0.16
(136) (0.18)
SCAP and
ISO, plant
1.4
(1.5)
1.5
(1.7)
DCAP
2.1
(2.3)
2.1
(2.3)
2 DCAP and
elemental
S plant
2.0
(2.2)
2.0
(2.2)
2 parallel
DCAP
0.3
(0.3)
0.3
(0.3)
Acid plants
3.9
(4.3)
3.9
(4.3)
43.6
(48.2)
Compliance
status
SIP, in
violation of
capacity
SIP, In
co»pt lance
SIP, 1n
compliance
SIP, In
conpl lance
SCAP • Single contact add plant
DCAP • Double contact acid plant
ESP • Electrostatic preclpUator
This 1s not a record fop compliance or enforcement purposes. This Information documents data
used 1n decision making by the Environmental Protection Agency In response to Section 122 of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
59
-------
Footnotes for Table 4.3.3-1
a) Blister copper production capacity information is derived from reference 4.
Actual production data are unavailable.
b) For each process, the number of units operating of the total number
available is given in parentheses.
c) Data on particulate emissions from the reverberatory furnaces at Magma
are derived from a 1980 stack test.14 A cadmium/particulate ratio from
a 1976 stack test on this same source15 was applied because of deficiencies
in the trace metal analyses conducted in the 1980 study. It should be
noted that some changes were made to the reverb process and air pollution
control system between the two tests: the ability to fire the reverbs
with coal as well as natural gas was added, and a fourth ESP to control
particulate emissions from the reverbs was put into service. Particulate
and cadmium emissions from the single absorption acid plant serving the
converters are from results from the 1976 study.
d) Cadmium and particulate emission estimates for Phelps Dodge-Morenci are
from stack test data summarized in reference 16. During the stack test
the roaster was not in operation, and one of the reverberatory furnaces
was down for repairs. However, neither of the conditions is considered
to be particularly abnormal nor to have a significant effect on emissions.
e) Cadmium and particulate emissions estimates for Phelps Dodge-Ajo are from
stack test data summarized in reference 17.
f) Control efficiency is taken from reference 20.
g) Cadmium and particulate emissions estimates for Phelps Dodge-Douglas are
from stack test data summarized in reference 18. Annual operating times
are estimated at 8640 and 1980 hr/yr for the roaster/reverbs and
converters respectively.
h) Control efficiency is taken from reference 8.
i) Cadmium and particulate emissions estimates for Kennecott-McGill are
from stack test data summarized in reference 19.
j) Control efficiency of the reverb ESP was calculated from emissions
measurements taken both when the ESP was operating and not
functioning.19
k) Control efficiency is taken from reference 1.
1) Process weight rates and controlled particulate emissions for Kennecott-Hayden
are from stack test results summarized in reference 5.
60
-------
m) Control efficiency is taken from reference 3.
n) Control efficiency is taken from reference 20.
o) Participate emission estimates for Kennecott-Hurley are taken from stack
test data summarized in references 9 and 10.
p) Process weight rates and controlled participate emissions for ASARCO-Hayden
are from stack test results summarized in reference 6. This report
presents the results as a range of emission rates, the highest of which
is listed in Table 2.3-1. It should be noted that the test location
did not meet Method 1 criteria.
q) EPA has been unable to obtain what it considers to be valid participate
matter test data from the ASARCO-Hayden smelter because of an ongoing
legal dispute regarding the adequacy of existing sampling locations.
However, narrative in reference 6 indicates that the smelter is probably
in compliance.
r) Stack test data pertinent to ASARCO-E1 Peso's current operations are not
available. Since mid-1979, roaster off gases that had previously been
vented to the roaster/reverb ESP have been vented to the company's lead
smelter acid plant.22 The particulate emissions from the reverb were
calculated from the results of a 1977 test on the ducts venting the reverb
off gases to the joint roaster/reverb ESP and control efficiency
calculated for the ESP from test data. This information was summarized
in reference 2.
s) Control efficiency reported in reference 2.
t) ASARCO-E1 Paso employs a building evacuation system with a baghouse to
control fugitive emissions from the converter building. Emission
measurements show particulate emission rates to be 4.4 pounds per hour.
The fugitive emission estimate was adjusted to account for this.
u) Process weight rates and annual process operating times for the Copper
Range smelter were obtained from the state agency.23 Operating times of
6570 and 1740 hr/yr were used for the reyerbs and converters respectively.
No stack tests have been conducted on this source;24 thus, emission
factors were applied to estimate actual cadmium emissions. Cadmium/particul ate
ratios specific to the data used for the development of the emission
factors were used to determine cadmium emissions associated with compliance
with limitations on particulate emissions. The resulting emissions
estimates show the smelter to be in violation, which is contrary to the
actual compliance status of the plant.
v) Information on process flow, control equipment and particulate emissions
for ASARCO-Tacoma was obtained from references 13 and 25. Process weight
rates were obtained from reference 8. Cadmium emissions were estimated by
applying_a cadmium to particulate ratio for main stack emissions of
1.3 x 10~3 calculated from 1974 data given in reference 8 to 1980 annual
particulate emissions from the main stack. Controlled off gases from
the smelter's anode furnaces and arsenic kitchen are also vented to this
stack.
61
-------
Fugitive particulates emitted from primary copper smelting consist
basically of metallic oxides and dust. Major sources of fugitive emissions
are ore concentrate unloading and handling, roaster calcine transfer operations,
furnace tapping operations, and converter charging and skimming operations.
Fugitive emissions from ore concentrate handling, calcine transfer, and furnace
tapping have been controlled by some smelters by hooding and enclosing the
fugitive emission points and exhausting the captured emissions to a control
device. Control techniques that have been applied to fugitive converter
operations include the use of secondary mechanical hoods and converter building
4
evacuation. Fugitive emission controls practiced by some of the smelters
are listed in Table 4.3.3-2.
The majority of the copper smelters employ acid plants to control sulfur
dioxide emissions. Cadmium emissions from acid plants were estimated when
cadmium or particulate emissions data were available. The resulting estimates
show cadmium emissions from acid plants to be essentially negligible. This
is due to the extensive particulate removal systems employed prior to the
sulfuric acid plant conversion tower. Consequently, for those smelters for
which no acid plant emissions data were available, cadmium emissions have
been assumed to be negligible.
Fugitive cadmium emissions have been estimated. However,the estimates
presented are of questionable validity. They have been developed from the
broad extrapolation of limited emission data. Thus, these estimates cannot
be taken to adequately represent the fugitive cadmium emissions from the
smelters but only to give an indication of their possible magnitude. The
available data on fugitive emissions and the development of the cadmium
fugitive estimates are given in Appendix A.
4.3.3.4 Emissions Estimates
Table 4.3.3-1 presents emission estimates for fifteen primary copper smelters
in the United. States. The annual cadmium emissions from the listed sources are
estimated to be 44 Mg (48 T). Controlled point sources account for 19 Mg (21 T),
while 25 Mg (27 T) are estimated to be from fugitive emission emission sources.
Cadmium emissions from anode furnaces (fire refining) have not been included in
these smelter specific estimates due to a lack of data. However, cadmium emissions
62
-------
TABLE 4.3.3-2 CURRENT PRACTICES EMPLOYED BY COPPER SMELTERS FOR THE CAPTURE AND CONTROL OF PROCESS FUGITIVES
Smelter
Calcine discharge
Matte tapping
Slag tapping
Secondary
converter emissions
ASARCO-Tacoma
ASARCO-E1 Paso
Phelps Dodge-Ajo
Magma
Phelps Dodge-Douglas
ASARCO-Hayden
Phelps Dodge-Morencl
Kennecott-Hayden
Inspiration
Kennecott-Garfield
Phelps Dodge-Hi 1 dago
Kennecott-McGIll
Captured emissions vented
to roaster baghouse
Captured emissions vented
to roaster/reverb ESP
NA
NA
Captured emissions vented
to baghouse
Captured emissions vented
to reverb ESP
No capture or control
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Captured emissions vented uncontrolled
to main stack (to be controlled by ESP)
Captured emissions vented
to baghouse and then to
roaster/reverb ESP
NI
Captured emissions vented uncontrolled
to main stack
Captured emissions vented uncontrolled
through separate stack
Captured emissions vented to
converter ESP
Captured emissions vented
uncontrolled to reverb
stack
No capture or control
Captured emissions vented uncontrolled
- 4/5 reverbs to separate stack; 1/5
to converter stack
Captured emissions from
both reverbs vented
uncontrolled to separate
stack
Captured emissions
from 1 reverb vented
uncontrolled to
separate stack
Captured emissions vented uncontrolled
to own emission points
No capture or control
Converter building
evacuation system
vented through baghouse
Captured emissions vented
uncontrolled to main
stack
No capture or control
No capture or control
No capture or control
Captured emissions vented
uncontrolled to converter
stack
No capture or control
No capture or control
Captured emissions controlled with spray chamber vented to main stack
NI
Slag 1s tapped directly
to electric furnace
Captured emissions vented
uncontrolled to dryer
stack
No capture or control
cr>
co
NI = no information
NA = not applicable
-------
from this process cannot be assumed to be negligible. Although emissions
generated by fire refining are considerably less significant both in terms of
volume and trace metal content than other process emissions, with the exception
of ASARCO-Tacoma, none of the smelters currently capture the off gases from
anode furnaces for the control of particulate emissions. Recent mass balance
calculations have estimated the total annual cadmium emissions from fire refining
furnaces at 57 Mg (63 T) (+93%).7 Thus, total annual cadmium emissions from
primary copper smelting are estimated to be 101 Mg (111 T).
Some of the green-fed smelters employ dryers to dry the ore concentrates
prior to their charging into the smelting furnaces. Typical operating
temperatures of dryers of less than 150°C3 (302°F) would not result in appreciable
volatilization of cadmium. Effective control of the dust generated in these
units is typically provided and particulate emission rates are low as
demonstrated by stack test data from Kennecott-Hurley.9' Thus, cadmium
emissions from dryers have been assumed to be negligible.
4.3.3.5 Compliance Status*
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Particulate Matter:
The majority of the primary copper smelters are in compliance with SIP
limitations on particulate emissions. The exceptions include ASARCO-Tacoma
where opacity limitations are being exceeded, and five smelters (Phelps Dodge's
Ajo, Morenci and Douglas facilities, Magma, and Kennecott's McGill smelter)
which are affected by litigation of Phelps Dodge with Section 307 of the
Clean Air Act. Phelps Dodge and EPA recently signed a consent decree,
whereby Phelps Dodge agreed to bring their Morenci smelter into compliance by
January 1, 1985, and their Ajo facility by December 31, 1985. The status
of tne resolution of the litigation with respect to the other smelters is unknown
at this time.
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead:
The State of Arizona submitted its implementation plan for lead in April
of 1980. Modeling and monitoring for the seven copper smelters in the state
12
indicated no violations of the lead NAAQS. It has been assumed that the
This is not a record for compliance or enforcement purposes. This information documents data
used in decision making by the Environmental Protection Agency in response to Section 122 of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
64
-------
compliance status of the Arizona smelters is representative of that of the
rest of the industry, and thus, that all of the copper smelters are in
compliance with the lead NAAQS.
4.3.3.6 Comparison of National Emissions Estimates with Other Studies
Previous studies have estimated the annual airborne cadmium emissions
from domestic primary copper smelters by mass balance or the application of a
general industrial source emission factor, resulting in a range of estimates:
Energy and Environmental Analysis estimated 4.5 Mg (5 T); GCA estimated 100 Mg
(110 T); EPA estimated 212 Mg (235 T); and MITRE estimated 352 Mg (388 T).26
This study's annual cadmium emissions estimate of 101 Mg (111 T) is in general
agreement with previous assessments. This estimate was derived through a site
specific assessment in which extensive stack test data of cadmium and particulate
emissions were available for process point sources. The annual emissions
estimate also incorporates a recent mass balance estimate of the industry's
emissions from fire refining and an estimate of fugitive emissions from the
application of an emission factor.
65
-------
References for Section 4.3.3
1. PEDCo Environmental Inc. Environmental Assessment of the Domestic
Primary Copper, Lead and Zinc Industries. Prepublication Copy.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contract
No. 68-03-2537. October 1978.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Arsenic Emissions from Primary
Copper Smelters: Background Information for Proposed Standards.
Research Triangle Park, NC. November 1980.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Background Information for New
Source Performance Standards: Primary Copper, Zinc, and Lead Smelters.
Volume 1: Proposed Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. Publication
No. EPA-450/2-74-002a. October 1974.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical Guidance for Control
of Industrial Process Fugitive Particulate Emissions. Research
Triangle Park, NC. Publication No. EPA-450/3-77-0101. March 1977.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Control Techniques for
Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume 2 (Preliminary Draft)
Research Triangle Park, NC. July 1980.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX. EPA Response to
Petitions for the Reconsideration and Revision of the Process Weight
Regulation [40 CRF 52.126(b)] filed by Phelps Dodge Corporation and
Magma Copper Company in October and November 1975. San Francisco, CA.
September 1978.
7. JRB Associates, Inc. Final Level II Materials Balance: Cadmium. Draft.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contract
No. 68-01-5793. September 1980.
8. Weisenburg, I.J. and R.C. Hill. Design, Operating and Emission Data
for Existing Primary Copper Smelters. Draft. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Contract No. 28-02-2606. March 1978.
9. Letter and attachments from Duran, J.D., New Mexico Health and
Environmental Department to Anderson E., GCA Corporation. March 16, 1981.
Kennecott Copper and Phelps Dodge Smelters in New Mexico.
10. Letter from Duran, J.D., New Mexico Health and Environment Department
to Anderson, E., GCA Corp. March 25, 1981. Kennecott and Phelps Dodge
Copper Smelters.
66
-------
11. Environmental Reporter (BNA) 11(49): 2171, April 13, 1981.
12. Telecon. Kelly, J., EPA with Anderson, E., GCA Corp. May 4, 1981.
Arizona lead SIP.
13. Statnick, R.M.., Measurement of Sulfur Dioxide, Particulate, and Trace
Elements in Copper Smelter Converter and Roaster/Reverberatory Gas
Streams. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle
Park, NC. Publication No. EPA-650/2-74-111. 1974.
14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Testing at the Magma
Copper Smelter, San Manuel, Arizona (April 14-23, 1980). Denver, CO.
Publication No. EPA-330/2-80-026-R. July 1980.
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Testing at the Magma
Copper Company Smelter, San Manuel, Arizona, May 12-22, 1976.
Denver, CO. Publication No. EPA-330/2-76-029. August 1976.
16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Testing: Phelps Dodge
Corporation, Morenci, Arizona (September 10-16, 1979). Denver, CO.
Publication No. EPA-330/2-80-014. April 1980.
17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Testing: Phelps Dodge
Corporation, Ajo, Arizona (July 23-24, 1979). Denver, CO. Publication
No. EPA 330/2-80-013. April 1980.
18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Testing: Phelps Dodge
Copper Smelter, Douglas, Arizona (September 18-23, 1979). Denver, CO.
Publication No EPA-330/2-80-012. April 1980.
19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Testing: Kennecott
Copper Corporation, McGill, Nevada (December 7-13, 1979). Denver, CO.
Publication No. EPA-330/2-80-015-R. April 1980.
20. Schwitzgebel, K. et al. Trace Element Study at a Primary Copper Smelter,
Volumes I and II. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati, OH.
Publicaton Nos. EPA-600/2-78-065a and b. March 1978.
21. Southern Research Institute. Performance Evaluation of an Electrostatic
Precipitator- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati, OH.
Publication No. EPA-600/2-79-119. June 1979.
22. Telecon, Draper. G., EPA, Region VI with Anderson, E., GCA Corp.
April 8, 1981.
23. Telecon, Smith, L., Michigan Department of Natural Resources with
Anderson, E., GCA Corp. February 26, 1981.
24. Telecon. Deelies, W., Michigan Department of Natural Resources with
Anderson, E., GCA Corp. April 1, 1980.
67
-------
25. Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. Environmental Impact
Statement for ASARCO, Incorporated: Variance from PSAPCA Regulation I
Sections 9.03(b), 907(b), and 907(c). Draft. March 1981.
26. Colemanetal. Sources of Atmospheric Cadmium. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC. Publication
No. EPA-450/5-79-006. August 1979.
68
-------
4.3.4 Primary Cadmium Production
4.3.4.1 Process Description. Cadmium is produced primarily as a by-product
of zinc production. Cadmium is recovered from the following by-product
materials: flue dusts from the sintering of. zinc calcines, sludges from the
purification of zinc electrolyte solution in the electrolytic production of
zinc, recycled zinc metal containing cadmium, and flue dusts from lead-smelting.
Cadmium is produced from these materials by both pyrometallurgic and
electrolytic processes.
Prior to electrolytic or pyrometallurgic smelting, flue dusts are
typically leached with sulfuric acid. The leach solution is then treated
with zinc dust to precipitate cadmium as a metallic sponge, which is filter
pressed. Precipitate from the purification of zinc electrolyte is typically
used directly as a raw material for cadmium production. This precipitate
generally has a high cadmium concentration; in the purification of zinc
electrolyte, copper and cadmium are removed from solution in stages by treating
the electrolyte with zinc dust, making possible the seperation of precipitated
impurities into high-copper and high-cadmium fractions.1
Cadmium sponge and high-cadmium precipitates are purified by electrolytic
or pyrometalluric processes. In electrolytic production, the cadmium sponge
or precipitate is first leached with sulfuric acid and spent electrolyte.
The solution may be purified by selective precipitation of impurities and
subsequent filtration. The leach solution is then electrolyzed to obtain
cadmium metal at the cathode.2 In pyrometallurgical production, dried
cadmium sponge or precipitate is first mixed with coal or coke and lime and
then transferred to a retort furnace where the cadmium is reduced and
collected as molten metal in a condenser. Cadmium metal that is produced
either pyrometallurgically or electrolytically is melted in a furnace and
then cast.
Although, for the most part, primary cadmium production is conducted at
primary zinc smelters, it has been considered here as a seperate industrial
category. This approach has not overlooked air pollution problems due to the
additive emissions from both zinc and cadmium smelting, since no facility
produces both zinc and cadmium pyrometallurgically.
69
-------
4.3.4.2 Geographical Location. The locations of the seven primary
cadmium smelters are shown in Figure 4.3.4-1. An eighth smelter, St. Joe
Minerals Corporation, located in Monaca, PA, is no longer producing cadmium.
With the exception of the ASARCO smelter in Denver and New Jersey Zinc Company
all of these facilities also produce zinc metal. Four of these facilities
produce cadmium eletrolytically, while three employ the pyrometallurgical
method.
4.3.4.3 Control Techniques. Airborne emissions associated with the
electrolytic process are negligible and thus, this emission source is
typically uncontrolled. Furnaces used for the pyrometallurgical smelting of
cadmium are equipped with baghouses. Furnaces used for the melting of
cadmium metal are also typically equipped with baghouses.
4.3.4.4 Emission Estimates. An estimate of annual cadmium emissions
from primary cadmium production has been made by the application of an emission
factor to cadmium production data. Primary cadmium production is estimated
at 1885 Mg/yr (2073 t/yr), assuming continued production at the 1979 levels
listed in Figure 4.3.4-1. The resulting annual cadmium emissions estimate is
1.3 Mg (1.4 tons). Due to this low total industry mass emissions estimate,
the smelters were not assessed on a case-by-case basis; however, dispersion
modeling of two pyrometallurgical smelters was conducted (see Chapter 5).
4.3.4.5 Compliance Status* Since a smelter-specific assessment was not
conducted for this source category, the compliance status of primary cadmium
production facilities was not determined.
4.3.4.6 Comparison of National Emission Estimates with Other Studies.
In previous studies, annual airborne cadmium emissions from nrimary cadmium
smelters were estimated to be 55 Mg (60 tons) by EPA, 45 Mg (50 tons) by GCA, 1.8 Mg
(2.0 tons) by Energy and Environmental Analysis (EEA) and 1.5 Mg (1.7 tons)
by JRB.5 This study's annual cadmium emissions estimate of 1.3 Mg (1.4 tons)
was made using the same emission factor used by EEA, which reflects current
control of airborne emissions. This estimate compares well with the recent
emissions estimate made by JRB.
