United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EMB Report 78-CUS-13
April 1979
Air
Arsenic
Non-Ferrous Smelter
Emission Test Report
Kennecott Copper
Corporation
Magna, Utah
-------
EMISSION TESTING OF KENNECOTT COPPER SMELTER
MAGNA, UTAH
TO
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Contract 68-02-2812
Work Assignment 29
By
Thomas Rooney
Delbert Powell
Dave Ringwald
One Space Park, Redondo Beach, Ca 90278
-------
CONTENTS
Figures ii
Tables ii
1 Introduction 1-2
2 Summary and Discussion of Results 3.4
3 Process Description
4 Location of Sampling Points 12-13
5 Sampling and Analytical Procedure 24-27
Appendices
A. Field and Analytical Data 30
1 Traverse point locations 31
2 Field data sheets 33
3 Analytical data sheets 72
4 Meter box calibration data gg
B. Sample Calculations 1Q4
C. Daily Activity Log 11Q.
112
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Matte tapping 14
2 Slag tapping 15
3 Slag tapping fugitive emission duct traverse point location. . 16-17
4 Plant schematic - the matte tapping and slag tapping fugitive
emission systems '°
5 Acid plant inlet 19
6 Converter fugitive emission duct 20
7 Plant schematic - converter fugitive emission system 21
8 Concentrate dryer stack 22
9 Plant schematic - concentrate dryer fugitive emission
system 23
10 Arsenic/sulfur dioxide sampling train 75
TABLES
Number Page
1 Matte Tapping Arsenic/SOp Results 5
2 Slag Tapping Arsenic/S02 Results 6
3 Acid Plant Inlet Arsenic/S02 Results 7
4 Rollout Converter Fugitive Arsenic/SO- Results 8
5 Full Cycle Converter Fugitive Arsenic/SOp Results 9
6 Concentrate Dryer Arsenic/S02 Results 10
7 Process Sample Analysis Results
ii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency's program for
developing new source performance standards, TRW participated in fugitive
emission testing at the Kennecott copper smelter located in Magna, Utah.
Testing was performed from October 30 - Novermber 15, 1978..
The testing program was developed to provide arsenic/sulfur dioxide
data on the following environmental control systems: matte tapping fugitive
emission system, slag tapping fugitive emission system, converter fugitive
emission system, acid plant inlet, and concentrate dryer fugitive emission
systems.
The matte tapping fugitive emission system operated on an intermittent
basis during the loading operation of copper matte from the reactors to
the large ladles. The system removed the fugitive air pollutants that were
generated during this operation.
The slag tapping fugitive emission system operated on an intermittent
basis during the loading of slag from the reactors to the large ladles.
This system removed the fugitive emissions generated during the operation.
The.converter fugitive emission system is comprised of a hooding system
over the converters which removes the fugitive air pollutants that escape
the converter ducting system. The acid plant inlet duct (converter ducting
system) removes large amounts of air pollutants including sulfur dioxide
from the converter process operation and the hot gases enter the sulfuric
acid plant. The sulfuric acid plant then converts large amounts of sulfur
dioxide into commercial grade sulfuric acid from the process exhaust gases.
The converter process operates on a continuous cyclic operation.
The concentrate dryer emission system removes large amounts of moisture
and fugitive dust from the rotating concentrate dryers. The emissions are
passed through large cyclones and a wet scrubber, then the gases exit
through a 150PF stack. The dryer operation works on a continuous basis with
the concentrate feed being added as needed.
Testing at the Kennecott copper smelter consisted of the following
tests.
Three arsenic/sulfur dioxide tests were performed on the matte tapping
fugitive emissions system with the EPA process engineer coordinating the
intermittent testing.
At the slag tapping fugitive emission duct, three arsenic/sulfur
1
-------
dioxide tests were conducted with the EPA process engineer coordinating
the intermittent sampling.
Testing the converter process operation required three tests to be
performed during a given converter cycle. Two tests were performed on the
converter fugitive emission system while one test was conducted at the acid
plant inlet duct. The two tests conducted at the converter fugitive emiss-
ion system during the converter cycle consisted of one test being performed
during the complete cycle, and a second test being performed only during the
converter roll-out segment of the cycle. The tests at the acid plant inlet
duct and at the converter fugitive emission system were coordinated under
the direction of the EPA process engineer. Three arsenic/sulfur dioxide
tests were performed at the acid plant inlet duct and the converter fugi-
tive emission duct (complete cycle test). Two arsenic/sulfur dioxide tests
were conducted during the converter roll-out phase of the converter cycle.