*This is not a record for compliance or enforcement purposes. This information documents data
used in decision making by the Environmental Protection Agency in response to Section 122 of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
70
-------
>>— r
I "*•* ••
r
I
\ I
"T
• 1 •
/ ~ ~ ~-- •» - j..
"l?>*
__----/"
s
(..,
Company
1) AMAX, Inc.
2) ASARCO, Inc.
3) ASARCO, Inc.
4) The Bunker Hill Co.
5) Jersey-Miniere Zinc Co.
6) National Zinc Co.
7) New Jersey Zinc Co.
Production assumed at capacity.
Location
Sauget, IL
Corpus Christi, TX
Denver, CO
Kellogg, ID
Clarksville, TN
Bart!esvilie, OK
Palmerton, PA
Type
Pyrometallurgic
Electrolytic
Electrolytic
Electrolytic
Electrolytic
Pyrometallurgic
Pyrometallurgic
1979 production'
Mg/yr
390
389
270
273 a
275
288
(t/yr)
(429)
(428)
(297)
(300)a
(302)
(317)
Figure 4.3.4-1. Locations of primary cadmium production facilities,
71
-------
References for Section 4.3.4
1. PEDCO Environmental Inc. Environmental Assessment of the Domestic Primary
Copper, Lead and Zinc Industries. Prepublication Copy. Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68-03-2537-
October 1978.
2. Memo to Cope!and, John, EPA from Anderson, E., GCA Corp. February 12, 1981
Report of trip to Jersey Miniere Zinc Company, Clarksville, TN.
3. American Bureau of Metal Statistics, Inc. Non-Ferrous Metal Statistics.
1979.
4. Coleman, R. et al. Sources of Atmospheric Cadmium. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication
No. EPA-450/5-79-006. August 1979.
5. JRB Associates, Inc. Final Level II Materials Balance: Cadmium. Draft.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contract
No. 68-01-5793. September 1980.
72
-------
4.4 MUNICIPAL REFUSE INCINERATION
4.4.1 Introduction
As presented in Section 3, Uses of Cadmium, cadmium is found in a
variety of consumer products which eventually may become part of the municipal
refuse. Of the four largest uses of cadmium in consumer products, electroplating,
batteries, pigments, and plastic stabilizers, only batteries are recycled
for their cadmium content. Table 4.4-1 presents a breakdown of typical
municipal refuse compositions as determined in a Bureau of Mines Study.
TABLE 4.4-1 COMPOSITION OF TYPICAL REFUSE
1
Product Percent by Weight
Paper
Glass
Fine Glass, Grit Dirt
and Ceramics
Ferrous Metal
Plastics
Putrescibles
Corrugated Board
51.7
10.5
10.0
7.6
5.0
4.4
3.5
Product Percent by Weight
Wood
Fabrics
Aluminum
Miscellaneous
Leather and Rubber
Zinc Base Metal
Copper Base Metal
2.6
1.8
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.14
0.06
Refuse has been reported to contain cadmium in both the combustible and
noncombustible fractions. Some incineration facilities, especially those
with heat recovery capabilities, separate out the noncombustible material
before incineration. Approximately 70 percent of municipal refuse is
2
combustible. Of this 70 percent, an average of nine parts per million (ppm)
by weight is cadmium and varies from two to 22 ppm. The temperatures at
which refuse is incinerated are generally sufficient to vaporize most of the
cadmium contained in the refuse.
There are 44 municipal incinerators in the United States with capacities
above 45.4 Mg per day (50 TPD). There are an additional 90 units at 41
locations with- capacities under 45.4 Mg per day (50 TPD). This 45.4 Mg per
73
-------
day (50 TPD) stratification occurs as a result of the New Source Performance
Standard's (NSPS) lower limit for affected facilities.5 Municipal incinerators
burning less than 45.4 Mg per day (50 TPD) are not regulated by the NSPS.
4.4.2 Process Description
A variety of conventional incinerator designs are currently being used
in the United States, although almost all incorporate a multiple-chamber
operation. The combustion process in a multiple-chamber incinerator proceeds
in two stages: primary or solid fuel combustion in the ignition chamber
(primary combustion chamber), followed by by secondary or gas-phase combustion
in a separate chamber (secondary combustion chamber). In the primary chamber,
the solid fuel is dried, ignited, and combusted. As the burning proceeds,
the moisture and volatile components of the fuel are vaporized and partially
oxidized in passing from the ignition chamber through the flame port connecting
the ignition chamber with the mixing chamber. From the flame port, the
volatile components of the refuse and the products of combustion flow down
through the mixing chamber into which secondary air is introduced. Abrupt
changes in the speed and direction of the primary combustion products produces
turbulent mixing with the secondary air. Secondary burners may be necessary
to provide additional heat to the mixture to complete the combustion.
Figure 4.4-1 presents a conventional multiple-chamber municipal incinerator.
Variations in incinerator design include rocking, circular, reciprocating, or
traveling grates, manual or automatic stoking, starved air or excess air
design, and waterwall or refractory wall.
In most conventional incineration systems, the temperature immediately
above the burning waste ranges from 1149°C to 1371°C (2100°F to 2500°F),
while the temperature leaving the combustion chamber is in the range of 760°C
to 871°C (1400°F to 1600°F).7 These temperatures are at or above the boiling
point for cadmium.8 Due to the high cost of fossil fuel, some incinerators
have included heat recovery capabilities in their design. There are currently
11 of these operating in the United States above a capacity of 45.4 Mg per
day (50 TPD). Table 4.4-2 presents a list of operating locations, capacity,
and type for municipal incinerators above 45.4 Mg per day (50 TPD).
74
-------
16
1. INCINERATOR 7.
2. STORAGE PIT 8.
3. GRAP BUCKET 9.
4. BRIDGE CRANE 10.
5. CHARGING HOPPER 11.
6. HOPPER GATE 12.
WATER-COOLED HOPPER 13.
FEEDING AND DRYING STOKER 14.
BURNING STOKER 15.
PRIMARY COMBUSTION CHAMBER 16.
SECONDARY COMBUSTION CHAMBER 17.
GAS-CLEANING CHAMBER 18.
FLUE
DAMPER
STACK
ASH CONVEYOR
FORCED-DRAFT FAN
REFACTORY ENCLOSURES
Figure 4.4-1 Conventional multiple-chamber municipal incinerator.-
-------
TABLE 4.4-2a CONVENTIONAL INCINERATORS"
(Metric units)
CTl
HUTS
1
I
J
4
1
6
7
e
9
10
]|
12
14
IS
14
17
l«
1»
10
£1
22
Company
AM*
Operating
location
typ*
Control
technique
Opertt.ng
average)
Hn/d>v
Hg
per
year
Control
efficiency
Coa^Hance
ttatus ealislons
Annua 1 Anriua 1 Annu* 1
UncontroUtd Control. «d Uncontrolled Controlled controlled controlled uncontrolled
pirtlculate partlcu)ate cadHlu* cadnlu* part leu late cadBlu* cadalu*
WITHOUT HEAT W COVERT
Anionti
St MI ford
New Canaan
C. Hertford
irtdgeport
Sk* rl
Or Undo
Oade County
Ualpaho
E Chicago
Loulivllle
Shreveport
Fill Rlvtr
Fr*«i1nqhi.n
Brldgewater
St Louli
St. LouU
Red Sank
Huntlngton
Tonawend*
Ansont*. a
Stwford. a
Hew Canaan, CT
E. Hartford. CT
•rtdgeport. CT
Washington, DC
Orlando. FL
Did* County, Fl
Honolulu, HI
f. Chicago. 1H
Lou.ivllle, KV
Shreveport, LA
Fall RUtr. HA
Framlngh**. HA
Brldgewiter, MA
St. louls, H)
St loull. NO
Red Bank. HJ
Huntlngton. NY
Tonnanda, NT
Starved air rocking
flr.U (3)
Stirred ilr
rtclpnx.tt.n4] (3)
Kiln (3)
SHUT
Tr.ln (3)
Starved air
reciprocal ft? (3)
Starved *tr rocking
(3)
3 stage traveling
grtU O)
Sttncd air nxklna
grate (3)
Starved ilr
ractprocitlng (3)
Hater wall
reciprocating (3)
Starved air
rtclprocallntj (!)
Starved air
reciprocating (3)
Starved air (3)
Mnull (tided
Starved air
Mnual stacked O)
Starved air
reciprocating (3)
Starved *lr {3)i II,
•Z-nanual (tocklnq,
13- reciprocating
rec Iprocttlng (1)
Starved air
reciprocating (3)
Low pruiure
ic rubber
UP (3)
Vtnturl low
energy
Wet icttltiM
ch^ber (3)
D 0 y N (2)
Hultlclonet
?«/llnt (3)
ESP (3)
CSf (3)
ESf (3)
Uet lettllno
chafer (3)
Low energy
icrubler (3)
Cyclone (3)
rck l-t\
lar \'l
Hlqti energy
icrubfoer »~J
(SP (!)
laohouie (3)
Baghouie
tow energy
icrubber (3)
Low energy
icrubber (3)
low eneroj
tc rubber
, f).fZ-lo«
enerqy icr\A-
ber. I)-(SP
icrubber (3)
Uet lettltnq
chu-ter (3)
13* (31
f d/w (1)
145
SI d/w (3)
91 (3)
S d/w
136 (3)
1361 (2)
S d/w (3)
>1 (3)
S d/w
218 (3)
S d/w (3)
408 (3)
5 d/w (1)
295 (3)
S d/w (3)
»1 (3)
' d/w (3)
154 (31
S d/w |3)
7?tS Ml
'to \il
t d/w (!)
544 (3)
S d/. (3)
181 (3)
5 d/w
Assumed
272 (4)
5 d/w
Assured
36) (3)
5 d/w
508 (2)
S d/. (3)
32 13)
» d/w (3)
2)2 (3)
S d/w
907 (3)
S d/w (3)
22) (3)
S d/w
3S.380C
41.S131
23,587C
35.380'
)5).B02C
23.58?'
56.608'
127.369'
76.657'
260.683'
40.098C
141.521'
47.174'
70.760'
94.)47C
1)2 .OBI.'
9.906'
J0.7SO'
2)5.668(
58.967C
601 (2)
901 (2)
801 (2)
601 (2)
SOT
Assumed
9M
Assmd
901 (2)
901
As lined
8SI (2)
!01
Design (21
sot
Deslnn (2)
991
D«t1gn (2)
951
Attuned
«OT (?)
401
»mua»d
an (?)
fun (?)
?m
Auumd
o.n
AtiiMd
2m
AtVUMd
7? SI
Animd
SIP. In
co^llance.
iource telt
SIP. In
compliance.
source teit
SIP. In
co«pl lance.
CirtlfUltlon
SIP. In
violation.
Mtg. icheo.
SIP. In
cotnpllance.
Inipect
SIP. In
coa^Mance,
source tut
SIP. In
conpl lance.
Inipect
SIP. In
violation, not
ntg. iched.
SIP. In
violation.
"tg- sched.
SIP, In
violation,
rtg sched
SIP. In
ctrflcatlon
NSPS. In cootpll-
source test
SIP. In
comnl lance.
tnip«ct
SIP. In
co«ipl lince ,
Inlpcct
SIP, In
conplltnc*.
Intprd
SIP. In SO kg/hr
coMVilance,
certification
SIP. In 91 kq/hr
rlolallon. not
• If) ichtd
SIP. In " k9/^r
cox.pl lance,
crrtiricatlon
6S 34 .US .050 ?12 .313 783
91 9 .134 .014 62 .091 .916
57 11 .0.93 .017 '1 .104 .52?
65 34 .125 .050 212 313 . 78J
851 425 1.2S .6Z6 2654 3.91 7 83
S? 5 .083 008 35 .052 .5??
136 14 .200 .020 84 .125 1.25
255 25 .376 018 191 ?81 2.82
184 27 .272 .041 172 .2^4 1 70
48? 386 .706 .56? 1367 4 , W 6.21
96 4fl .142 .071 )00 4d4 .687
*S4 5 ,667 .007 34 ,500 5.01
MO 17 .499 .025 106 .157 3 13
11] 68 )67 100 4?4 6.'6 1.04
I'O 102 .251 . 151 6)7 943 . S6
2.V .'J 314 040 170 ?SO 2 09
MS J8 467 .056 236 ,350 2.92
20 16 ,029 .024 119 175 ?!',
I'D 96 251 142 601 888 I 57
W *54 815 667 2810 « 17 5 ,'2
l«? 39 .209 .057 243 .358 I 31
ThU H not • r*conj for CMpllcncc or enlargement purpovei Thli Inrormiitloi. Ax-wflti Atl»
ui**l In declilon Hhlm) bjr the Envlromrnt*, Protection Aocncv In rviponir to Section 17? of th
Cl*«a Atr Vt JW^^nU of 19/7.
-------
TABLE 4.4-2a * (continued)
Company Operating
name location
23 Lachewanna Lachewanna, NY
24 S. Brooklyn New York. NY
25 Green Point New York, NY
26 Hamilton Av. Hew York, NY
27 lakewood lakewood, OH
2B E. Central Philadelphia, PA
29 N. West Phlaldelphla, PA
30 Shlppensburg Shlppensburg, PA
31 Webber County Webber Cty. . PA
32 Newport News Newport New!, VA
33 Portsmouth Portsmouth, VA
14 Shaboygan Sheboyun. Ul
Total without heat recovery
UNITS WITH HEAT RECOVERY
1 N. West Chicago, 11
2 Baltimore Baltimore, IB
3 Resco Saugus. HA
S Belts New York. NY
6 Kemps tead Hemps tejd, NY
7 S. West Brooklyn, NY
8 Harrlsourg Harrlsburg, PA
9 Nashville Nashville, TN
10 Norfolk Navy Norfolk, VA
Public Works
I Waukesha Waukeshe. Wl
Total with heat recovery
Total with and without heat recov
type
Starved air (3)
Manual stacking
to be closed 1981
Starved air
traveling (3)
Starved air (3)
chain
Rotary kiln (3)
Starved >1r
reciprocating (3)
Starved air
reciprocating (3)
Starved air (3)
tolling grate
water wall raking
(31
Starved air
reciprocating (3)
totaling kiln (3)
Starved air
traveling gate (3)
Water wall
reciprocating (3)
Cascading
Starved air
reciprocating (3)
Starved air
reciprocating (3)
Starved air
reciprocating (3)
tefratory wall (3)
reciprocating
ery
Control
technique
Wet settling
cnaMer (31
ESP
ESP
ESP-Aisumed
Cyclone
ESP (3)
ESP (3)
Low energy
scrubber (3)
ESP (3)
ESP (3)
Wet settling
chamber (3)
low energy
•crubb«r (Jl
ESP (3)
ESP (3)
ESP (3)
ESP-Assurcd
ESP-Assumed
ESP (3)
ESP (3)
CSP (3)
ESP (3)
ESP (3)
CSP (3)
Operating
average
Hg/day
907 (4)
S d/w (3)
907 (4)
t d/w (4)
907 (4)
5 d/w
907 (4)
S d/w
ISO
5 d/W
Assumed
635 (3)
7 d/w
635 (3)
7d/w
65 (3)
S d/w Assumed
181 (3)
C d/w
272 (3)
7 d/w (3)
318 (3)
SI d/w
136 11}
S d/t*
Assured
3
1451 (3)
365 d/y (3)
907 (3)
7 d/w
1089
365 d/y
216 5 d/W
907, 5 d/w
Assured
1 ? 544
1 » 680
7 d/w (3)
544 (1) '.
653 (3)
365 d/y
653 (3)
365 d/y
327 (3)
7 d/w (3)
100 (3)
5 d/w-Assured
2
6
per
year
235,868'
235,868C
235,868C
235,868'
38 916'
231,151'
231.151'
16.982C
56.608'
99,065'
90,809'
35,380'
,926,022
529.796'
330.215'
397.347'
56,60d'
235.8681
44S.79le
SHUTDOWN (5)
238,408'
238.406'
118,877'
25.945C
.617,263
,543.285
Control
equipment
efficiency
72.51
Assumed
901
Assumed
901
Assumed
901
Assumed
SOI
Assumed
901
Assured
901
Assumed
201
Assumed
901
Assumed
901
Assured
72.51
Assumed
201 (2)
901
Assumed
901
Assumed
901
Assumed
901-Assumed
901-Assumed
901
Assumed
901
Assumed
901
Assumed
901
Assumed
1
Compliance
standard Allowable
status emissions
SIP. In 47 kg/hr
compliance.
certification
47 kg/hr
SIP. In 47 kg/hr
violation.
-------
TABLE 4.4-2b
CONVENTIONAL INCINERATORS'
(English units)
ISM*
Oper.tlfKj
location
type
Control
technlgue
Operating
average
TPD
Tons
per
Control
equlpnent
Uncontrolled Controlled uncontrolled Controlled controlled
Annual Annual
controlled uncontrolled
cadmium cadmium
T/.r l/yr
WITS HITHOUT HUT KCOVEIT
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
B
9
10
1
12
13
|4
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Anlonle
StMford
NCM Cenaan
E. Hartford
Bridgeport
SU» II
Orlando
Dade County
•atpeho
E. Chicago
Shreveport
Baltimore
Fall River
Fremlnghem
BrldgeMiter
St. Louis
St. Louis
led Bank
Huntlngton
Oyster Bay
Ansonla. CT
Stemtord. CT
No Canaan, a
E. Hartford, CT
Bridgeport. CT
Vashlngton. DC
Orlando. Fl
Dade County. Fl
Honolulu, HI
C. Chicago. IN
Shreveport. LA
Baltimore. HD
Fall liver. HA
rramlnghea, HA
BrldgeMater. HA
St. Louis. Ml
St. louts. HO
led Bank. HI
Huntlngton. NT
Oyster Bay, NT
Stlrved llr rocking
grate (1)
Starved ilr
reciprocating (3)
«1ln (3)
SHUT
Train (3)
Starved air
reciprocating (3)
Starved air rocking
(3)
3 stag* traveling
gnte (3)
Stlrved ilr rocking
trite (3)
SUrved llr
reciprocating (3)
Hater Mall
reciprocating (3)
Hater Mall (3)
Starved air
reciprocating (3)
SUrved air
reciprocating (3)
Starved air (3)
manual stacked
Starved air
•anual stacked (3)
Sterved air
reciprocating (3)
Starved air (3); 11
13-rectprocillng
Starved air
reciprocating (3)
Starved air
reciprocating (3)
LOM pressure
scrubber
€SP (3)
•enturl IOM
energy
Uet settling
chamber (3)
DOUI< (2)
Hultlclones
26/1 Ine (3)
ESP (3)
ESP (3)
CSP 13)
Uet settling
charter (3)
IOM energy
scrubber (3)
Cyclone (3)
ESP (31
High energy
scrubber and
ESP (3)
Baghouse (3)
Ba (house
IOM energy
scrubber (3)
IOM energy
scrubber (3)
LOM energy
scrubber
. .1.12-10.
ber, 13-ESP
LOM energy
scrubber (3)
Wet settling
chamber (3)
ISO 13)
5 d/M (1)
160
SI d/M (3)
100 (3)
S d/M
ISO (3)
1500 (2)
S d/M (3)
100 (3)
5 d/M
240 13)
5 d/M (3)
450 13)
S d/M (1)
325 (3)
S d/. (3)
BSD (3)
7 d/M (3)
170 13)
S d/M (31
BOO (3)
6 d/M (3)
600 (3)
S d/M (3)
200 (3)
S d/M
Assumed
300 (4)
S d/M
Assumed
400 (3)
5 d/.
560 12)
5 d/M (3)
35 (3)
6 d/M (3)
300 (3)
S d/M
1000 13)
S d/M ())
2SO (31
S d/M
39.000'
45.760'
26. 000 c
39,000C
390. OHO1
26.000C
62.400C
140.400C
84,SOOC
309,400'
44,200C
249.600'
156.000C
S2.000e
78.000C
I04.000C
145.600'
10.920'
78 .000'
260.000'
65.000'
601 (2)
901 (2)
BO! (2)
601 (2)
sm
Assured
90S
Assuned
90J (2)
901
Assuned
8S< (2)
201
Design (2)
SOI
Design (2)
Design 12)
951
Assumed
401 (2)
401
Assumed
881 (2)
881 (2)
201
Assumed
Assumed
201
Assumed
72 5S
Assumed
SIP. In 187 75 .276 .11 234
compliance,
source test
200 20 .295 .030 68
SIP. In 12S 25 .184 .037 78
compliance,
source test
SIP. In 187 7S .276 .11 234
compliance,
certification
SIP. In 1875 937 2.76 1.38 29?S
violation,
• tg. sched
SIP. In 125 12 .184 .018 39
compliance.
Inspect
SIP. In 300 30 412 .044 93
compliance.
source test
SIP. In 562 S6 .830 .063 210
Inspect
406 60 .600 .090 190
1062 650 1 56 ..25 3712
SIP. In 212 106 .313 .157 331
violation, not
«ug. sched.
SIP. In 1000 10 1 47 .015 37
violation.
»tg. sched.
SIP, In 750 38 1.10 .055 117
violation.
mtg sched
SIP. In 250 ISO .3e« .221 468
compliance.
«SPS, In tompll- 375 22S .55) .332 702
ancf. pertlculate
source test
SIP. In 500 60 .737 08*) 1B7
compl lance.
Inspect
SIP. In 700 84 1.03 .124 ?6?
compliance.
SIP. I" 43 35 064 .052 131
compliance.
Inspect
SIP. In 55
-------
TABLE 4.4-2b.* (continued)
Company Operating
name location
23 Lechawanna Lachewanna, HY
24 S. Brooklyn New York. NY
25 Green Point New York, HY
26 Hamilton Av. Hen York, NY
27 Lakewood lakewood, OH
28 E. Central Philadelphia, PA
29 N. West Phlaldelphle. PA
30 Shlppensburg Shlppensburg, PA
31 Webber County Webber Cty. . PA
32 Newport News Newport Hews. VA
33 Portsmouth Portsmouth, VA
34 Sheboyoan Sheboyoan. HI
Total without heat recovery
UMTS WITH HEAT RECOVERY
1 N. West Chicago, K
2 Baltimore laltlaDre, NO
3 Resco Seugus , KA
4 Bratntree Bratntree, HA
5 Belts New York, HY
6 Hempstead Henpstead, HY
7 S. West Brooklyn, NY
8 Harrlsburg Harrlsburg, PA
9 Nashville Nashville, TH
10 Norfolk Navy Norfolk. VA
Public Works
11 Haukesha Naukesha, WI
type
Starved air (3)
Manual Blacking
to be closed 1981
Starved air
traveling (3)
Starved air (3)
chain
Rotary kiln (3)
Starved air
reciprocating (3)
Starved air
reciprocating (3)
Starved air (3)
Rolling grate
Water wall raking
(3)
Starved air
reciprocating (3)
Rotating kiln (3)
Starved air
traveling qate 43)
Water wall
reciprocating (3)
Cascading
Starved air
reciprocating (3)
Starved air
reciprocating 0)
Starved air
reciprocating (3)
Refratory wall (3)
reciprocating
Control
technique
Wet settling
chamber (3)
ESP
ESP
ESP-Assumed
Cyclone
ESP (3)
ESP (3)
Low energy
scrubber (3)
ESP (3)
ESP (3)
Wet settling
chamber (31
Low energy
scrubber (3)
ESP (3)
ESP (3)
ESP (3)
ESP-Assumed
ESP-Assumed
ESP (3)
ESP (3)
ESP (3)
ESP (3)
ESP (3)
ESP (3)
Operating
average
TPD
1000 (4)
5 d/w (3)
1000 (4)
S d/w (4)
1000 (4)
5 d/w
1000 (4)
5 d/w
165
S d/w
Assumed
700 (3)
7 d/w
700 (3)
7 d/w
72 (3)
5 d/w Assumed
200 (3)
6 d/w
300 (3)
7 d/w (3)
350 (3)
51 d/w
150 (3)
5 d/w
Assumed
1600 (3)
365 d/y (3)
1000 (3)
7 d/w
1200
365 d/y
240. 5 d/w
1000, S d/w
Assined
1 9 600
1 » 750
7 d/w (3)
600 (3)
720 (3)
365 d/y
720 (3)
365 d/y
360 (3)
7 d/W (3)
110 (3)
5 d/w-Assumed
Total with heat recovery
Total with and without heat recovery
Tons
per
year
260,000'
260,000'
260.000'
260.000'
42.900'
Z54.800'
254,800'
18.720'
62.400C
109.200'
100, 100'
39,000°
4,327.700
584,000'
364, 000C
438.000'
62,400'
260,000
491 ,400C
SHUTDOWN (S)
262,800'
262,800'
131.040'
28.600°
2.885.040
7,212.740
Control
equipment
efficiency
72. 5S
Assumed
90S
Assumed
90S
Assumed
901
Assumed
50S
Assumed
90S
Assumed
901
Assumed
20S
Assumed
90S
Assumed
90S
Assumed
72.51
Assumed
20S (2)
SOS
Assured
90S
Assumed
90S
Assumed
901-Assumed
90S-Assumed
90S
Assumed
90S
Assumed
90S
Assumed
901
Assumed
Conpllence
status emissions
SIP, In 103 l/hr
compliance,
certification
103 l/hr
SIP, In 103 l/hr
violation,
•tg. sched.
SIP. In viola- 103 l/hr
tlon, not
•tg. sched.
SIP, In
compliance,
certification
SIP, In
compliance,
certification
NSPS. In compli-
ance, partlculate
source test
SIP, 1n viola- 103 l/hr
tlon, mtg. sched.
SIP. In
compliance,
source test
HSPS. In
compliance,
source test
Uncontrolled
l/hr
1250
1250
1250
1250
206
875
875
90
250
375
437
187
19,091
2000
1250
1500
300
1250
1687
900
900
137
9924
29,015
Controlled
l/hr
125
125
125
125
103
87
87
72
25
37
120
150
5326
200
125
150
30
125
168
90
90
13.8
991.8
6317.8
Uncontrolled
l/hr
1.84
1.84
1.84
1.84
.304
1.29
1.29
.133
.369
.553
.645
.276
28.117
2.95
1.84
2.21
.442
1.84
2.49
1.33
1.33
.203
14.635
42.752
Controlled
l/hr
.164
.184
.184
.184
.152
.129
.129
.106
.037
.055
.177
.221
7.484
.295
.184
.221
-044
.184
.249
.133
.133
.020
1.463
9.311
Annual
controlled
T/yr
390
390
390
390
321
382
3B2
224
93
163
412
468
18.074
876
546
657
842
390
737
394
394
43
4879.9
22,954
Annual
controlled
T/yr
.575
.575
.575
.575
.475
.563
.563
.331
.138
.242
.609
.690
27.152
' 1.29
.805
.969
1.242
.575
1.09
.581
.581
.063
7.196
-14.3)8
Annual
uncontrolled
T/yr
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.75
.949
5.63
5.63
.414
1.38
2.42
2.2!
.863
95.721
12.9
8.05
9-69
1.38
5.75
10.9
5.81
5.81
.632
60.922
156.643
This Is not » record for cmp1l
-------
Footnotes for Table 4.4-2a and Table 4.4-2b
(1) Carcinogens From Municipal Incinerators Draft Report, Wapora, Inc.,
August 4, 1980.
(2) Memo to Ron Meyers, USEPA/ESED, from Henry Modetz, Acurex Corporation,
Results of Municipal Incinerator Survey, March 18, 1980.
(3) Telecons by Acurex Corporation, Survey completed and summarized
March 18, 1980.
(4) Personal Communication, Ron Meyers, USEPA/ESED, with Timothy Curtin,
GCA/Technology Division, January 22, 1981.
(5) Compliance Data System, Quick Look Report.
c = calculated.
80
-------
A recent trend in municipal incineration is toward the use of package
units. These units vary in design size from 8.2-27.2 Mg per day (9-30 TPD).
Frequently multiple units are placed together in one location. Figure 4.4-2
presents a diagram of two such units at one Vocation. The package includes
the refuse handling equipment, the incinerator itself, emission control
equipment, and standard hook-ups for utilities (i.e, water, electricity,
gas). The modular design of package units allows a facility to increase its
capacity by purchasing an additional self contained unit similar to the
existing equipment. Table 4.4-3 presents a list of operating locations and
capacity for the package incinerators in the United States.
4.4.3 Geographical Distribution
Of the 44 municipal incinerators in the United States with capacities
above 45.4 mg per day (50 PTPD), 33 do not have heat recovery capabilities.
These 33 are located in 14 states and the District of Columbia and all but
six are located in the northeastern corner of the country. Figure 4.4-3
presents a map of the number of operating locations of municipal incinerators
above 45.4 Mg per day (50 TPD) without heat recovery. The 11 operating
locations above 45.4 Mg per day (50 TPD) with heat recovery are also located
in eight states in the northeastern part of the country as presented in
Figure 4.4-4.
There are 90 operating package incinerators in the United States.
Almost one third of all the package incinerators in the United States are
located in Arkansas. The remaining units are located in 12 states throughout
the country. Figure 4.4-5 presents the geographical distribution of package
incinerators in the United States.
4.4.4 Emission Control Techniques
Every municipal incinerator in the United States of 45.4 Mg per day
(50 TPD) or greater utilizes some type of emission control equipment. The
equipment varies from low energy scrubbers with particulate removal efficiencies
of 20 percent, to electrostatic precipitators, baghouses, and scrubbers with
particulate removal efficiencies of 99 percent. The average industry-wide
control efficiency is 76.4 percent. Other types of control equipment which
are used on municipal incinerators include: settling chambers, cyclones, and
multiclones. Table 4.4-2 lists the control equipment for the municipal
incinerators of 45.4 Mg per day (50 TPD) or greater.
81
-------
ENERGY
STACK
DUMP
STACK
ENERGY
STACK
DUMP
STACK
oo
ro
STEAM
CONNECTI
STEAM
CONNECTION
STEAM
SEPARATOR
STEAM
SEPARATOR
| W-
HfT / I.D.BLOWE
UPPER
CHAMBER
BREECHING
\.
UPPER
CHAMBER
BREECHING
HEAT
RECOVERY
HEAT
RECOVERY
OXIDIZING
CHAMBER
IGNITION
BURNER
ASH
DISCHARGE
BLOWER ASST.
OXIDIZING
"CHAMBER
IGNITION
'BURNER
LOWER
CHAMBER
GAS PRODUCTION
CHAMBER
GAS PRODUCTION
CHAMBER
Figure 4.4-2. Two package incinerators at one location.
15
-------
oo
OJ
TABLE 4.4-3a PACKAGE INCINERATORS
(Metric units)
Manufacturer
U.S. Smelting
Kelley
Consumat
Operating
location
Crossville, TN
Nottingham, NH
Candia, NH
Bridge water, NH
Meredith. NH
Canterbury, NH
Pittsfield, NH
Kittery , ME
Harpswell, ME
Auburn, NH
Stuttgart, AR
Augusta, AR
Tahlequah, OK
Donaldsonville, LA
Rayne, LA
Plaquemine, LA
Kensett, AR
Skanea teles. NY
Osceola, AR
Cleveland. OK
Pahokee, FL
Orlando, FL
Refugio, TX
Bellingham, MA
Terrell, TX
Hot Springs, AR
Bentonvllle, AR
Hope, AR
Si loam Springs, AR
Blytheville. AR
Wrightsville Beach, NC
No.
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
8
1
8
3
8
2
2
2
4
2
Capacity
per unit
Mg/day
27.2
8.2
12.7
12.7
12.7
8.2
12.7
21.8
12.7
12.7
27.2
20.0
27.2
27.2
27.2
27.2
14.5
27.2
27.2
20.0
20.0
27.2
20.0
11.8
16.3
27.2
27.2
27.2
20.0
16.3
27.2
Plant
capacity
Mg/day
54.4
8.2
12.7
12.7
25.4
8.2
12.7
43.5
12.7
12.7
54.4
20.0
54.4
27.2
54.4
54.4
14.5
27.2
54.4
20.0
40.0
217.7
20.0
94.3
49.0
217.7
54.4
54.4
40.0
65.3
54.4
Year of
instal-
lation
1976
1975
1976
1976
1976
1977
1977
1977
1977
1978
1972
1972
1972
1972
1973
1973
1973
1973
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1977
Heat
recovery
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
Mg Controlled Controlled
per particulate cadmium
year Kg/hr Kg/hr
5,561
849
1,321
1,321
2,642
849
1,321
4,529
1,321
1,321
5,561
2,076
5,561
2,830
5,561
5,561
1,510
2,830
5,561
2,076
4,151
22,643
2,076
9,812
5,095
22,643
5,561
5,561
4,151
6,793
5,561
2.29
0.34
0.53
0.53
1.07
0.34
0.53
1.83
0.53
0.53
2.29
0.84
2.29
1.15
2.29
2.29
0.61
1.15
2.29
0.84
1.68
9.16
0.84
3.97
2.06
9.16
2.29
2.29
1.68
2.75
2.29
.039
.006
.009
.009
.018
.006
.009
.031
.009
.009
.039
.015
.040
.020
.040
.040
.010
.020
.040
.015
.029
.160
.015
.069
.034
.160
.040
.040
.029
.048
.040
Controlled
particulate
Mg/yr
5.72
0.86
1.33
1.33
2.67
0.86
1.33
4.57
1.33
1.33
5.72
2.10
5.72
2.86
5.72
5.72
1.52
2.86
5.72
2.10
4.19
22.87
2.10
9.91
5.14
22.87
5.72
5.72
4.19
6.86
5.72
Controlled
cadmium
Mg/yr
.100
.015
.024
.024
.046
.015
.024
.080
.024
.024
.100
.036
.100
.050
.100
.100
.026
.050
.100
.036
.073
.396
.036
.171
.089
.396
.100
.100
.073
.120
.100
CONTINUED This Is not a record for compliance or enforcement purposes. This Information docunents d«t«
used In decision making by the Environmental Protection Agency 1n response to Section 122 of the
Clean Air Act Anendments of 1977.
-------
TABLE 4.4-3a (continued)
Operating
Manufacturer location
Consumat Tahlequah, OK
Coos County, OR
H. Little Rock, AR
Port Orange, FL
Atkins, AR
Wilton, NH
Litchfield, NH
Molfeboro, NH
Coos County, OR
Salem, VA
No.
2
1
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
4
90
Capacity
per unit
Mg/day
27.
27.
22.
27.
15.
27.
2
.2
.7
2
4
2
20.0
16,
27.
22.
.3
.2
.7
Plant
capacity
Mg/day
54.4
27.2
90.7
108.9
15.4
27.2
20.0
16.3
27.2
90.7
1,969.3
Year of
instal-
lation
1977
1977
1977
1978
1978
1978
1978
1978
1978
1978
Mg
Heat per
recovery year
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
5,561
2,830
18,506
11,322
1,604
2,830
2,076
1.698
2,830
9.435
212,901
Controlled
particulate
Kg/hr
2.29
1.15
3.82
4.58
0.65
1.15
0.84
0.69
1.15
3.82
82.87
Control led
cadmium
Kg/hr
.040
.020
.066
.079
.011
.020
.015
.012
.020
.066
1.437
Controlled
particulate
Mg/yr
5.72
2.86
9.52
11.43
1.62
2.86
2.10
1.71
2.86
9.52
206.86
Controlled
cadmium
Mg/yr
.100
.050
.166
.200
.028
.050
.036
.030
.050
.166
3.604
Based on 8 hr/day, 6 days/week, 52 weeks/year.
CO
This Is not i record for compliance or enforceaent purposes. This Information documnts data
used In decision caking by the Envlrotwenta) Protection Agency In response to Section 122 of the
Clean Air Act Anendnents of 1977.
-------
TABLE 4.4-3b PACKAGE INCINERATORS
(English units)
00
en
Operating
Manufacturer location
U.S. Smeltinq Crossvllle, TN
Kelley Nottinaham, NH
Candia, NH
Bridqewater, NH
Meredith, NH
Canterbury, NH
Pittsfield, NH
Kittery, ME
Harps well, ME
Auburn, NH
Consumat Stuttgart, AR
Augusta, AR
Tahlequah, OK
Donaldsonville, LA
Rayne, LA
Plaquemine, LA
Kensett, AR
Skaneateles, NY
Osceola, AR
Cleveland, OK
Pahokee, FL
Orlando, FL
Refuglo, TX
Bellingham, UA
Terrell, TX
Hot Springs, AR
Bentonville, AR
Hope, AR
SI loam Springs, AR
Blythevllle, AR
Wrightsville Beach, NC
No.
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
8
1
8
3
8
2
2
2
4
2
Capacity
per unit
TPD
30
9
14
14
14
9
14
24
14
14
30
22
30
30
30
30
16
30
30
22
22
30
22
13
18
30
30
30
22
18
30
Plant
capacity
TPD
60
9
14
14
28
9
14
48
14
14
60
22
60
30
60
60
16
30
60
22
44
240
22
104
54
240
60
60
44
72
60
Year of
instal-
lation
1976
1975
1976
1976
1976
1977
1977
1977
1977
1978
1972
1972
1972
1972
1973
1973
1973
1973
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1975
1977
Heat
recovery
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
Tons
per
year
6,240
936
1,456
1,456
2,912
936
1,456
4,992
1,456
1,456
6,240
2,288
6,240
3,120
6,240
6,240
1,664
3,120
6,240
2,288
4,576
24,960
2,288
10,816
5.616
24,960
6,240
6,240
4,576
7,488
6,240
Controlled
particulate
tt/kr
5.05
.758
1.18
1.18
2.36
.758
1.18
4.04
1.18
1.18
5.05
1.85
5.05
2.53
5.05
5.05
1.35
2.53
5.05
1.85
3.70
20.2
1.85
8.75
4.55
20.2
5.05
5.05
3.70
6.06
5.05
Controlled
cadmi urn
#/hr
.088
.013
.021
.021
.041
.013
.021
.070
.021
.021
.088
.032
.088
.044
.088
.088
.023
.044
.088
.032
.065
.352
.032
.153
.076
.352
.088
.088
.065
.105
.088
Controlled
particulate
T/yr
6.30
.95
1.47
1.47
2.94
.95
1-47
5.04
1.47
1.47
6.30
2.31
6.30
3.15
6.30
6.30
1.68
3.15
6.30
2.31
4.62
25.21
2.31
10.92
5.67
25.21
6.30
6.30
4.62
7.56
6.30
Controlled
cadmium
T/yr
.110
.016
.026
.026
.051
.016
.026
.088
.026
.026
.110
.040
.110
.055
.110
.110
.029
.055
.110
.040
.080
.437
.040
.189
.098
.437
.110
.110
.081
.132
.110
CONTINUED This Is not t record for compliance or enforcement purposes. This Information documents dat*
used In decision making by the Environmental Protection Agency In response to Section 122 of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
-------
TABLE 4.4-3b * (continued)
Operating
Manufacturer location
Consumat Tahlequah, OK
Coos County, OR
N. Little Rock. AR
Port Orange, FL
Atkins, AR
Milton. NH
Lltchfleld, NH
Holfeboro, NH
Coos County, OR
Salem. VA
TOTAL
No.
2
1
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
4
90
Capacity
per unit
TPD
30
30
25
30
17
30
22
18
30
25
Plant
capacity
TPD
60
30
100
120
17
30
22
18
30
100
2,171
Year of
instal-
lation
1977
1977
1977
1978
1978
1978
1978
1978
1978
1978
Tons
Heat per
recovery year
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
6,240
3,120
20,400
12,480
1,768
3.120
2,288
1,872
3,120
10,400
235,784
Controlled
particulate
l/hr
5.05
2.53
8.42
10.1
1.43
2.53
1.85
1.52
2.53
8.42
182.766
Controlled
cadmium
*/hr
.088
.044
.146
.176
.025
.044
.032
.026
.044
.146
3.18
Controlled
particulate
T/yr
6
3
10
12
1
3.