This report presents the results of the testing program. The follow-
ing sections of the report contain: a summary of the results, descriptions
of the sampling points, a description of the process, and delineation of the
sampling and laboratory analytical procedures. The appendices contain
field data, sample calculations and daily activity log.
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The results of the testing program are summarized in Tables 1 - 5.
The arsenic/sulfur dioxide data for the matte tapping fugitive emission
system and slag tapping fugitive emission systems are presented in Tables
1 and 2, respectively. Acid plant inlet arsenic/sulfur dioxide results are
given in Table 3. The converter fugitive emission system arsenic/sulfur
dioxide results are presented in Tables 4 and 5. Table 4 presents the
converter fugitive emissions tests during the complete cycle. The conver-
ter roll-out arsenic/sulfur dioxide data are presented in Table 5. Concen-
trate dryer emissions are reported in Table 6. All process sample analysis
data are contained in Table 7.
The field sampling program encountered the following minor problems
which are outlined below with respect to individual sampling locations.
During the field sampling at the matte tapping fugitive emission system
and the slag tapping fugitive emission system, the sampling program required
long days due to the intermittent process operation and days of reduced op-
eration. At the slag tapping fugitive emission duct there were two modifi-
cations in the sampling procedure required. Only one port was located on
the duct which required that both traverses be performed through the same
port utilizing the pythagorean calculations. All equations and distances
are shown in figure 3. The sampling train was modified to allow for the
two traverses through the single sampling port. A teflon flex line was
inserted between the probe and heater box to assist in maneuvering the
probe into the proper placement. After the testing the flex line was clean-
ed with a probe brush and .IN NaOH. The solution was placed in the probe
rinse bottle and saved for analysis.
Testing the converter fugitive emission system and the acid plant inlet
required TRW personnel to adjust the working schedule to fit the cyclic pro-
cess operation of the converter unit. Due to lack of space at the converter
fugitive emission duct sampling position, TRW was required to utilize the
flex lines between the probes and heater boxes on each of the tests. After
each test the flex line was cleaned with .IN NaOH and a probe brush. The
solution was placed in the probe rinse bottle and saved for analysis.
Weather forced TRW personnel to curtail the field sampling on Friday,
November 10, 1978. TRW personnel returned on Monday, November 12, 1978 to
complete the field sampling on the concentrate dryer fugitive emission
system.
Testing the concentrate dryer fugitive emission system required the
test ports to be placed in the fiberglass stack. Due to the working space
and the fiberglass stack, TRW utilized the flex line inserted between the
probe and the heater box to assist in performing the sampling traverses.
3
-------
Testing at the concentrate dryer fugitive emission system was performed
under low ambient temperature which ranged from 20°F to 30°F.
During the data reduction, the meter volume was back calculated to ac-
count for sulfur dioxide that was removed by the three 10% hydrogen per-
oxide impingers. The back calculation for sulfur dioxide was accomplished
in the following order. First, parts per million sulfur dioxide at stand-
dard conditions was calculated. Then parts per million was converted to a
fraction by dividing by 106. This number was added to one and the result
multiplied by volume of gas collected through the dry gas meter at standard
conditions. The results of multiplication yielded the actual gas volume
at standard conditions collected.
-------
TABLE 1 Matte Tapping Arsenic/S02 Results
RUN NUMBER
1 DATE '
11 STACK PARAMETERS
PST - STATIC PRESSURE, "Ho (MMHO)
Pi - STACK GAS PRESSURE, "Ho ABSOLUTE (MMHG)
X COo - VOLUME X DRY
X 02 - VOLUME X DRV
9^ - VOLUME X DRY
X K2 • VoLU« * toY.
Ts - AVERAGE STACK TEMPERATURE °F <°C) ,
X H?0 - Z MOISTURE IN STACK GAS, BY VOLUME
As - STACK AREA, FT2 (n2)
RD - CtoLEcuLAR WEIGHT .OF STACK GAS, DRV BASIS
Ms - MOLECULAR WEIGHT OF STACK GAS, WET BASIS
Vs - STACK GAS VELOCITY, FT/SEC, (H/S^C)
QA - STACK GAS VOLUMETRIC FLOH AT STACK CONDITIONS, ACFP (NM'/MIN)
Os - STACK GAS VOLUMETRIC FLOH AT STANDARD CONDITIONS, DSCFI* (NMVMIN)
X EA - PERCENT EXCESS AIR
Ml TEST CONDITIONS
PB - BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, "Ha
I/HR, (KG/HR)
D) TOTAL ARSENIC (MC)
PPM, (MC/M3)
I/KR, (KG/HR)
E) TOTAL St^ IMS)
PPM
(MG/M3)
I/HB, (KG/HR)
1
ENGLISH
UNITS
11/3/78
.01
zs.es
0
20.