2.
1.
3.
10.
.30
.15
.50
.60
.79
.15
,31
.89
15
50
227.99
Controlled
cadmium
T/yr
.110
.055
.183
.220
.031
.055
.040
.033
.055
.183
3.969
Based on 8 hr/day, 6 days/week, 52 weeks/year.
00
CJi
This Is not • record for compliance or enforcement purposes. This Information documents data
used In decision luking by the Envlromenlal Protection Agency In response to Section 122 of the
Clean Air Act Aoendnents of 1977.
-------
CO
Figure 4.4-3. Geographical distribution of conventional incinerators without heat recovery.
-------
00
00
Figure 4.4-4 Geographical distribution of conventional incinerators with heat recovery.
-------
CO
us
Figure 4.4-5. Geographical distribution of package incinerators.
-------
Package incinerators typically include emission control equipment as an
integral part of the package and the incinerator itself. Normally, the
control equipment is a secondary combustion chamber fitted with an afterburner.
In the primary combustion chamber, the refuse is ignited producing off gases
with heavy combustible particulate loadings and volatile gases. In the
secondary chamber, the afterburner ignites the combustible fractions of the
off gases and reduces the particulate loading. This type of control technique
has been shown to reduce total particulate emissions but may be ineffective
in removing cadmium and other trace metals.
Cadmium, when emitted from municipal incinerators, is found in the
smaller particles. About 80 percent of the cadmium is associated with particles
less than three microns in size and 50 percent is associated with particles
less than one micron in size. Figure 4.4-6 presents particle size curves for
total particulate and cadmium. These curves were derived by in-stack particle
sizing tests followed by chemical analysis for cadmium. The median particle
size for total particulate is 3.3 microns but for cadmium it is 0.96 microns.
Consequently, to remove one half of the cadmium, particulate matter larger
than 0.96 microns has to be removed. However, to remove one half of the
total particulate, only particulate matter larger than 3.3 microns has to be
removed. Therefore, higher efficiency particulate control equipment is
required to remove a specific percentage of cadmium than to remove the same
percentage total particulate.
Two explanations have been advanced to account for cadmium's tendency
toward the smaller submicron particle sizes. The first is that cadmium in
the combustion chamber exists as cadmium oxide fumes which are typically
submicron in size. The other explanation is that cadmium is selectively
adsorbed on smaller particles in the incinerator gases because of their
higher surface to volume ratios relative to the larger particles.
4.4.5 Emissions
Annual controlled cadmium emissions from municipal incinerators are
34.7 Mg (38.3 tons). Conventional incinerators with capacities above
90
-------
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
~ 7.0
6.0
CC 5.0
UJ
t 4.0
| 3.5
0 3.0
O
=E 2.5
O
O
2.0
1.5
1.0
.9
.8
.7
.6
.3
CADMIUM
O
TOTAL
PARTICIPATE
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
CUMULATIVE PERCENT
90 95
98 99
Figure 4.4-6.
Particle size distribution of the emissions from a
municipal incinerator.
91
-------
45.4 Mg/day (50 TPD) accounted for 31.1 Mg (34.3 tons) controlled. Package
incinerators accounted for 3.6 Mg (4.0 tons) per year controlled cadmium
emissions.
Emissions from conventional incinerators are presented in Table 4.4-2.
Because of the wide variety of municipal refuse, an average emission factor
1 p
was used to determine the uncontrolled particulate emission rates. To
calculate controlled emissions, site-specific control equipment efficiencies
were used. Cadmium emissions were calculated by applying an average cadmium
to particulate ratio to the particulate emissions. This ratio is the result
of a number of emission tests. '
The emission values for cadmium and particulate from package incinerators
presented in Table 4.4-3 were developed from a set of emissions tests conducted
by the EPA.'^ Both controlled particulate and cadmium emission factors were
developed from these tests and were applied to each operating location.
4.4.6 Compliance Status*
The compliance status of conventional municipal incinerators for units at
or above 45.4 Mg per day (50 TPD) is presented in Table 4.4-2. The compliance
status reported in this table was obtained from EPA's Compliance Data System's
Quick Look Report. According to that report, 19 facilities are in compliance
and eight are in violation. The remaining 18 units are not listed.
There are eleven sets of English units which are presently utilized to
define particulate emission limitations from municipal incinerators in the
United States. All eleven sets of units are listed below:
1. gr/scf at 12% C02
2. lb/100 Ib. dry refuse charged
3. Ib/hr
4. gr/scf
5. lb/100 Ib. gas at 50% excess air
This is not a record for compliance or enforcement purposes. This information documents data
used in decision making by the Environmental Protection Agency in response to Section 122 of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
92
-------
6. Ib/hr per Ib/hr charge
7. lb/100 Ib. gas
8. gr/scf at 7% 02
9. gr/scf at 50% excess air
10. lb/106 btu
11. lb/1000 Ib. gas at 12% C02
In addition to the participate emission regulations, all States have opacity
tx
limitations for compliance determinations. However, emissions testing is
required to determine actual emission rates.
4.4.7 Comparison of National Emission Estimates with Other Studies
A number of different studies have reported estimates of national
cadmium emissions from municipal incinerators. The present study utilized a
site-specific methodology incorporating emission control equipment and
associated efficiencies to estimate annual cadmium emissions to be 34.7 Mg
(38.3 tons). In previous studies, Energy and Environmental Analysis estimated
118 Mg (131 tons), Davis and Mitre both estmated 86.1 Mg (95 tons), EPA
estimated 43.5 Mg (48 tons), and Sargent estimated 14.5 Mg (16 tons).19
A number of reasons exist for the differences in these emission estimates.
Many old uncontrolled facilities have been shut down or replaced with modern
units with emission controls. Emission factors can vary considerably due to
the variability of the refuse itself. During this study, an averaged emission
factor was used.
93
-------
References for Section 4.4
1. Sullivan, P.M. and H.V. Makar. Proceedings of the Fifth Mineral Waste
Utilization, pg. 223, 1976.
2. Law, S.L., and G.E. Gordon. Sources of Metals in Municipal Incinerator
Emissions. Environmental Science and Technology. 13 (4): 432-438.
April 1979. ~~
3. Memo from Modetz, H. , Acurex Corporation, Energy and Environmental
Division, to Meyers, R., United States Environmental Protection Agency.
March 18, 1980. Results of Municipal Incinerator Survey.
4. Letter and attachments from Watson, J.J. Acurex Corporation, Energy
and Environmental Division to Woodard, K., United States Environmental
Protection Agency. August 22, 1979. Results of Small Municipal
Incinerator Survey.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Code of Federal Regulations,
Title 40, Part 60 Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources.
Subpart E, Standards of Performance for Incincerators. July 25, 1977.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Pollution Engineering
Manual. AP-40, pg. 439-441. May 1973.
7. Mclnnes, R.G., P.M. Brown, R.K. Yu, and N.M. Hanley. Screening Study To
Determine The Need For Standards of Performance For Industrial And
Commercial Incinerators. GCA/Technology Division. Bedford, Massachusetts
No. GCA-TR-78-57-G. prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
January 1979. pg. 57.
8. CRC Press, Inc. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 59th Edition.
West Palm Beach, Florida. April 1978. pg. B-103.
9. Axetell, K. , T.W. Devitt, and N. Kulujian. Inspection Manual For
Enforcement of New Source Performance Standards Municipal Incinerators.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement,
Washington, D.C. Publicaton No. EPA-340/1-75-003. February 1975.
pg. 3-2.
10. Yost, K. et al. The Environmental Flow of Cadmium and Other Trace
Metals, Progress Report, July 1, 1973 to June 30, 1979, prepared for
the National Science Foundation, Grant No. GI-35106.
11. Jacko, R.B., D.W.Neuendorf, K.J. Yost. Trace Metal Emissions From A
Scrubber Controlled Municipal Incinerator. In: Annual Meeting of the
Air Pollution Control Division of the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, Houston, Texas. July 1975, pg. 6.
12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilations of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors. AP-42. Third Edition, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards and Office of Air and Waste Management. Research Triangle
Park, N.C. August 1977. pg. 2.1-3.
94
-------
13. Greenberg, R.R., G.E. Gordon, W.H. Zoller, R.B Jacko, D.W. Neuendorf,
and K.J. Yost. Composition of Particles Emitted From The Nicosia
Municipal Incinerator. Environmental Science and Technology. 1_2_
(12): 1329-1332. November 1978.
14. Reid, R.S. and D.H. Herber. Energy Conservation Through Waste
Utilization. In: Proceedings of 1978 National Waste Processing
Conference, pg. 167-177-
15. Peters, J.A. and W.H. McDonald. Nonfossil Fueled Boilers Emission
Test Report City of Salem, Virginia. Monsanto Research
Corporation, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Emission Measurement Branch. Research Triangle Park, N.C. EMB
Report 80-WFB-l. February 1980.
16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compliance Status of Major
Air Pollution Facilities. Office of General Enforcement. Washington,
D.C. EPA-340/1-80-014. October 1980.
17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Incinerator Enforcement
Manual. Office of General Enforcement. Washington, DC.
EPA-340/1-76-013. January 1977.
18. Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. Environment Reporter: State Air
Laws. Volumes I, II, and III. May 1981.
19. Coleman, R. et al. Sources of Atmospheric Cadmium, prepared for: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
and Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park,
N.C. EPA-450/5-79-006. August 1979. pg. 81.
95
-------
4.5 SLUDGE INCINERATION
4.5.1 Introduction
Sludge incineration is a two-step process involving drying and combustion.
The purpose of incineration is to reduce the total volume of the sludge, to
destroy all organic matter by complete combustion, to destroy all pathogenic
organisms, and produce an odor free end product. Typical sludge is 80 percent
water and 20 percent solids. Of this 20 percent, 75 percent are combustible.
Following incineration, dry solids are reduced to 20 to 25 percent of the
solids entering the unit. The reduction of sludge volume reduces the land
requirements for disposal. Incinerators are located in urban areas at plants
that are long distances from land or ocean disposal sites, or where regulations
prohibit these alternate disposal methods. In addition, the large amount of
mechanical and electrical equipment used in the process limits incinerators to
large plants with full-time maintenance staffs. For these reasons, the
1.8 percent of the U.S. plants that have incinerators, incinerate 23.6 percent
of the sludge produced nationwide.
Sludge is incinerated at 358 wastewater treatment plants. Of the
358 plants, 320 use multiple-hearth units, 15 use fluidized-bed units, seven
use rotary kiln units, two use pyrolysis, four use co-incineration with
municipal refuse, and ten use some other method.
Wastes containing cadmium are discharged to municipal wastewater treatment
plants by industrial or commercial sources, with the principal contributions
of cadmium coming from metal plating processes. Cadmium is also used in
2
pigment manufacture, photographic applications, dyeing, and calico printing.
4.5.2 Process Description
The two common types of incinerators are multiple hearth and fluidized
bed. These two processes are used on approximately 94 percent of the sludge
which is incinerated in the U.S.
o
4.5.2.1 Multiple-hearth Furnace The multiple-hearth furnace (MHF)
is the most widely used type of sludge incinerator in the U.S. The MHF is
a vertically oriented, cylindrically shaped, refractory-lined, steel shell
96
-------
containing a series of refractory hearths, one above the other. Multiple-hearth
furnaces are available with diameters ranging from 1.37 m (4.5 ft) to
8.84 m (29 ft) with four to fourteen hearths. A typical section of a MHF
is shown in Figure 4.5-1.
A central shaft extends the entire height of the furnace and supports
rabble arms above each hearth. The rabble arms rake the sludge spirally
across the hearth and break up the large sludge particles to induce rapid
and complete combustion. Sludge is fed at the periphery of the top hearth
and is raked inward then outward on alternate hearths.
Since the operating temperature on the hearth may reach 1100°C (2000°F),
the central shaft and rabble arms are cooled with compressed air fed from
the bottom. A portion of the cooling air is drawn from the top of the
furnace and returned to the furnace bottom to serve as preheated combustion
air. Excess air requirements for the MHF may vary from 50 to 100 percent.
The MHF can be divided into three operating zones. The first zone, which
consists of the upper hearths, is the drying zone where most of the water
is evaporated; the second zone, generally consisting of the central hearths,
is the combustion zone, where temperatures reach 760° to 927°C (1400° to
1700°F) and carbon is oxidized to carbon dioxide; and the third zone is the
cooling zone, which includes the lowest hearths. In this zone, the ash is
cooled by the incoming combustion air. The sequence of zones is always the
same, but the number of hearths in each zone is dependent upon the quality of
the feed, the design of the furnace, and the operational conditions.
For sludge containing greater than 75 percent moisture, autogenous
combustion cannot be sustained and auxiliary fuel burners, using gas or
oil, supply the additional heat by operating either continuously or inter-
mittently on all or selected hearths. Generally, off gas temperatures of
315°C (600°F), or lower, indicate incomplete combustion and a need for
supplemental fuel. Off gas temperatures from 427° to 871°C (800° to 1600°F)
indicate complete combustion.
97
-------
FLUE GASES OUT>
COOLING AIR DISCHARGE
FLOATING DAMPER
DRYING ZONE
••-COMBUSTION
AIR RETURN
COMBUSTION ZONE
COOLING ZONE
ASH DISCHARGE
SLUDGE INLET
RABBLE ARM AT
EACH HEARTH
RABBLE ARM
DRIVE
COOLING AIR FAN
Figure 4.5-1 Cross section of a typical multiple hearth incinerator.
98
-------
Ash drops from the bottom hearth and is either sluiced away or disposed of
in dry form. Exhaust gases from the top hearth must be scrubbed to remove
particulates.
3
4.5.2.2 Fluidized-bed Furnace The fluidized-bed furnace (FBF) is a
vertically oriented cylindrically shaped, refractory-lined, steel shell which
contains the bed and fluidizing air diffusers. The FBF is normally available
in sizes from 2.74 m (9 ft) to 7.62 m (25 ft) in diamter. A cross section of
the fluid-bed furnace is shown in Figure 4.5-2. The sand bed is approximately
0.76 m (2.5 ft) thick and sits on a refractory-lined grid. This grid contains
tuyeres through which air is injected into the bed at a pressure of 20.6 kPa
to 34.4 kPa. (3 to 5 Ib/sq in) to fluidize the bed. Bed expansion is approximate!
80 to 100 percent. Temperature of the bed is controlled between 760° and
815°C (1400 and 1500°F) by auxiliary burners located either above or below the
sand bed. Ash is carried out of the top of the furnace and is removed by air
pollution control devices, usually wet venturi scrubbers. The sewage sludge
is fed directly into the bed.
Excess air requirements for the FBF vary from 20 to 40 percent versus 50
to 100 percent for the multiple hearth furnace. The lower air requirement of
the FBF results in reduced heat loss and reduced supplemental fuel usage as
compared to the MHF- The mixing action caused by the air flowing through the
bed and the injection of sludge directly into the bed ensures complete contact
between the sludge solids and the combustion gases.
The FBF has two basic configurations. In the first system, the fluidizing
air passes through a heat exhanger or recuperator to preheat air prior to
injection into the combustion chamber. This system is known as a hot windbox.
In the second system which is known as a cold windbox, the fluidizing air is
injected directly into the furnace. The preheating in the hot wind box system
substantially reduces auxiliary fuel costs but it also requires an increase in
capital investment.
4.5.3 Geographic Distribution
As previously noted, sludge incinerators are located primarily in urban
areas at plants located long distances from land or ocean disposal sites, or
where regulations prohibit alternate disposal methods. Thus, sludge
incinerators are located primarily in metropolitan areas throughout the U.S.
99
-------
Exhaust
Access doors
Preheat burner
Thermocouple
Sludge Inlet
Fluldlzlng
air Inlet
Figure 4.5-2 Cross section of a fluid bed reactor.
100
-------
4.5.4 Emission Control Techniques
To clean sludge incinerator exhaust gases, incinerators are usually
equipped with wet scrubbers. Scrubber types include wet cylone, impingement,
venturi, and venturi-impingement. Mechanical collectors may possibly be used
on some existing modified units, but to comply with particulate standards, a
mechanical collector must be augmented by a wet collection system. Both
venturi and impingement types of scrubbers have successfully met particulate
4
emission standards.
4.5.5 Emissions
Particulate emissions into the atmosphere are almost entirely a function
of scrubber efficiency and are only minimally affected by incinerator conditions,
although emissions will increase if design temperatures are not maintained, or
if excess sludge is fed into the incinerator. Uncontrolled multiple-hearth
incinerator gases contain about 20 g of particulate per kg of dry sludge.
Scrubbers need a particulate removal efficiency of approximately 97 percent to
meet the NSPS particulate standard.
Cadmium emissions from sludge incinerators have not been extensively
documented. In three separate heavy metal mass balances at fluidized bed
sludge incinerators, it was found that less than 0.1 percent of the cadmium in
the sludge was emitted to the atmosphere. Uncontrolled cadmium emissions were
not reported.
In a study of eight multiple hearth incinerators and two fluidized bed
units, it was reported that cadmium emissions to the atmosphere averaged
17.9 percent of the cadmium in the sludge. Values ranged from 0 to 35.9 percent,
As with other high temperature sources, the emitted cadmium was associated
with particles in the 0.1 to 1.0 micron sizes.
A determination of annual cadmium emissions was made by first calculating
the average sludge production per million gallons of wastewater. Using data
from 27 wastewater plants with sludge incinerators, an average of 0.58 Mg
(0.64 tons) of sludge is produced for each million gallons of wastewater. The
values ranged from 0.023 to 1.38 Mg (0.025 to 1.52 tons) per million gallons.
Secondly, an average cadmium concentration of 56.85 mg/kg sludge was computed
101
-------
from twenty data points. Cadmium concentrations ranged from 6 to 240 mg/kg.
Multiplying these numbers by the total daily wastewater flow of 6.19 x 10 gallons
for facilities with incinerators, yielded 0.20 Mg (0.22 tons) of cadmium per
day in the incinerator sludge, or 73 Mg (80 tons) per year. Using the reported
value of 17.9 percent emitted, results in an annual cadmium emission from
sludge incinerators of 13 Mg (14.3 tons).
4.5.6 Compliance Status*
A New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for sewage sludge incinerators
was promulgated in 1973 and ammended in 1977. The standard limits particulate
matter emissions to 0.65 grams per kilogram (1.3 #/Ton) of dry sludge input
and limits the opacity to 20 percent.
A survey of current State air quality control regulations was performed
' 8
during the 1978 review of the NSPS to identify differences between the NSPS
and State regulations.
Twenty two states have adopted the Federal NSPS for sewage sludge incinerators.
Maryland's NSPS for particulate emissions of 0.03 grains/dscf at 12 percent
COp may be more stringent than the 1.3 Ib/dry ton input standard. The
remaining States either have standards less strict for new sewage sludge
incinerators or have general incineration standards that do not explicitly
reference sewage sludge. None of the States have explicit standards for
existing sewage sludge incinerators. Of those States having general
incineration standards, the standard level, wording and description of the
testing procedures indicate that the standards apply mainly to characteristics
associated with municipal incineration of solid waste and not to the special
case sewage sludge incinerators. No State has a standard for the joint
incineration of municipal sewage sludge and solid waste.
Many States use a categorization of waste as adopted from the National
Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA) as a basis for emission standards
for each waste category. This categorization is incomplete in that the
sludge from municipal wastewater treatment is not described in the NSWMA
This is not a record for compliance or enforcement purposes. This information documents data
used in decision making by the Environmental Protection Agency in response to Section 122 of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
102
-------
categorizations. It is, therefore, difficult to identify what emission
standard would be applied to operating a sewage sludge incinerator within the
State. Many States have incinerator standards that require new incinerators
to be multichambered, operate at minimum temperatures ranging from 689° to
871°C (1200° to 1600°F), and have minimum retention times of 0.3 seconds or
greater. These standards appear to be written for municipal solid waste
disposal incinerators but, as discussed above, may also apply to general
incineration processes including sewage sludge. It also appears that several
States depend on the National Solid Waste Management Association waste
categorization or application of incineration emission standards, and sewaqe
sludge is not included in the NSWMA categories.
Useful information on the compliance status of the 358 sludge incinerators
is unavailable at this time.
4.5.7 Comparison of National Emission Estimates with Other Studies
Measurements of sludge production, cadmium concentrations in sludge,
cadmium emissions, and daily wastewater flow were combined to calculate an
annual cadmium emission from sludge incinerators of 13 Megagrams (14.4 Tons).
In previous studies, Energy and Environmental Analysis estimated less than
1 Mg (less than 1 ton); EPA estimated 125 Mg (138 Tons); GCA estimated 11 Mg
(12 Tons); and Sargent estimated 18 Mg (20 Tons).9
Differences in the estimates are due to different assumptions on control
devices, sludge production, and total number of incinerators.
103
-------
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
References for Section 4.5
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978 Needs Survey, Conveyance and
Treatment of Municipal Wastewater. Summaries of Technical Data.
February 10, 1979. EPA Publication No. 430/9-79-002. pg. 119-20.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Guidelines, State and
Local Pretreatment Programs. January, 1977. Construction Grants Program
Information. EPA Publication No. 430/9-76-017a. Volume 1, pg. E-12,
E-13.
Ettlich, W.F. et al. Operations Manual. Sludge Handling and Conditioning.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Programs,
Washington, D.C. EPA 430/9-78-002, February, 1978.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inspection Manual for Enforcement
of New Source Performance Standards, Sewage Sludge Incinerators.Office
of Enforcement, Washington, D.C. EPA Publication No. 340/1-75-004.
February, 1975. pg. 3-4.
Dewling, R.T., R.M. Manguelli, G.T. Baer, Jr.
Selected Heavy Metals in Incinerated Sludge".
No. 10, pg. 2552-7, October, 1980.
"Fate and Behavior of
Journal WPCF, Vol. 52,
Wall, Howard, and J. Farrell, "Particulate Emissions from Municipal
Wastewater Sludge Incinerators", Paper presented at the Air Pollution
Control Association Mid-Atlantic States Section Semi-Annual Technical
Conference on Air Quality Impacts of Ocean Disposal Alternatives,
April 27, 1979.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Impact Statement,
Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and
Practices, December 1979, EPA No. SW-821.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, A Review of Standards of Performance
for New Stationary Sources-Sewage Sludge Incincerators, March 1978,
EPA No. EPA-450/2-79-010.
9. Coleman, R. et al. Sources of Atmospheric Cadmium, prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air, Noise, and
Radiation and Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research
Triangle Park, N.C. EPA-450/5-79-006. August 1979. pg. 81.
104
-------
4.6 IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
Airborne cadmium emissions from the iron and steel (I&S) industry are
generated by the use of raw materials which contain cadmium. Scrap metal,
iron ores, and coal contain small concentrations of cadmium. Cadmium is not
used as an alloy material. Cadmium is used for electroplating and is used in
trace amounts in conjunction with galvanizing. None of these operations is a
significant source of cadmium emissions. Since most iron and steel processes
operate at temperatures well above the boiling point of cadmium, most of the
cadmium is volatilized and emitted with process off gases.
This section discusses the levels of cadmium emitted from the I&S industry.
The I&S industry is defined as all producers of coke, iron, steel, specialty
steel, and cast iron. National cadmium emissions have been estimated by the
use of the industry-wide consumption of raw materials and their cadmium
contents. Where available, emission factors generated from emissions tests
were utilized. To help identify and quantify individual emission points,
model plants were developed. Also included in this section is a description
of iron and steel making processes, emission control techniques, a discussion
of the compliance status of the industry, and a comparison of national emissions
estimates with other studies.
4.6.1 Process Description
4.6.1.1 General. Coke is used in steel mills and iron foundries to
provide the heat necessary to produce molten iron. Coke is either hauled to
the steel mill or made in a coke facility at the steel mill, Coke, limestone,
and iron ore are combined in the blast furnace. The blast furnace produces
molten iron. Molten iron is removed from the blast furnace and transferred
to the steel making furnaces. Scrap metal is commonly mixed with the molten
iron in the steel furnaces. The whole mix is then made into steel by heat-refining
the metal and adding alloying materials and fluxes. The molten steel is cast
into various shapes, then sent through a finishing process. Figure 4.6-1
illustrates the process flows for an integrated steel mill representing the
iron and steel industry.
105
-------
FlOW ORE
SCREENING OPERATION
O
CTt
*Uf1S I PEL LfTl ZING '
[ (At MINE SITl ) j
TO JINTM PlANl
OUtNCHtNG
!OW(lt
Figure 4.6-1 General flow diagram for the iron and steel industry.
-------
4.6.1.2 Coke Ovens Coke is used in iron foundries and in steel mill
blast furnaces. Coke is manufactured by heating bituminous coal in the
absence of oxygen to drive off the volatile compounds. Coal is pulverized,
then heated for 15 to 18 hours to produce blast furnace coke or 25 to 30 hours
for foundry coke. The volatile components of the coal are driven off, leaving
behind the high-carbon content coke in the oven. At the end of the heating
cycle, the doors are opened on both sides of the coke oven, and the incandescent
coke is pushed from the oven into a special hopper rail car by a mechanical
ram. The hot coke in the quench car is then moved to a quench tower where
the hot coke is cooled by the addition of large quantities of water. The
coke is then discharged from the quench car, allowed to drain and cool, and
then crushed and screened. The coke can then be used as a fuel and a reducing
2
agent for the production of iron.
4.6.1.3 Sinter Plant The sintering process converts materials such as
fine ore concentrates, blast furnace flue dust, mill scale, turnings, coke
fines, limestones fines, and miscellaneous fines into an agglomerated product
that is suitable for blast furnace feed material. Fine iron ore particulate
matter, whether in natural or in concentrated ores, must be agglomerated to a
size and strength suitable for blast furnace charging. This is done by
depositing the mixture on a sinter machine traveling grate through which
combustion air is drawn into a windbox. The mixture is ignited by natural
gas or fuel oil and burns to form a fused mass which is fed to a cooler,
crushed, and then screened in preparation for charging into a blast furnace.
4.6.1.4 Blast Furnaces Iron is produced in the blast furnace from a
charge of iron ore, coke, and limestone. The iron ore descends down the
furnace and is reduced and melted by the countercurrent flow of hot gases
produced by the partial combustion of coke. Hot metal is removed from the
bottom of the blast furnace and transferred to steel-making operations.
4.6.1.5 Steel Furnaces There are three types of steel making furnaces
in use today. These are the open hearth (OH) furnace, the basic oxygen
furnace (BOF), and the electric arc furnace (EAF). Most of the nation's
steel is made in BOFs and EAFs. The OH furnace takes the longest time (between
8 and 12 hours) to produce a batch of finished steel. The BOF uses about
70 percent hot metal and 30 percent scrap and requires a cycle taking less
107
-------
than an hour to produce a batch of finished steel. In the BOF, a water-coo!'
lance is used to supply pure oxygen to a mixture of hot metal, steel scrap,
and flux materials. The oxygen reacts exothermically with the carbon in the
metal, producing the heat required for melting. In the EAF, carbon electrodes
supply the heat necessary for melting the metal. Flux is added after the
metal is molten. Molten metal is tapped from the steel furnace and poured
into ingot molds. The EAF can melt up to 100 percent scrap metal.
4.6.1.6 Finishing. Steel ingots are heated in a soaking pit furnace to
prepare them for hot working (rolling). After the ingots are rolled into
billets, blooms, or slabs, they are cooled and inspected. Surface defects
are removed by grinding, chipping, peeling, or scarfing.
4.6.2 Geographic Distribution
Iron and steel producing plants are located in forty states. Most of
the plants, however, are located in the area east of the Mississippi River
and north of the Ohio River. The states with the greatest concentration of
steelmaking capacity are Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Figure 4.6-2,
for example, shows the locations of the basic oxygen furnace process plants
in the United States. These plants include most of the integrated steel
plants in the United States.
4.6.3 Emission Control Techniques
4.6.3.1 Coke Ovens. The control of particulate and cadmium emissions
from charging operations can be accomplished by stage charging, sequential
charging, or wet scrubber control systems. Stage charging is a procedure for
charging coal into coke ovens in such a manner the passageway to the off gas
collection flues remains open. The gases and particulate emissions generated
in the oven are drawn into the collection flue by steam aspiration (or aspiration
using a liquor) and exhausted by the regular gas handling equipment into the
by-product recovery plant. Sequential charging differs from stage charging
only in that the oven is charged more rapidly than in stage charging, thus
producing gases and particulate matter at a faster rate. Scrubber control
systems utilize a wet scrubber mounted on the larry car to control emissions
captured by hoods at the charging ports.
108
-------
4
Figure 4.6-2 Location of basic oxygen furnaces in the U.S.
-------
Control technology for the control of emissions from charging lids and
standpipes involves proper maintenance and replacement of oven closure
devices, sealing of lids and standpipes, inspection, and resealing.
Three methods can be used to control coke pushing emissions. These are
the use of a one spot (or enclosed) quench car, the installation of a
full-length shed over the coke exit side of the oven, and traveling hoods.
The one-spot quench car provides exhaust gas hooding during the pushing of
the coke from the oven into the car. The collected gases and particulate
matter are drawn from the enclosure into an exhaust gas cleaning car which
employs a scrubber for particulate removal. The full-length shed collects
and contains the emissions generated from the pushing operation while the air
is drawn from the shed into a particulate control device such as a scrubber.
The traveling hood involves the use of a mobile hood (attached to the quench
car) which is connected to an overhead exhaust main that feeds the collected
gases and particulate matter into control equipment. The emissions generated
from the pushing of uncoked or green coal are capable of overloading most
control systems. Thus, it is critical that the coal be properly coked to
5
preclude the handling of uncoked coal.
The control of quench tower particulate emissions is accomplished by
installing baffles which are designed to intercept particulate matter and
water droplets carried in the quench tower updraft. Emissions can also be
reduced if clean water instead of dirty water is used for quench water.
During the coking process all of the off gases are ducted to the byproduct
recovery plant. Since coke temperatures at the end of each cycle are between
900°C and 1100°C (1650-2000°F) essentially all of the cadmium is volatilizied
into the off gases. In the byproduct plant the gases are treated to produce
a pipeline quality gaseous fuel. Consequently there are no significant
cadmium emissions. The only cadmium emissions are from coal dust escaping
during charging. These emissions are trace amounts.
4.6.3.2 Sintering. Cyclones, electrostatic precipitators, baghouses,
and scrubbers are used to control emissions from sintering. Baghouses and
medium-energy wet scrubbers have been used to control emissions from the
sinter plants. The plume opacity can be reduced to nearly zero percent using
either of these controls
110
-------
4.6.3.3 Blast Furnaces. Various types of control equipment are presently
used to control particulate emissions from blast furnaces. Dry cyclones, wet
scrubbers, and electrostatic precipitators are common. Essentially all of
the cadmium is volatilized into the blast furnace gas.
Blast furnace gas is almost universally treated to produce a high purity,
low heating value fuel. The only time even a trace amount of cadmium would
be emitted would be from process upsets such as blast furnace slips that
actuate the relief valve. This discharges uncontrolled particulates to the
atmosphere. These upsets are infrequent. Consequently there are only trace
cadmium emissions from blast furnaces.
4.6.3.4 Steel Furnaces The small size of the particulate matter
emitted from open hearth furnaces necessitates the use of high-efficiency
collection equipment such as venturi scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators.
Baghouses have also been installed for particulate emission control but they
require that the gases be precooled.
Venturi scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators are commonly used to
control particulate emissions from basic oxygen furnaces. The emissions are
usually routed through either an open or closed hood.
Fabric filters are the most commonly used devices for cleaning electric
arc furnace gases, although venturi scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators
are also used. The use of a baghouse on an electric arc furnace necessitates
preceding of gases to protect the bags.
4.6.4 Emissions
The quantity of cadmium introduced to the I&S industry each year is
estimated and presented in this section because the amount of cadmium entering
the industry processes each year determines the amount of airborne cadmium
emitted annually. All of the cadmium introduced to the industry processes
each year is assumed to be volatilized by the high operating temperatures and
emitted as particulate. The quantities of particulate emissions and cadmium
emissions from steelmaking processes and iron foundries are also presented in
this section.
Ill
-------
Table 4.6-1 presents the quantity of cadmium entering the iron and
industry each year. A total of 340.2 Mg (376 tons) of cadmium enter the I&S
industry in No. 2 scrap, coal, and iron ore. Number 2 scrap has an average
cadmium content of 45 ppm , coal has an average cadmium content of 0.32 ppm7,
and iron ore has an average cadmium content of 0.2 ppm.8
Table 4.6-2 presents a summary of estimated airborne particulate and
cadmium emissions f»om the I&S industry for individual steel processes and
iron foundries. Annual cadmium entering the industry is estimated to be
340 Mg (376 tons). Annual controlled cadmium emissions are estimated to be
12.6 Mg (13.9 tons). The cadmium collection efficiency is assumed to be the
same as the particulate collection efficiency for each process.
4-6.4.1 Coke Ovens Annual uncontrolled cadmium emissions from coke
ovens are estimated to be 22 Mg (24 tons). Annual controlled cadmium emissions
from coke ovens are estimated to be trace amounts (See section 4.6.3.1).
4.6.4.2 Sinter Machines Annual uncontrolled cadmium emissions from
sinter machines are estimated to be 23 Mg (25 tons). Annual controlled
cadmium emissions from sinter machines are estimated to be 2.0 Mg (2.2 tons).
4.6.4.3 Blast Furnaces Annual uncontrolled emissions of cadmium from
blast furnaces are estimated to be 18.7 Mg (20.8 tons). Controlled emissions
are trace amounts (see section 4.6.3.3).
4.6.4.4 Basic Oxygen Furnaces Annual uncontrolled emissions of
cadmium from BOFs are estimated to be 114 Mg (126 tons). Annual controlled
emissions of cadmium from BOFs are estimated to be 4.6 Mg (5.1 tons).
4.6.4.5 Electric Arc Furnaces Annual national uncontrolled cadmium
emissions from electric arc furnaces are estimated to be 106 Mg (117 tons).
Annual national controlled cadmium emissions from electric arc furnaces are
estimated to be 3.2 Mg (3.5 tons).
4.6.4.6 Open Hearth Furnaces Annual uncontrolled emissions of cadmium
from open hearth furnaces are estimated to be 54 Mg (59 tons). Annual
controlled emissions of cadmium from open hearth furnaces are estimated to be
2.7 Mg (3.0 tons).
112
-------
TABLE 4.6-1 QUANTITY OF CADMIUM ENTERING THE IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
Process
BOF
EAF
OH
Sintering
BFd
Coking
Specialty shops
Foundries
TOTAL
Material
containing
cadmium
No. 2 scrap
No. 2 scrap
No. 2 scrap
Miscellaneous0
Ore/pellets
Flux
Coal
None (assumed)
Ores
Flux
Quantity of
input material ,
106 Mg/yr
(106 tpy)
2.54
2.36
1.2
33
90.7
10
69
—
18.1
1.8
(2.8)b
(2.6)b
(1.3)b
(36.4)
(100)
(11.1)
(76)
--
(20)
(2)
Cadmium
concentration
of input
material, ppm
45
45
45
0.68
0.2
0.07
0.32
--
0.2
0.07
Quantity of
cadmium input,
Mg/yr (tpy)
114
106
54
22
18
0.7
22
None
3.6
0.1
340.4
(126)
(117)
(59)
(25)
(20)
(0.8)
(24)
(assumed)
(4.0)
(0.1)
(375.9)
BOF = Basic oxygen furnace; EAF = Electric arc furnace; OH = Open hearth furnace; BF = Blast furnace.
Scrap consumption figures published by the AISI, 1979.
Sintering material consists of several materials, and may vary greatly from plant to plant.
18.7 Mg (20.8 tons) of cadmium will be removed by gas-cleaning equipment when the off-gases from the BF
are treated for use as fuel .
oundries reported no use of No. 2 scrap in their EAFs.
-------
TABLE 4.6-2a
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED AIRBORNE PARTICIPATE AND CADMIUM EMISSIONS
FROM THE IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
a
Process
BOF
EAF
OH
Sintering
BFf
Coking^
Miscellaneous
Foundries
TOTAL
Particulate
Uncontrolled
1,205,780
1,773,600
42,000
246,670
29,440
127,590
134,750
494,380
4,054,210
(Mg/yr)
Existing
control0
45,740
64,480
1,920
21,100
29,440
73,530
100,940
10,460
347,610
Implied
collection
efficiency (%}
96
97
95
91
(f)
(g)
25
97.9
Cadmium
Uncontrolled
114
106
54
22
18.7
22
Tr
3.7
340.4
(Mg/yr)
Existing
control c
4.6
3.2
2.7
2.0
Tr
Tr
Tr
0.08
12.58
BOF = Basic oxygen furnace; EAF = Electric arc furnace; OH = Open hearth furnace; BF = Blast furnace.
Reference 1.
100 - efficiency
- - i
Reference 10.
Values explained in Table 4.6-1.
en j. • . . *. ii j . • •
Determined by uncontrolled cadmium emissions x
Uncontrolled particulate emissions for BFs consider off-gases being recirculated. All cadmium is
assumed to be removed by the 99.99 percent efficient gas cleaning systems. See Section 4.6.3.3. The
estimated particulates do not contain significant amounts of cadmium.
9Most particulate emissions result after the coking cycle volatizes the cadmium. Cadmium collection
efficiency is based on assumed treatment of cadmium in a typical by-products plant. See Section 4.6.3.1
Miscellaneous sources are listed in Table 4.6-3.
Tr = Trace
-------
TABLE 4.6-2b
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED AIRBORNE PARTICIPATE AND CADMIUM EMISSIONS
FROM THE IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
Process
BOF
EAF
OH
Sintering
BFf
Coking^
Miscellaneous
Foundries
TOTAL
Particulate
Uncontrolled
1,329,153
1,955,066
46,297
271,910
32,452
140,641
148,538
544,960
4,469,017
(tons/yr)
Existing
control*-
50,420
71,076
2,114
23,264
32,452
81,054
111,264
11,526
383,170
Implied
collection
efficiency (%)
96
97
95
91
(f)
(g)
26
97.9
Cadmium
Uncontrolled
126
117
59
25
20.8
24
Tr
4.1
375.9
(tons/yr)
Existing
control6
5.0
3.5
3.0
2.3
Tr
Tr
Tr
0.09
13.89
BOF = Basic oxygen furnace; EAF = Electric arc furnace; OH = Open hearth furnace; BF = Blast furnace.
Reference 9.
cReference 10.
Values explained in Table 4.6-1.
ft
Determine by uncontrolled cadmium emissions x implied collection efficiency, except for BF and coking.
Uncontrolled particulate emissions for BFs consider off-gases being recirculated. All cadmium is
assumed to be removed by the 99.99 percent efficient gas cleaning systems. See Section 4.6.3.3. The
estimated particulates do not contain significant amounts of cadmium.
9Most particulate emissions result after the 1600-2000°F coking cycle with cadmium already volatized.
Cadmium collection efficiency is based on assumed treatment of cadmium in a typical by-products plant.
See Section 4.6.3.1.
Miscellaneous sources are listed in Table 4.6-3.
Tr = Trace
-------
4-6.4.7 Miscellaneous Sources. Miscellaneous sources include finishing
operations, ore screening, open areas, roadways, and coal preparation. Only
a trace of cadmium is estimated to be emitted by all miscellaneous sources.
4-6.4.8 Iron Foundries. Annual uncontrolled emissions of cadmium from
iron foundries are estimated to be 3.7 Mg (4.1 tons). Annual controlled
emissions of cadmium from iron foundries are estimated to be 0.08 Mg (0.09 ton)
4.6.5 Model Plants
In order to estimate the hourly and annual cadmium emissions expected
from individual mills and to provide information which is useful for future
dispersion analyses, model steel mills are presented in this section. The
model steel mills (model plants) consists of several processes which are
presented separately as model facilities. The model facilities are a coke
battery, a sinter plant, a blast furnace shop, a BOF shop, a EAF shop, an OH
shop, and a miscellaneous sources listing.