.09
79.91
126. 3
1.4
19.635
Z8.84
20.69
54. 16
63329.5
48967.9
4.7
25.84
.250
69.5
76.73
24.
.84
7S.7
3.19
19. Z
.7!
.90.
65.68
1.4
28.69
51.85
107.3
.2196
.1255
. .0436
.0250
.2632
.1505
459.8695
METRIC
UNITS
11/3/78
.254
656,59
0
20.
.09
79.91
S2.3
1.4
1.8Z4
28.84
28.69
16.51
1808.2
1387.2
4.7
656.34
6.35
69.5
2.17
24.
.84
?4.3
81.03
19.2
18.29
.03
1.87
1.4
28.69
15.80
107.3
1.058
.220
1.278
.6848
.0570
.254
.1361
.0113
1.S320
.0209
.0683
46*1.46
.941 .5505
2508.4326
208.7469
2
ENGLISH
UNITS
11/1/78
.01
25.73
0
20.
.10
79.90
110.6
1.
19.635
28.83
Z8.72
5Z.4Z
61756.0
< 48644.6
4.7
25.72
.250
60.5
58.94
24.
.84
71.9
2.93
14.6
.69
.69
1.0
28.72
50.69
97.08
.3847
.2185
.2563
.1456
.6409
.3641
474.6541
METRIC
UNITS
11/1/78
.254
653.54
0
20.
.10
79.90
43.7
1.
1.824
28.83
28.72
15.98
1749.5
1378.2
4.7
653.29
6.35
60.5
1.67
24.
.84
22.2
74.42
14.6
17.53
.02
1.0
28.72
15.51
97.08
1.428
.295
1. 723
1.1996
.0992
1.148
.7993
.0661
2.8710
1.9989
.1653
3742.92
978.1793
2606.0173
215.4581
3
ENGLISH
UNITS
11/3/78
.01
25.85
0
20.
.12
79.88
119.1
0
19.635
28. 85
28.85
47.27
55688.8
43867.9
4.7
25.84
.250
66.5
63.62
24.
.84
77.1
2.42
0
.56
0
0
28.85
45.72
103.5
.8476
.4341
.1636
.0787
1.0011
.5128
523.3389
METRIC
UNITS
11/3/78
.254
6S6.59
0
20.
.12
79.88
48.4
0
1.624
28.65
28. BS
14.41
1577.6
1242.7
4.7
656.34
6.35
66.5
1.80
24.
.84
25.1
61.47
0
14.22
0
o
28.85
13.93
103.5
3.321
.750
4.071
2.6431
.1970
.738
.4792
.0357
4.8090
3.1223
.2328
4907.95
1196.0702
3186.51 16
237.SS74
AVERAGE
ENGLISH
UNITS
.01
25.81
0
ZO.
.10
79.90
118.7
.80
19.635
28.84
28.75
51.29
60424.8
47161.8
4.7
25.80
.250
65.5
66.43
24.
.84
74.9
2.85
11.3
.66
.53
.80
28. 7S
49.49
102.6
.4839
.2594
.1512
.0831
.6151
.3425
465.9542
METRIC
UNITS
.254
655.57
0
20.
.10
79.90
48.1
.80
1.82*
28.84
2B.7S
15.63
1711.8
1336.0
4.7
655.32
6.35
65.5
1.88
24.