Three types of model plants are presented: (1) an integrated steel
plant; (2) a non-integrated steel plant; and (3) a small-to-medium (mini-medi)
steel plant. An integrated steel plant is defined as a steel mill which
produces coke, iron, and steel. A non-integrated steel mill is defined as a
mill that produces either coke and iron and over 907,000 Mg (one million tons)
of steel per year. A mini-medi mill is a plant that produces less than
one million tons of steel per year.
Model plants were not developed for specialty steel plants or iron
foundries because the emissions of cadmium from these types of plants are
expected to be very low.
4.6.5.1 Model Facilities
4.6.5.1.1 Coke Facility The model coke facility is illustrated in
Figure 4.6-3. The model facility consists of four coke batteries producing a
total of 1.45 x 105 Mg (1.6 x 106 tons) of coke each year.
4.6.5.1.2 Sinter Facility The model sinter facility is illustrated
and presented in Figure 4.6-4. The model facility consists of one sinter
strand producing 1.03 x 10 Mg (1.13 x 10 tons) of sinter material per
year.
116
-------
MODEL COKE FACILITY
• 4 BATTERIES
• 64 OVENS EACH
•4 METERS HIGH
•EMISSION CONTROL: STAGE CHARGING
•TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSIONS: 220 Kg/hr (482 Lb/hr)
•TOTAL CADMIUM EMISSIONS: Trace
9
(20)
9
(20)
9
(20)
i
9
(20)
!
COAl
PART I (
D PU5
2) CH/
:u
5H
\R
(1)
COKE O1
109;
1
LATE
ING
GING
I/EN 1
JOO
(2000°F)
'v
\
EMIS!
A
f
CO ($)
COKE OVEN
1093°C
2
(2000°F)
\
/
f
5IONS Kg/hr (Lb/hr) BY_pRODUCTS
127,000 Mg/yr
(140,000 TPY)
\
^
<«
3) DOOR
4) TOPSIDE
D BATTERY UNDERFIRE
7 T & 7 T
COKE OVEN 3 -1- COKE
1093°C 10
DVEN
93°C
4
(2000°F) (2000°F)
COA
A A
\( \
COKE PRODUCTION: !;4^ X !°R ^/,Yr ^ _
U.D X 1U" IPY ; -" h
;
f
i
c
BLAST
URNACE
§) QUENCHING
Figure 4.6-3. Model coke plant for an integrated iron and steel mill.
-------
MODEL SINTER FACILITY
• 1 STRAND
• EMISSION CONTROL: ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS (OPERATING POORLY)
•TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSIONS: 75 Kg/hr (166 Lb/hr)
•TOTAL CADMIUM EMISSIONS: 0.009 Kg/hr (0.02 Lb/hr)
WINDBOX
27 Kg Part/hr
(60 Lb Part/hr)
MISC. FUGITIVES
29 Kg Part/hr
(64 Lb Part/hr)
DISCHARGE END
19 Kg Part/hr
(42 Lb Part/hr)
\
ESP
RETURN FINES
COKE BREEZE
BF DUST
STEEL SLAG
SINTER FLUX
BOF SLAG
MILL SCALE
ORES
OTHER WASTES
(MATERIALS WITH
SOME IRON CONTENT)
ESP
MODEL
SINTER
PLANT
SINTER PRODUCTION
1.03 x 106 Mg/yr
(1.13 x 10e tpy)
i
BLAST FURNACES
Figure 4.6-4 Model sinter plant for an integrated steel mill
118
-------
4.6.5.1.3 Blast Furnace Shop The model blast furnace shop is illustrated
in Figure 4.6-5. The model BF shop consists of three blast furnaces, each
with an associated casthouse. The blast furnaces together produce a total of
2.4 x 106 Mg (2.6 x Id6 tons) of iron per year.
4.6.5.1.4 Basic Oxygen Furnace Shop The model BOF shop is illustrated
in Figure 4.6-6. The model shop consists of two BOFs producing a total of
2.27 x 106 Mg (2.5 x 106 tons) of steel per year. The BOFs have the capacity
to produce 272 Mg (300 tons) of steel at a time. The emission control device
is an electrostatic precipitator.
4.6.5.1.5 Electric Arc Furnace Shop The model EAF shop is presented
in Figure 4.6-7, and consists of three EAFs which produce 694,000 Mg (765,000 tons)
of steel per year. Particulate emissions are controlled by a baghouse.
4.6.5.1.6 Open Hearth Furnace Shop The model OH furnace shop is
presented in Figure 4.6-8, and consists of five OH furnaces producing
626,000 Mg (690,000 tons) of steel per year.
4.6.5.1.7 Miscellaneous Sources A listing of miscellaneous particulate
emission sources is presented in Table 4.6-3. The miscellaneous sources
include finishing operations, material piles, open areas, and roads.
4.6.5.2 Model Plants
4.6.5.2.1 Integrated Steel Mill The model integrated steel mill is
illustrated in Figure 4.6-9. The model mill consists of one model coke
facility, a model sinter facility, a model blast furnace shop, a model BOF
shop, a model EAF shop, a model OH furnace shop, and a miscellaneous sources
listing.
4.6.5.2.2 Non-Integrated Steel Mill The model non-integrated steel
mill is illustrated in Figure 4.6-10. The model mill brings in coke from
outside the mill rather than manufacturing coke at the mill. The model
non-integrated steel plant consists of two blast furnaces, a model BOF shop,
a model EAF shop, and a miscellaneous sources listing.
119
-------
no
o
MODEL BLAST FURNACE SHOP
• 3 BLAST FURNACES
•8 CASTS PER DAY EACH
•NO CASTHOUSE EMISSION CONTROL
•TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSIONS: 90 Kg/hr (195 Lb/hr)
• TOTAL CADMIUM EMISSIONS: Trace
•PRIMARY OFF-GASES RECYCLED: CLEANED BY A DUST COLLECTOR AND TWO SCRUBBERS
IRON ORE
COKE
LIMESTONE
SINTER
4 o
(9) (42)
T 4)
BF
^ 0
9
T (4)
24
(52)
J
L
(3)
T
CASTHOU!
\
~
>E
f
SLAG: 1.2 x
(1
.3
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
IN Kq/hr (Lb/hr):
j-« «•».
BF
24
(52)
*
©
|^
CASTHOUS
N, \
^
ID Mg/yr *.
x 106 TPY) .
E
/
j
i >
IRON PRODUCTION: 2.4 x 10
4 9
(9) 4)
T ^
BF
24
(52)
^
(3
T
CASTHOU5
x N
V
^ STEE
*r r i / »
Mg/yr > 0PE
*k
)
;E
f
LMAKING
RATIONS
(±) BF TOP EMISSIONS
© BF COMBUSTION EMISSIONS
f3) CASTING EMISSIONS
(2.6 x 10B TPY)
Figure 4.6-5 Model blast furnace plant for an integrated steel mill
-------
MODEL BOF-SHOP
PRODUCTION: 2.27 x 106 Mg/yr (2.5 x 106 TPY)
TOP BLOWN-OPEN HOOD DESIGN
EVACUATION OF ONLY ONE FURNACE AT A TIME
DURATION OF ONE HEAT:
45 MIN. WITH 0 BLOW OF 20 MIN.
22 HEATS/DAY
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSIONS: 126 Kg/hr
(276 Lb/hr)
•TOTAL CADMIUM EMISSIONS: 0.014 Kg/hr
(0.03 Lb/hr)
22 Kg Part/hr
(48 Lb Part/hr)
t
CHARGE & TAP
2 Kg Part/hr
(4 Lb Part/hr)
A
HOT METAL
TRANSFER
538°C
(1000°F)
#1 BOF
272 Mg/Heat
(300 Ton/Heat)
~1650°C
(~3000°F)
ESP STACK
65 Kg Part/hr
(143 Lb Part/hr)
STACK GAS
38-149°C (100-300°F)
MISC.
FUGITIVES
7 Kg Part/hr
(15 Lb Part/hr)
30% SCRAP
- 70% MOLTEN IRON
-FLUXEST COOLANTS
ALLOYING ADDITIONS
^
nr ^k
hr) \^
-\M «»,
JIN .?
\ 3 s
OMS ->
538°C
(1000°F)
#2 BOF
272 Mg/Heat
(300 Ton/Heat)
~1650°C
(~3000°F)
22 Kg Part/hr
(48 Lb Part/hr)
t
CHARGE & TAP |
8 Kg Part/hr
(18 Lb Part/hr)
A
TEEMING
Figure 4.6-6 Model basic oxygen furnace shop for an integrated steel mill.
-------
MODEL EAF SHOP
• PRODUCTION: 694,000 Mg Steel/Yr (765,000 Tons/Yr)
• EMISSION COLLECTION SYSTEM: CANOPY HOOD, OVER FURNACES
• ONE HEAT LAST 4 HOURS
• FIVE HEATS/DAY/FURNACE
•TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSIONS: 47 Kg/hr (104 Lb/hr)
•TOTAL CADMIUM EMISSIONS: 0.005 Kg/hr (0.01 Lb/hr)
BAGHOUSE STACK
21 Kg/hr Part
(46 Lb/hr Part)
INLET MATERIALS:
SCRAP \
FLUXES (
OXYGEN (
(OCCASIONALLY)J
8 Kg Part/hr
(18 Lb Part/hr)
8 Kg Part/hr
(18 Lb Part/hr)
8 Kg Part/hr
(18 Lb Part/hr)
EAF n
127 Mg/Heat
(140 Tons/Heat)
2 Kg Part/hr
(4 Lb Part/hr)
EAF #2
127 Mg/Heat
(140 Tons/Heat)
EAF #3
127 Mg/Heat
(140 Tons/Heat)
I) CHARGE, TAP, SLAG EMISSIONS
2) MISCELLANEOUS FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
Figure 4.6-7. Model electric arc furnace shop in an integrated steel mill.
-------
MODEL OPEN HEARTH FURANACE SHOP
• PRODUCTION: 625,950 Mg/yr (690,000 TPY)
• TAP TO TAP TIME: 9 HOURS
• TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSIONS: 31.3 Kg/hr (69 Lb/hr)
• TOTAL CADMIUM EMISSIONS: 0.045 Kg/hr (0.1 Lb/hr)
ro
CO
INPUT MATERIAL:
SCRAP (50%)
HOT METAL (50%)
FLUXES
ALLOYING ADDITIONS
4.5 Kg Part/hr 4.5 Kg Part/hr 4.5 Kg Part/hr 4.5 Kg Part/hr 4.5 Kg Part/hr
(10 Lb Part/hr)(10 Lb Part/hr) (10 Lb Part/hr)(10 Lb Part/hr)(10 Lb Part/hr)
t
ROOF
MONITOR
136 Mg/Heat
(150 Tons/Heat)
MISC.
FUGITIVE
5.4 Kg Part/hr
(12 Lb Part/hr)
704°
(1300°
OH #1
C
F)
OH #2
2 Kg Part/hr
(4 Lb Part/hr)
OH #3
1.4 Kg Part/hr
(3 Lb Part/hr)
OH #4
i
V
OH #5
HMT
Figure 4.6-8. Model open hearth furnace shop in an integrated steel mill.
-------
TABLE 4.6-3 MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES IN A MODEL INTEGRATED STEEL MILL
MODEL PLANT - MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES
• TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSIONS: 156 Kg/Hr (344 Lb/Hr)
• TOTAL CADMIUM EMISSIONS: Trace
Roadway Travel
ro
^ - Ore Screening
Open Areas
Soaking Pits
Kg Part/Hr
tock Piles 54.4 ...
avel 53.5 ...
ration 23.6 ...
ing 11.3 ...
naces 5.9 ...
. . 3.6 ...
arfing 2.3 . . .
ts 1.4 ...
Lb Part/Hr
. . . 120
. . . 118
. . . 52
. . . 25
. . . 13
. . . 8
. . . 5
. . . 3
-------
IRON MANUFACTURE
STEEL MANUFACTURE
SINTER/
NODULES/
BRIQUETTES
IRON ORE
(LUMP
ro
01
IRON ORE
(PELLET)
LIMESTONE
COKE
1450
(1600)
COKE
OVENS
2150
(2370)
COAL
OH-SHOP
(5 FURNACES)
626
BOF-SHOP
(2 FURNACES)
(690)
2268
EAF-SHOP
(3 FURNACES)
(2500)
694
(765T
Numbers indicate usage
and production in
1000 Megagrams per year
(1000 short tons per year),
COKE
MANUFACTURE
Figure 4.6-9
Illustration of processes and material flows for a
model integrated steel mill.
-------
IRON MANUFACTURE
STEEL MANUFACTURE
SINTER
837
IRON ORE
(PELLET)
(918)
2295
LIMESTONE
(2530)
254
COKE
(280)
1178
(1300)
2 BLAST
FURNACES
1938
(2137)
739
(815)
BOF-SHOP
(2 FURNACES)
^ 2268
'(2500)
SCRAP
703
12
(775)
(13)
EAF-SHOP
(3 FURNACES)
694
(765)
572
(630)
->
SLAG
NOTE: NUMBERS INDICATE
USAGE AND PRODUCTION
IN 1000 MEGAGRAMS PER YEAR
(1000 SHORT TONS PER YEAR).
Figure 4.6-10
Illustration of processes and material flows for a model
non-integrated steel mill.
-------
4.6.5.2.3 Mini-Medi Steel Mill The model mini-medi mill is illustrated
in Figure 4.6-11. The model plant consists of two EAFs producing 199,580 Mg
(220,000 tons) of steel per year with a continuous casting machine. Particulate
emissions are controlled by a fabric filter.
4.6.5.3 Model Plant Emissions Cadmium and particulate emissions from
model integrated steel mills, model non-integrated steel mills, and model
mini-medi steel mills are summarized and presented in Table 4.6-4. The table
presents uncontrolled and controlled particulate and cadmium emission rates
for each process or shop where appropriate, and the total uncontrolled cadmium
and particulate emissions for each model steel plant.
4.6.5.3.1 Integrated Steel Mill Uncontrolled cadmium emissions from
the model integrated steel mill are estimated to be 1.64 Kg/hr (3.56 Lb/hr)
or 14.35 Mg (15.61 tons) per year. Controlled cadmium emissions are estimated
to be 0.073 Kg/hr (0.16 Lb/hr) or 0.63 Mg/yr (0.70 TRY).
4.6.5.3.2 Non-Integrated Steel Hill Uncontrolled cadmium emissions
from the model non-integrated steel mill are estimated to be 0.58 Kg/hr
(1.20 Lb/hr) or 5.05 Mg/yr (5.28 TRY). Controlled cadmium emissions from the
model mill are estimated to be 0.019 Kg/hr (0.04 Lb/hr) or 0.16 Mg/yr (0.17 TRY),
4.6.5.3.3 Mini-Medi Steel Mill Uncontrolled cadmium emissions from the
model mini-medi steel mill are estimated to be 0.10 Kg/hr (0.19 Lb/hr) or
0.85 Mg/yr (0.94 TRY). Controlled cadmium emissions from the model mill are
estimated to be 0.003 Kg/hr (0.006 Lb/hr) or 0.023 Mg/yr (0.025 TRY).
4.6.6 Compliance Status*
This section discusses the compliance status of iron and steel industry
with regard to current emission limitations. Emissions from new BOFs are
regulated by a New Source Performance Standard. State emissions standards
regulate emissions from other steel-making processes and iron foundries in
terms of both opacity limitations and particulate emission limitations.
This is not a record for compliance or enforcement purposes. This information documents data
used in decision making by the Environmental Protection Agency in response to Section 122 of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
127
-------
MODEL EAF SHOP FOR MINI-MEDI MILL
co
STEEL PRODUCTION: 199,580 MG/YR (220,000 TPY)
ONE HEAT LAST 3 HOURS
TOTAL PARTICULATE EMISSIONS: 26.5 KG/HR (60 LB/HR)
TOTAL CADMIUM EMISSIONS: 0.003 KG/HR (0.004 LB/HR)
STACK
4.5 KG PART/HR
(10 LB PART/HR)
11 KG PART/HR
(25 LB PART/HR)
93°C
(200°F)
93°C
(200°F)
A
CHARGE & TAP
EAF
45 MG/HEAT
(50 TONS/HEAT)
SCRAP
RAW IRON ORE
OXYGEN
->
EAF
45 MG/HEAT
(50 TONS/HEAT)
11 KG PART/HR
(25 LB PART/HR)
A
CHARGE & TAP
CONTINUOUS CASTING
MACHINE
Figure 4.6-11 Illustration of process and material flows for a model mini-medi mill.
-------
TABLE 4.6-4a
SUMMARY OF PARTICIPATE AND CADMIUM EMISSIONS FROM MODEL PLANTS
(Metric units)
ro
Partlculate emissions
(1)
(2)
(3)
Model plants
and facilities
Integrated Steel Mill
Coke facility
Sinter facility
Blast furnace shop
EOF shop
EAF shop
OH shop
Miscellaneous sources
TOTAL
Non- Integrated Steel Mill
Blast furnace shop
BOF shop
EAF shop
Miscellaneous sources
TOTAL
Mlnl-Medl Steel Mill
EAF shop
Miscellaneous sources
TOTAL
Uncontrolled
Kg/hr
378
833
88
3,125
1,567
620
208
6,819
88
3,125
1,567
208
4,988
900
208
1,108
Mg/yr
3,311
7,297
771
27,375
13,727
5,431
1,822
59,734
771
27,375
13,727
1.822
43,695
7,884
1,822
9,706
Existing
Kg/hr
220
75
90
126
47
31
156
741
90
126
47
156
416
27
156
183
control
Mg/yr
1,918
657
771
1,095
412
272
1,366
6,491
771
1,095
412
1,366
3,644
236
1,366
1,602
Implied
collection
efficiency3
Cadmium
Uncontrolled
(%) Kg/hr
100
91
100
96
97
95
25
100
96
97
25
97
25
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-
1.
0.
0.
0.
-
0.
0.
-
0.
06
1
06
35
17
9
-
64
06
35
17
-
58
10
-
10
Mg/yr
0.54
0.88
0.49
3.07
1.49
7.88
—
14.35
0.49
3.07
1.49
—
5.05
0.85
--
0.85
Emissions
Existing
Kg/hr
Tr
0.009
Tr
0.014
0.005
0.045
—
0.073
Tr
0.014
0.005
--
0.019
0.003
—
0.003
control
Mg/yr
Tr
0.08
Tr
0.12
0.04
0.39
—
0.63
Tr
0.12
0.04
—
0.16
0.023
--
0.023
Collection efficiency is derived from national control efficiencies presented in Table 4.6-2.
Tr = Trace
-------
TABLE 4.6-4b
SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE AND CADMIUM EMISSIONS FROM MODEL PLANTS
(English units)
CO
o
Model plants
and facilities
(1) Integrated Steel Mill
Coke facility
Sinter facility
Blast furnace
BOF shop
EAF shop
'OH shop
Miscellaneous sources
TOTAL
(2) Non- Integrated Steel Mill
Blast furnace shop
BOF shop
EAF shop
Miscellaneous sources
TOTAL
(3) Min1-Medi Steel Mill
EAF shop
Miscellaneous sources
TOTAL
Partlculate emissions
Uncontrolled
Lb/hr
831
1,844
195
6,900
3,467
1,380
459
15,076
195
6,900
3,467
459
11,021
2,000
459
2,459
T/yr
3.640
8,077
854
30.222
15,185
6,044
2,010
66.032
854
30,222
15,185
2,010
48,271
8.760
2,010
10,770
Existing
Lb/hr
482
166
195
276
104
69
344
1,636
195
276
104
344
919
60
344
404
control
T/yr
2,111
727
854
1,209
456
302
1,507
7,166
854
1.209
456
1,507
4,026
263
1,507
1,770
Implied
collection
efficiency8
(*)
100
91
100
96
97
95
25
100
96
97
25
97
25
Cadmium emissions
Uncontrolled
IFTRr TTyr
0.14
0.22
0.12
0.75
0.33
2.0
--
3.56
0.12
0.75
0.33
--
1.20
0.19
--
0.19
0.61
0.96
0.55
3.28
1.45
8.76
--
15.61
0.55
3.28
1.45
--
5.28
0.94
--
0.94
Existing
Cb/hr
Tr-
0.02
Tr
0.03
0.01
0.1
--
0.16
Tr
0.03
0.01
—
0.04
0.004
--
0.004
control
T/yr
Tr
0.09
Tr
0.13
0.04
0.44
--
0.70
Tr
0.13
0.04
--
0.17
0.025
--
0.026
Collection efficiency is derived from national control efficiencies presented in Table 4.6-2.
Tr * Trace
-------
The compliance status of the iron and steel industry was reported by the
Council on Environmental Quality for the year 1980. Thirteen percent of
the integrated steel plants in the U.S. are in compliance with air pollution
regulations. Another 32 percent are in violation of existing standards but
are meeting a compliance schedule. About 71 percent of other I&S mills are
in compliance with air pollution regulations.*
4.6.7 Comparison of National Emission Estimates with Other Studies
The results of this study indicate that 340.2 Mg (376 tons) of cadmium are
introduced into iron and steel manufacturing processes each year and that
25.4 Mg (28 tons) of cadmium are emitted from the I&S industry into the
atmosphere each year. Previous studies differ with these estimates of the
quantity of cadmium flowing into the industry and the quantity of cadmium
emitted. The differences between the estimates of cadmium emissions in this
study and the estimates of cadmium emissions in previous studies are discussed
below.
This study used recent estimates of the cadmium content of the input
materials for the I&S industry. National consumption rates of raw materials
published by the American Iron and Steel Institute were also used. Cadmium
emissions for this study considered emissions from all sources including
coking, sintering, blast furnaces, BOFs, EAFs, OH furnaces, and iron foundries.
In previous studies, cadmium emissions from the steel industry were
estimated to be 907 Mg (1000 tons) by Davis and Mitre, 363 Mg (400 tons) by
GCA in 1974, about 100 Mg (110 tons) by ORNL, 71 Mg (79 tons) by EPA in 1971,
9.5 Mg (10.5 tons) by EPA in 1975, and 51 Mg (56 tons) by EEA in 1979.12 The
difference between the estimates of these studies and the estimate of this
study can be attributed to several factors. Different estimates of raw
material usage and the cadmium content of scrap metal were used. The other
studies assumed no control or control efficiencies other than the control
efficiencies assumed by this study. Other studies failed to account for
cadmium emissions from all the processes which this study addressed.
*
This is not a record for compliance or enforcement purposes. This information documents data
used in decision making by the Environmental Protection Agency in response to Section 122 of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
131
-------
References for Section 4.6
1. Cuscino, T.A. Participate Emission Factors Applicable to the Iron and
Steel Industry. Midwest Research Institute. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-450/4-79-028,
September 1979.
2. Control Techniques for Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources,
Volume 2, Preliminary Draft. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, NC. July 1980.
3. Operation and Maintenance of Particulate Control Devices on Selected
Steel and Ferroalloy Processes, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, NC. Publication No. EPA-600/2-76-037. March 1978.
4. Drabkin, M., and R. Helfand. A Review of Standards of Performance for
New Stationary Sources - Iron and Steel Plants/Basic Oxygen Furnaces.
Mitre Corporation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park, NC. Publication No. EPA-450/3-78-116. November 1978.
5. Reference 2, p. 9.8-18.
6. Telecon. Stephen Piper, GCA/Technology Division with Catherine Clarkson,
American Iron and Steel Institute. January 28, 1981. Cadmium content of sc
metal .
7. Yost, K.J. et. al. The Environmental Flow of Cadmium and Other Trace
Metals: Source Studies, Volume I. Progress Report July 1, 1973 to
June 30, 1974 to National Science Foundation, Grant No. NSF (RANN) GI-35106.
8. Telecon. Michael Jasinski, GCA/Technology Division with Allen English,
Hana Mining Corporation. January 28, 1981. Cadmium content of iron ore.
9. Reference 1.
10. GCA/Technology Division. Preparation of Overall Iron and Steel Industry
Inhalable Particulate Test Plan, Draft. GCA-TR-80-120-G. December 1980.
11. Environmental Quality - 1980. Council on Environmental Quality,
Washington, D.C. December 1980. pp. 180, 181.
12. Coleman, R., et. al. Sources of Atmospheric Cadmium. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, N.C. EPA-450/5-79-006.
August 1979.
132
-------
5. AMBIENT CADMIUM CONCENTRATIONS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This section examines predicted and measured ambient cadmium concentrations
associated with the major cadmium emission sources and primary pyrometallurgical
cadmium production. Initial analyses based on annual cadmium emissions
indicated that a clear distinction exists between the major sources and the
minor sources. Although primary pyrometallurgical cadmium production is
considered a minor cadmium emission source based on annual cadmium emissions at
1.3 Mg/yr (1.4 t/yr), the high cadmium content of the emission streams could
produce high ambient cadmium levels in the vicinity of the sources.
Ambient cadmium concentrations associated with the major cadmium emission
sources were screened using a surrogate pollutant approach which is described
in detail in Section 5.2. The purpose of this screening was to identify
those source categories with the potential to produce the largest ambient
cadmium concentrations if their emissions of cadmium were solely restricted
by the existing National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate
and lead. The following source categories were screened: municipal incinerators,
package incinerators, sludge incinerators, residual fuel oil combustion, coal
combustion, primary zinc smelters, primary copper smelters, primary lead
smelters, electric arc furnaces, basic oxygen furnaces, blast furnaces, open
hearth furnaces, sintering, and coke ovens.
In addition to the two primary pyrometallurgical cadmium smelters, dispersion
modeling was also conducted for the two source categories, primary zinc
smelters and package incinerators, for which the ambient cadmium concentrations
predicted by the surrogate pollutant approach were greatest. This dispersion
modeling was based on site-specific stack parameters, terrain, and meteoro-
logical data. Two additional dispersion models were performed on the interaction
of six primary copper smelters in Arizona and the fossil fuel-fired power
plants and municipal incinerators in the New York City-northern New Jersey
metropolitan area. The dispersion modeling conducted in this study is presented
in Section 5.3.
133
-------
5.2 SCREENING
A surrogate pollutant approach was used to screen the major cadmium
emission sources for their potential contribution to ambient cadmium concen-
trations. This approach assumes that a particular source is the only
contributor to ambient air concentrations of particulate and lead and that
emissions from that source are limited solely by the NAAQS's for those
pollutants. Under these assumptions, the maximum ambient cadmium concentration
limited by existing NAAQS's would be the lesser of the cadmium to lead ratio
times the lead NAAQS or the cadmium to particulate ratio times the NAAQS for
particulate. Average and maximum cadmium to lead and cadmium to particulate
ratios determined from stack tests on the major sources are presented in
Table 5.2-1. The product of these ratios and the respective NAAQS's for
particulate or lead are also reported in the table as potential ambient
cadmium concentrations. The NAAQS for particulate is 75 yg/m , annual geometric
3
mean; the NAAQS for lead is 1.5 pg/m , maximum arithmetic mean averaged over
a calendar quarter. Under existing State regulations particulate and lead
emissions from individual sources are regulated to levels considerably less
than those which would result in ambient levels equal to the NAAQS's. Thus,
the ambient cadmium concentrations listed in Table 5.2-1 are upper limits to
ambient cadmium concentrations which could result from individual cadmium
emission sources in each category.
5.3 DISPERSION MODELING
This section presents results of dispersion modeling performed on four
site-specific sources and two interactions of a number of sources.
1 2
The Industrial Source Complex Model (ISC) ' Long Term version was
chosen as the most appropriate model to use for the dispersion modeling
because available meteorological data for locations to be modeled were
available in STAR format which is compatible with this model. STAR format is
the statistical frequency distributions on wind speed, direction, and stability
class for a period of time.
5.3.1 Site-Specific Modeling
The three sources categories with the highest potential ambient cadmium
concentrations are primary pyrometallurgical cadmium smelting, primary
pyrometallurgical zinc smelting, and package incinerators. In order to give
134
-------
TABLE 5.2-1
POTENTIAL AMBIENT CADMIUM CONCENTRATIONS PREDICTED BY
THE SURROGATE POLLUTANT APPROACH
Potential ambient cadmium
concentration (ng/m3) based on
Source
Municipal incinerators
Package incinerators
Sludge incinerators
Residual fuel oil combustion
Coal combustion
Primary copper smelting
Primary lead smelting
Primary zinc smelting
Electric arc furnaces
Basic oxygen furnaces
Blast furnaces
Open hearth furnaces
Sintering
Coke ovens
Average
Cd/Pb
0.018
0.36
0.06
0.65
0.10
0.28
0.076
b
0.018
0.017
0.016
0.011
0.04
0.33
Maximum
Cd/Pb
0.025
0.55
11.6
a
0.28
0.86
0.095
1.3
0.022
0.031
0.029
0.021
0.55
a
Average
Cd/Part
0.0015
0.017
0.00038
2.2 > 10'6
7.1 x 10"5
8.4 x 10""
8.8 > 10"3
L
4.5 x 10"!
4.5 x 10"5
2 > 10"7
4.5 x 10"!
6.8 x 10"7
3.2 x 10"7
Maximum
Cd/Part
0.019
0.029
0.0017
a
2.5 x 10""
2 x ID"3
9.6 x 10"'
0.061
7.5 x 10""
8.0 x 10"5
a
2.5 x 10""
1.3 x 10"5
7.9 x 10"7
Average
Cd/Pb
27
540
90
976
150
420
114
b
27
26
24
17
60
50
Maximum
Cd/Pb
38
825
17,400
a
420
1,290
143
1,950
33
47
44
32
83
a
Average
Cd/Part
113
1,275
28
0.2
5
63
660
b
3
3
0.02
3
0.05
0.02
Maximum
Cd/Part
142
2,175
128
a
19
150
720
4,600
56
6
a
19
1
0.05
Highest
potential
cadmium
concentration
(ng/m3)
38
825
128
0.2
19
150
143
1,950
33
6
44
19
1
0.05
Only one value was found.
Only one value was found but probably represents a maximum
-------
realistic estimates to the ambient cadmium concentrations associated with
these categories, dispersion modeling was conducted with site-specific
source parameters, meteorological data, and terrain features.
5.3.1.1 Pyrometallurgical Cadmium Plants Two primary pyrometallurgical
cadmium plants were modeled during this study: The New Jersey Zinc Co. in
Palmerton, Pa. and AMAX, Inc. in Sauget, II. The New Jersey Zinc Co. was
chosen because it is somewhat of a unique case in that zinc production at
this plant has ceased operation. However, substantial stockpiles of zinc
plant baghouse dust is currently being utilized to produce cadmium. This
operation operates continuously and is expected to continue for an indefinite
period of time. The AMAX, Inc. plant was chosen because it as considered
more typical of pyrometallurgical cadmium smelters.
The parameters used for modeling the two cadmium emission sources at the
New Jersey Zinc Co. are presented in Table 5.3-1. The two sources are the
cadmium distillation furnaces and the fume kiln.
TABLE 5.3-1. SOURCE PARAMETERS FOR DISPERSION MODELING
OF THE NEW JERSEY ZINC CO. PYROMETALLURGICAL CADMIUM PLANT
Stack 1: Cadmium Distillation Furnaces
Stack height = 8.5 m
Stack diameter = 0.3 m
Stack temperature = 322 K
Stack velocity = 9.7 m/s
Cadmium emission rate = 0.017 g/s
Stack 2: Fume kiln
Stack height = 92 m
Stack diameter = 3.7 m
Stack temperature = 355 K
Stack velocity = 1.2 m/s
Cadmium emission rate = 0.028 g/s
The maximum cadmium concentration predicted by ISC is 261 ng/m . Table 5.3-2
lists the ten highest annual ground level concentrations as predicted by ISC.
136
-------
TABLE 5.3-2. TEN HIGHEST ANNUAL CADMIUM CONCENTRATIONS PREDICTED
BY ISC FOR THE NEW JERSEY ZINC COMPANY PYROMETALLURGICAL CADMIUM PLANT
Distance from stack (m) Cadmium Concentration (ng/m )
150 261
200 252
125 245
200 204
150 199
300 195
125 179
300 167
200 152
150 151
As Table 5.3-2 indicates the maximum annual cadmium concentration as
3
determined by the model is 261 ng/m . Almost all of the ambient cadmium is
the result of the emissions from stack 1 which serves the cadmium distillation
furnaces. For the purpose of dispersion modeling, it was assumed that all of
the particulate emissions from these two stacks is cadmium oxide. The emission
rate was corrected to account for only the cadmium portion of the cadimum
oxide. There are no ambient cadmium concentration data which reflect the
recent shutdown of the zinc operations at this plant.
The parameters used for modeling the cadmium retort furnaces at the
AMAX, Inc. plant are presented in Table 5.3.3.
TABLE 5.3.3 SOURCE PARAMETERS FOR DISPERSION MODELING OF THE AMAX, INC.
PYROMETALLURGICAL CADMIUM PLANT
Cadmium Retort Furnaces
Stack height = 7.6 m
Stack diameter = 0.6 m
Stack temperature = 389 K
Stack velocity = 17 m/s
Cadmium emission rate = 0.03 g/s
137
-------
The maximum annual cadmium concentration predicted by ISC is 152 ng/m .
Table 5.3-4 lists the ten highest annual ground level concentrations as
predicted by ISC.
TABLE 5.3-4. TEN HIGHEST ANNUAL CADMIUM CONCENTRATIONS PREDICTED BY ISC FOR AMAX
INC. PYROMETALLURGICAL CADMIUM PLANT
_
Distance from stack (m) Cadmium concentration (ng/m )
275 152
500 145
225 146
1000 73
160 70
275 68
500 66
275 64
500 62
500 57
As Table 5.3-4 indicates the maximum annual cadmium concentration as
3
determined by the model is 152 ng/m . There are no ambient cadmium data with
which to compare the results of this dispersion modeling.
5.3.1.2 Pyrometallurgical Zinc Plant. The primary pyrometallurgical
zinc smelter chosen for dispersion modeling is the St. Joe Minerals Corporation,
located in Monaca, Pennsylvania. Table 5.3-5 presents the source parameters
used for the dispersion modeling. Because the plant is located in a river
valley, 128 receptor point elevations were selected from topographical maps
of the area and entered into the model.
138
-------
TABLE 5.3-5. SOURCE PARAMETERS FOR DISPERSION MODELING OF A
PRIMARY PYROMETALLURGICAL ZINC SMELTER
Stack height = 122 m
Stack diameter = 5.5 m
Stack temperature = 394 K
Stack velocity = 4.9 m/s
Cadmium emission rate = 0.48 g/s
The maximum annual cadmium concentration predicted by ISC is 108 ng/m .
Table 5.3-6 lists the ten highest annual ground level cadmium concentrations
as predicted by ISC.
TABLE 5.3-6 TEN HIGHEST ANNUAL CADMIUM CONCENTRATIONS PREDICTED BY ISC
FOR A PRIMARY PYROMETALLURGICAL ZINC SMELTER
Distance Cadmium
from stack concentration
(m) (ng/m3)
1500 108
2000 88
1500 67
2000 64
2000 57
3000 52
2000 46
2000 43
1500 42
1000 41
As Table 5.3-6 indicates, the maximum annual cadmium concentration as
determined by the model is 108 ng/m . The maximum concentration predicted by
the surrogate pollutant approach is 1950 ng/m . There are no ambient cadmium
139
-------
data measured in the vicinity of this plant with which to compare the results
of either of the dispersion modeling or the surrogate pollutant approach.
5.3.1.3 Package Incinerator. The second cadmium emission source which
was modeled on a site-specific basis is a large multiple package incinerator
plant, located in Orlando, Florida. This site was chosen because it is one
of the two largest package incinerators in the United States. The terrain in
Orlando is flat allowing all the elevations at the 102 receptor points to be
zero. Meteorological data in the STAR format for Orlando, Florida were used
in the ISC Long Term version for the dispersion modeling of this source. The
package incinerator located in Orlando is composed of eight 27.2 Mg (30 ton)
per day units. A similar but smaller unit was tested in Salem, Virginia by
EPA. The stack parameters, excluding the emission rate, from the Salem unit
were used during the modeling. The emission rate was calculated by applying
the cadmium emission factor, developed from the results of the Salem tests,
to the design production rate of the Orlando unit. Table 5.3-7 presents the
source parameters used during the dispersion modeling of the Orlando package
incinerator. A single composite stack was used to represent all cadmium
emissions.
TABLE 5.3-7 SOURCE PARAMETERS FOR DISPERSION MODELING OF A
LARGE PACKAGE INCINERATOR
Stack height = 12.19 m
Stack diameter = 1.07 m
Stack temperature = 480 K
Stack velocity = 6.31 m/s
Cadmium emission rate = 0.044 g/s
The maximum annual cadmium concentration predicted by ISC is 60 ng/m .
Table 5.3-8 lists the ten highest annual ground level cadmium concentrations
as predicted by ISC.
140
-------
TABLE 5.3-3 TEN HIGHEST ANNUAL CADMIUM CONCENTRATIONS PREDICTED BY ISC
FOR A LARGE PACKAGE INCINERATOR
Distance
from stack
(m)
1000
1000
1000
1000
250
1000
250
250
1000
2000
Cadmium
concentration
(ng/m3)
6Cr
49
49
46
40
37
36
35
33
31
As Table 5.3-8 indicates, the maximum annual cadmium concentration as
determined by the model is 60 ng/m . The maximum concentration predicted by
the surrogate pollutant approach is 825 ng/m . There are no ambient cadmium
data measured in the vicinity of this incinerator with which to compare the
results of either ambient concentration prediction methods.
5.3.2 Interactions
To estimate potential ambient cadmium concentrations resulting from a
number of cadmium emission sources in an area, dispersion modeling was
performed on six copper smelters in Arizona and the fossil fuel-fired power
plants and municipal incinerators in the New York City-northern New Jersey
metropolitan area.
5.3.2.1 Six Copper Smelters. Six of the seven primary copper smelters
in Arizona were chosen for modeling because this part of the country has the
highest population of primary nonferrous smelters and emissions data had
already been gathered and analyzed. The seventh plant was not modeled because
all process emissions at the plant are controlled with acid plants and thus
cadium emissions from this plant are negligible. STAR meteorological data
was available for Tucson, Arizona which is near the middle of the six smelters,
141
-------
TABLE 5.3-9 SOURCE PARAMETERS FOR DISPERSION MODELING OF SIX PRIMARY
COPPER SMELTERS IN ARIZONA
ro
Plant
Phelps Dodge
Douglas, AZ
Phelps Dodge
Ajo, AZ
Phelps Dodge
Morenci , AZ
Magma Copper
San Manuel , AZ
Asarco
Hayden, AZ
Kennecott
Hayden, AZ
Stack
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Stack
height
(m)
73.2
85.0
69.8
184
184
157
305
183
Stack
diameter
(m)
6.9
5.5
4.8
7.6
7.4
6.3
5.2
5.2
Stack
temperature
(K)
445
417
389
514
344
515
369
422
Stack
velocity
(m/s)
7.8
9.1
10.8
5.9
7.2
11.8
23.0
1.5
Cadmium
emission rate
(g/s)
0.0277
0.172
0.058
0.116
0.0492
0.0231
0.010
0.0018
-------
The six smelters and the source parameters used ajrir jh., ...;.-•
presented in Table 5.3-9. Because of the relatively high ,.;,s -K= ,.h~
large distances between the smelters, the terrain impact of the 424 rectptor
points was not taken into consideration. Two plants, Phelps Dodge in Douglas
and Phelps Dodge in Morenci, have two stacks emitting cadmium. This brought
the total number of stacks to eight at six plants.
Table 5.3-10 presents the maximum annual ambient cadmium concentrations
for each of the six primary copper smelters in Arizona as predicted by ISC.
The ten highest annual cadmium concentrations from the interaction of
•3 O
all six of the primary copper smelters ranged from 1.97 ng/m to 1.18 ng/m .
The receptor points where these ten maximum values occured are the same ten
receptor points where the ten highest cadmium concentrations occured for the
Phelps Dodge smelter in Douglas. The surrogate pollutant approach predicted
a maximum annual cadmium concentration of 150 ng/m , while ISC predicted a
maximum annual cadmium concentration for a single smelter of 1.94 ng/m .
There are some measured ambient cadmium data for this area although most do
not meet Storage and Retrieval of Aerometric Data System (SAROAD) qualifications,
There is, however, one site in Tucson which did meet the SAROAD qualifications
3
during 1977. This site averaged 5 ng/m over 30 samples using emission
spectroscopy as the analysis method and high volume air samplers as sampling
method. Although the other sites in Tucson and Phoenix did not meet the
SAROAD qualifications for some reason, the values have been incorporated into
the SAROAD system. The values are in the range 1 to 2 ng/m and were measured
between 1977 and 1980.
TABLE 5.3-10 MAXIMUM ANNUAL CADMIUM CONCENTRATIONS PREDICTED BY ISC
FOR THE SIX COPPER SMELTERS IN ARIZONA
Plant
Phelps Dodge
Phelps Dodge
Phelps Dodge
Magma Copper
Asarco
Kennecott
Location
Douglas
A jo
Morenci
San Manuel
Hayden
Hayden
No.
of
stacks
2
1
2
1
1
1
Maximum cadmium
concentration
(ng/m3)
1.94
0.97
0.43
0.04
0.01
0.02
143
-------
5.3.2.2 Power Plants and Municipal Incinerators. The second interaction
involved the New York City-northern New Jersey metropolitan area. This
metropolitan area was chosen to model because it contains 13 oil-fired power
plants and three conventional municipal incinerators with a total of 32 discrete
emission points. Stacks at the power plants were combined into a single
source if the stack parameters were identical or very similar to each other.
Stacks were combined only within the power plant itself. An array of 1098 receptor
3
points was chosen from a previous trace metal study of the same area. The
terrain for this dispersion modeling was assumed to be flat. Table 5.3-11
presents the sources and the parameters used during the dispersion modeling.
New York City meteorological data in the STAR format was used for this modeling.
The 16 plants (13 power plants and 3 incincerators) were modeled to show
the annual cadmium concentrations not only from each plant but also from the
combination of all plants. Table 5.3-12 presents the maximum annual cadmium
concentrations for each of the 16 plants as predicted by ISC.
The ten highest annual cadmium concentrations from the interaction of
all 32 point sources ranged from 11.7 ng/m to 9.6 ng/m . No direct correlation
between these ten highest concentrations and the ten highest concentrations
from any particular plant seems apparent. However, the two highest values of
the interaction occur at the same receptor point as do the two highest
values of the Sayreville plant.
There are some measured ambient cadmium data for this metropolitan area
although not all meet the SAROAD qualifications. There is one ambient monitoring
site in New York City and six in northern New Jersey. Special discrete
receptor points were located at the New Jersey ambient monitoring sites
during the dispersion modeling. Table 5.3-13 presents a summary of the
measured ambient cadmium data and the ambient cadmium concentrations predicted
by ISC.
In a recent study for EPA Region II, dispersion modeling using ISC Long
Term version was conducted on 32 proposed or partially built refuse, sludge
and coal combustion sources. The receptor points used in Region II study are
identical to those used in this study of existing sources. The ten highest
cadmium concentrations predicted to occur as a result of these new sources
ranged from 80 ng/m to 56 ng/m . These ten values represent the highest
values predicted to occur at ten of the 1098 receptor points. The average
increase in the ambient cadmium concentration is considerably less than this.
144
-------
TABLE 5.3-11
SOURCE PARAMETERS FOR DISPERSION MODELING OF THE
NEW YORK CITY - NORTHERN NEW JERSEY
METROPOLITAN AREA
Plant
Power plants
59th Street
74th Street
Arthur Kill
Astoria
East River
Ravenswood
Sayreville
Werner
Bergen
Hudson
Kearny
Linden
Sewaren
Incinerators
Betts
S. Brooklyn
Greenpoint
Stack
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Stack
height
(m)
75.6
74.9
161
158
152
152
96.0
91.1
91.1
91.1
115.2
115.2
115.2
157
157
42.1
45.7
67.4
42.1
64.0
93.3
99.4
151.8
68.0
84.1
68.6
68.6
68.6
99.1
99.1
73.0
61.0
Stack
diameter
(m)
4.6
4.6
5.7
5.5
5.9
5.9
4.2
4.2
6.1
6.1
6.7
6.7
6.7
4.1
7.3
2.3
3.7
3.5
3.1
3.7
3.5
4.3
5.3
4.8
4.3
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.5
3.3
Stack
temperature
(K)
422
505
461
505
400
400
421
417
411
411
477
533
435
414
466
464
454
436
533
439
405
417
411
422
441
400
403
419
375
375
727
505
Stack
velocity
(m/s)
4.1
2.0
2.7
2.4
11.8
16.7
12.5
12.5
11.9
12.3
0.8
2.1
3.8
29.0
1.1
1.9
7.2
16.6
7.2
8.2
38.7
29.7
34.6
0.90
14.1
14.3
29.7
16.0
33.2
7.6
7.6
7.6
C a dm i ur
emission rate
(m/s)
0.011
0.016
0.018
0.023
0.049
0.064
0.024
0.024
0.048
0.10
0.024
0.043
0.037
0.114
0.129
3.013
0.023
0.0:0
0.003
0.006
0.040
0.052
0.077
0.004
0.041
0.050
0.034
0.068
0.046
0.023
0.023
0.023
145
-------
TABLE 5.3-12
MAXIMUM ANNUAL CADMIUM CONCENTRATIONS PREDICTED BY ISC
FOR THE SIXTEEN PLANTS IN THE NEW YORK CITY -
NORTHERN NEW JERSEY METROPOLITAN AREA
Plant
Power plants
59th Street
74th Street
Arthur Kill
Astoria
East River
Ravenswood
Sayreville
Werner
Bergen
Hudson
Kearny
Linden
Sewaren
Incinerators
Betts
S. Brooklyn
Greenpoint
No.
of
stacks
3
1
2
4
2
2
3
2
1
3
1
2
2
1
1
1
Maximum cadmium
concentration
(ng/m3)
1.9
0.3
0.6
3.3
3.5
2.7
9.4
7.3
0.4
0.9
0.9
2.2
2.4
1.1
1.3
1.4
146
-------
TABLE 5.3-13 SUMMARY OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED AMBIENT CADMIUM
CONCENTRATIONS IN THE NEW YORK CITY - NORTHERN
NEW JERSEY METROPOLITAN AREA
Sampling
location
New York City, NY
Patterson, NJ
Perth Amboy, NJ
Newark, NJ
Jersey City, NJ
Elizabeth, NJ
Bayonne, NJ
Sampling
year
1978
1979
1977
1978
1979
1977
1978
1979
1977
1978
1979
1977
1978
1979
1977
1978
1979
1977
1978
1979
SAROAD
qualified
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Cadmium
measured
2
4
3
1
2
4
3
6
4
3
9
4
3
3
8
3
8
5
3
2
Concentration
(ng/m3)
ISC
1.3
4.3
3.2
5.3
3.8
5.3
147
-------
References for Section 5
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Source Complex (ISC)
Dispersion Model User's Guide, Volume I, EPA-450/4-79-030, December 1979
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ludustrial Source Comples (ISC)
Dispersion Model User's Guide, Volume II, Appendices A through I,
EPA-450/4-79-031, December 1979.
3. Rothstein, R.A. and R.S. Marker, Particulate Matter and Trace Metal
Impact Study for Development of a Control Strategy Allocation Program
For New Jersey, prepared for EPA Region II, February 1981.
148
-------
Appendix A
CALCULATIONS FOR PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS
A.I Derivation of cadmium to parti cul ate ratios:
A. 1.1 Multihearth roasters/reverberatory furnace with ESP: The ratio for the
combined controlled emissions from these processes was determined from the
average of stack test reports for ASARCO-Tacoma1 and Phelps Dodge-Douglas.2
ASARCO-Tacoma 3.0 x 10"J
Phelps Dodge-Douglas 7.7 x 10";
Average 5.4 x 10
A. 1.2 Reverberatory furnaces with ESP: The ratio for the controlled emissions
from reverberatory furnaces is the average of values determined from stack
A
3 4
test reports for Phelps Dodge-Morenci and Magma.
Phelps Dodge-Morenci 7.6 x 10
Magma 1.0 x 10 ~
Average 4.3 x 10"
Although this ratio was developed from data on green-fed reverbs, it probably
adequately represents emissions from calcine-fed reverbs as well, since
cadmium concentrations in green feed and calcine do not appear to differ by an
appreciable magnitude (see Appendix A. 3).
A. 1.3 Converters with acid plant: The ratio for converter emissions controlled
4
by an acid plant was determined from stack test data for Magma to be
2.7 x 10" . This ratio is specific to converters controlled with single
contact acid plants but has been taken to be representative of emissions from
double contact acid plants, due to the absence of cadmium emissions data for
these plants. This ratio has also been applied to combined roaster and
converter off -gases controlled by acid plants in the absence of more specific
data. Although test data for the acid plant stack at Phelps Dodge-Morenci are
available, this data was not used because the measured emissions include the
contribution of uncontrolled secondary converter emissions.
149
-------
A.2 Derivation of emission factors:
A.2.1 Reverberatory furnances with ESP: The emission factor for reverberatory
furnaces controlled by an ESP was determined from data from Phelps Dodge-Morenci
This was the higher of the two factors calculated from data from Phelps
3 45
Dodge-Morenci and Magma. '
Phelps
Magma
Dodge-Morenci
Cadmium emissions
rate (#/hr)
0.916
0.182
Charge rate
(t/hr)
70
159
Emission factor
(#Cd/t charge)
1.3 x 10"2
1.1 x 10"3
-4
The associated cadmium to particulate ratio is 7.63 x 10 .
A.2.2 Converters with ESP: This emission factor was developed from data from
2
Phelps Dodge-Douglas.
Cadmium emissions Charge rate Emission factor
rate (#/hr) (t/hr) (#Cd/t charge)
Phelps Dodge-Douglas 1.37 69 2.0 x 10"2
The associated cadmium to particul ate ratio is 6.1 x 10" .
150
-------
A.2.3 Fugitive emissions: Fugitive emission sources determined to be
potentially most significant with repsect to cadmium are: unloading, handling,
and storage of ore concentrates; hot calcine discharge from the roaster;
matte and slag tapping from the smelting furnace; and secondary converter
emissions from skimming holding and pouring of blister copper. Table A.2-1
presents particulate emission factors recently developed from fugitive
emission measurements. ° The average of these values were used in conjunction
with cadmium to particulate ratios for uncontrolled process emissions to
derive the cadmium emission factors listed in Table A.2-2. These emission
factors were then applied to annual blister copper production capacity to
estimate the annual cadmium fugitive emissions listed in Table 4.3.3.1. Cadmium
emission factors derived from the smelter-specific factors were applied to
estimate emissions for those smelters.
A.3 Derivation of cadmium concentrations in smelter feed:
The companies operating the smelters submitted information on concentrate
composition to the EPA in 1974 (references 12-15). The reported cadmium
concentrations are as follows:
Cadmium Concentration (yg/g) Number of
Company Average Range Samples
ASARCO 122 7-1000 33
Kennecott 48 20-100 8
Magma 48 4-100 3
Anaconda 103 10-200 3
151
-------
TABLE A.2-1. PARTICULATE FUGITIVE EMISSION FACTORS
Emission factor
Process Smelter (#PM/T Blister Cu)
Calcine discharge ASARCO-Tacoma 2.62
Phelps Dodge-Douglas 5.76
Matte Tapping Phelps Dodge-Ajo 0.54
Converter Phelps Dodge-Ajo 10.5
ASARCO-Hayden 19.9
152
-------
TABLE A.2-2. FUGITIVE CADMIUM EMISSION FACTORS
Process
Fugitive
source
Particulate
emission factor
(#PM/T Blister Cu)
Cd/PM
Ratio
Cadmium
emission factor
(#Cd/T Blister Cu)
in
co
Materials handling
Unloading, handling
and storage of ore
concentrates
1.7 x 10"2a
9.4 x 10~sb
1.6 x 10"6
Roaster
Reverberatory furnace
Converter
Calcine discharge
Matte tapping
Slag tapping
Secondary emissions
4.2
0.54
0.12e
15.2
9.8 x 10"sC
8.5 x 10~"d
8.5 x 10""
2.0 x 10"3f
4.1 x 10"*
4.6 x 10"*
1.0 x 10~"
3.0 x 10"2
aEmission factor from reference 7. This emission factor has.a rating of E.
Average cadmium concentration of copper ore concentrates (see Appendix A.3).
Calculated from data on roaster process emissions sampled after cyclones and prior to ESP at a copper
smelter in Bor, Yugoslavia (reference 8).
Calculated from data on reverberatory furnace process emissions sampled prior to ESP at Phelps Dodge, Ajo.
The ratio was not derived from trace metal analysis of collected participate but was calculated from two
mass emission rates derived from separate stack measurements conducted in a common study (reference 9).
eThe available data on slag tapping fugitive emissions were not sufficient to directly support an emissions
estimate. The data on fugitive arsenic emissions from the ASARCO-Tacoma and Kennecott-Garfield Smelters
(reference 10) were used to compute the ratio of slag tapping emissions relative to matte tapping emissions;
the higher of the two resultant ratios, 0.23, was then applied to the matte tapping emission factor.
Ratio derived from a fugitive emission test of the converter building at the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter (reference 11)
-------
In addition, composition analysis of smelter feed has been conducted in
conjunction with emission testing at specific smelters (references 2, 3, 9, 16).
Cadmium concentrations reported are as follows:
Cadmium
Concentration (yg/g)
Smelter Material Average
Kennecott-McGill Concentrate 18
Phelps Dodge-Morenci Concentrate 300
Phelps Dodge-Douglas Roaster feed 75
Calcine 159
Phelps Dodge-Ajo Concentrate 18
Range
ND*(3)-47
270-330
58-99
63-550
ND*(3)-49
*
ND - Not detected. The number in parentheses indicates the limit
This figure was used in calculating the average concentration.
Number
of
samples
3
3
6
13
3
of detectability.
The overall average of cadmium concentrations in copper ore concentrates
calculated from these data is 94 pg/g (Range: ND(3)-1000 yg/g).
References for Appendix A
1. Stantnick, R.M., Measurement of Sulfur Dioxide, Particulate, and Trace
Elements in Copper Smelter Converter and Roaster/Reverberatory Gas Streams.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC. Publication
No. EPA-650/2-74-111. 1974.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Testing: Phelps Dodge
Copper Smelter, Douglas, Arizona (September 18-23, 1979). Denver, CO.
Publication No. EPA-330/2-80-012. April 1980.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Testing: Phelps Dodge
Corporation, Morenci, Arizona (September 10-16, 1979). Denver, CO.
Publication No. EPA-330/2-80-014. April 1980.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Testing at the Magma
Copper Smelter, San Manuel, Azrizona (April 14-23, 1980). Denver, CO.
Publication No. EPA-330/2-80-026-R. July 1980.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Testing at the Magma
Copper Company Smelter, San Manuel, Arizona, May 12-22, 1976. Denver,
CO. Publication No. EPA-330/2-76-029. August 1976.
154
-------
6. Wood, J.P- Review of Existing Emissions Test Data: The Copper Smelting
Industry. Draft report prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC. 1981.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical Guidance for Control of
Industrial Process Fugitive Participate-Emissions. Research Triangle
Park, NC. Publication No. EPA-450/3-77-010. March 1977.
8. Research Triangle Insute, Air Pollution Caused by Copper Metallurgy in
Bcr: Summary Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington,
D.C. Publication No. EPA 600/November 1976.
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Testing: Phelps Dodge
Corporation, Ajo, Arizona (July 23-24, 1979). Denver, CO. Publication
No. EPA 330/2-80-013. April 1980.
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Arsenic Emissions from Primary
Copper Smelters: Background Infromation for Proposed Standards.
Research Triangle Park, NC. November 1980.
11. Memo from Roberts, J.W., Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority to
Chief of Engineering. February 19, 1975. Estimate of fugitive emissions
from roof of ASARCO-Tacoma converter building.
12. Letter and attachments from Nelson, K.W., American Smelting and Refining
Company to Goodwin, D.R., EPA. April 10, 1974. Ore concentrate data.
13. Letter and attachments from Laird, F.J., The Anaconda Company to
Goodwin, D.R., EPA. April 10, 1974. Ore concentrate data.
14. Letter and attachments from Staley, E.K. Magma Copper Company to
Goodwin, D.R., EPA. July 3, 1974. Ore concentrate data.
15. Letter and attachments from Templeton, F.E., Kennecott Copper Corporation
to Goodwin, D.R., EPA. April 11, 1974. Ore concentrate data.
16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Testing: Kennecott
Copper Corporation, McGill, Nevada (December 7-13, 1979). Denver, CO.
Publication No. EPA-330/2-80-015-R. April 1980.
155
-------
APPENDIX B
CALCULATIONS FOR FUEL COMBUSTION
B.I Calculation of Cadmium Emissions from Coal Combustion:
Example: Industrial Sector
(143.0 x 106 short tons coal)(25.07 x 106 Btu/short ton)(1054 J/Btu)
x (31.3 pgCd/J)(10"18 Mg/pg) = 118 Mg Cd
For utility sector, heat content of coal is 21.28 x 106 Btu/short ton
Coal consumption values taken from Table 4.2-6.
Cadmium emission factors taken from Tables 4.2-1, 4.2-2, and 4.2-3.
B.2 Calculations of Cadmium Emissions from Residual Oil and Distillate
Oil Combustion:
Example: Distillate Oil (D.O.), Commercial/Residential Sector
(513 x 10s barrels of D.0.)(42 gal/barrel)(7.24 Ibs of D.O./gal)
x (0.1 Ibs Cd/106 Ibs of D.0.)(l short ton/2000 Ibs)
= 7.8 short tons of cadmium
For residual oil calculations, 7.88 Ibs. of residual oil/gal.
Oil consumption factors taken from Table 4.2-6.
Cadmium concentration factors taken from Tables 4.2-4, and 4.2-5.
156
-------
B.3 Calculation of Cadmium Emissions from Kerosene, Jet Fuel Aviation
Gasoline, and Motor Gasoline Combustion
Example: Motor Gasoline, Transportation Sector
(2529 x 106 barrels of gasoline)(42 gal/barrel)(15 veh-mi/gal)
(2 x 10"8 Ib Cd/veh-mi) x (1 short ton/2000 Ib) = 16 short tons Cd
For kerosene and jet fuel, emission factor is 7 x 10"7 Ib/gal.
Fuel consumption values taken from Table 4.2-6.
Cadmium emission factors taken from EEA report (Reference 5).
157
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the revene before completing)
EPORT NO. • 2
EPA-450/3-81-013
ITLE AND SUBTITLE
Survey of Cadmium Emission Sources
,UTHOR(S)
ERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANQ ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
.SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
DAA for Air Quality Planning and Standards
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE /
September 1981
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-3168, Task 32
GCA Corporation
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
.SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
This document is issued in accordance with the requirements of Section 122 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977.
i. ABSTRACT •
This document presents technical data used to support decision making on the
need for listing cadmium under Section 108(a)(l), Section 112(b)(l)(A). or
Section lll(b)(l)(A) as required by Section 122 of the Clean Air Act, as amended in
1977. Data are presented Describing potential sources of cadmium emissions, control
techniques used for cadmium emission control, estimated controlled and uncontrolled
cadmium emissions, estimated ambient air quality, and compliance status. The results
of special dispersion modeling are presented for incineration, interaction of
smelters, and for interaction of sources in the New York City - New Jersey area.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Cadmium
Emissions
Control Techniques
Ambient Air Quality
Compliance
Combustion
Industrial Sources
a. DISTHIBUT.ON STATEMENT
Unlimited
b.lOENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
19. SECURITY CLASS (Tins Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
c. COSATI Field/Group
13B
21. NO. OF PAGES
157
22. PRICE
Form 2220-1 (R»*. *-7
PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
------- |