.84
23.9
72.31
11.3
16.68
.02
1.62
26.75
15.08
102.6
1.9357
.4217
2.3573
1.5092
.1177
.7133
.4715
.0377
3.0707
1.9807
.1554
4444.11
1038.6000
2766.9871
220.5875
-------
TABLE 2 Slag tapping Arsenic/502 Results
RUN NUTCER
'1 DATE
1 ! STACK PARAMETERS
PST - STATIC PRESSURE, "Ho (wHo)
Ps - STACK GAS PRESSURE, "He ABSOLUTE (HMHG)
X C02 - VOLUME I DRY
X Oj - VOLUME X DRY
Sry, - VOLUME X DRY
X N2 - VOLUME X DRY
Ts - AVERAGE STACK TEMPERATURE °F (°C)
X f^Q - X MOISTURE IN STACK GAS, BY VOLUME
As - STACK AREA, FT^ (tr)
MD - MOLECULAR WEIGHT OF STACK GAS, DRY BASIS
Us - MOLECULAR WEIGHT OF STACK GAS, WET BASIS
OA - STACK GAS VOLUMETRIC FLOW AT STACK CONDITIONS, ACFP (HM'/MIN)
Os - STACK GAS VOLUMETRIC FLOW AT STANDARD CONDITIONS, DSCFP (NMVMIN)
X EA - PERCENT EXCESS AIR
III TEST CONDITIONS
PB -'BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, "He (MHHc)
DN - SAMPLING NOZZLE DIAMETER, IN. (MM)
T - SAMPLING TIME, MIN
VM - SAMPLE VOLUME, ACF (M3)
NP - NET SAMPLING POINTS
CP - PITOT TUBE COEFFICIENT
TM - AVERAGE METER TEMPERATURE °F (°O
PM - AVERAGE ORIFICE PRESSURE DROP, "^0 (MuHjO)
VLC - CONDENSATE COLLECTED (IMPINGERS AND GEL), MLS
fip - STACK VELOCITY HEAD "I^O ARSENIC - IMPINGER COLLECTION
IMPINGEH «. 2 (MG)
PPM, (MG/MJ)
tt/m, (KG/HR)
IMPINGES JR.U.S (MG)
PPM, MC/M'}
J»/HR, (KG/HR)
O ARSENIC - IMPINGER TOTAL (MG)
PPM,
25.75
0
20.
.003
79.997
72.9
.3
19.635
28.80
28.77
50941.0
43307.8
4.7
25.69
.250
60.
47.40
24.
.84
74.6
1.89
2.7
.504
.13
40.40
.3
28.77
43.240
89.9
.2213
.1119
.0412
.0208
.2625
.1327
11.1467
METRIC
UNITS
11/1/78
1.52
654.06
0
20.
.003
79.997
22.7
.3
1.824
28.80
28.77
1443.1
1226.9
4.7
652.53
6.35
60.
1.34
24.
.84
23.7
48.01
2.1
12.80
.00
1.14
.3
28.77
13.179
89.9
.580
,210'
.790
.6903
' .0508
.147
.1284
.0095
.9370
.8187
.0603
78.68
25.8047
68.7476
5.0598
2
ENGLISH
UNITS
11/2/78
.06
25.78
0
20.
.008
79,992
91.0
.9
19.635
28.81
28.72
49500.2
40541 .4
4.7
25.72
.309
120.
138.06
24.
.84
67.4
4.33
23.3
.460
1.10
120.25
.9
28.72
42.017
93.6
.093
.044
.149
.070
.243-
.115
34.255
METRIC
UNITS
11/2/78
1.52
654.81
-o
20.
.008
79.992
32.8
.9
1.B24
28.81
28.72
1402.3
1148.5
4.7
653.29
7.85
120.
3.91
24.
.84
19.7
110.0
23.3
IK 684
.03
3.41
.9
28.72
12.807
93.6
.930
.065
.995
.2921
.0201
1.591
.4670
.0322
2.5860
.7591
.0523
768.82
84.7141
225.6910
15.5496
3
ENGLISH
UNITS
11/3/78
.06
25.90
0
2.0.
.004
79.996
71.4
1.0
19.635
28.80
28.69
45696.1
38914.0
4.7
25.84
.309
120.
139.37
24.
.84
76.0
4.03
26.0
.408
1.22
119.88
1.0
28.69
38.788
97.
.0378
.0172
.0100
.0045
.0478
.0217
16.7082
METRIC
UNITS
11/3/78
65; ,t)t>
1.52
657.86
0
.004
79.996
21.9
1.0
1.824
28.80
28.69
11.823
1294.5
1102.4
4.7
656.34
7.85
120.
3.95
24.
.84
24.4
102.36
26.0
10.363
.04
3.40
1.0
28.69
11.823
97.
.315
.085
.400
.1178
.0078
.106
.0312
.0021
.5060
.1490
.0099
389.47
43,0470
114.6838
7.5843
AVERAGE
ENGLISH
UNITS
0.6
25.81
o
.005
79.995
78.4
_7
29.635
28.80
28.73
41.348
48712.4
40921.1
4.7
25.76
.289
100.
108.28
24.
.84
72.7
3.47
17.3
.457
.82
93.51
.7
2B.73
41.348
93.5
.1176
.0578
.0670
.0321
.1846
.0899
20.7035
METRIC
UNITS
1.52
655.57
o
.005
79.995
25.8
.;
1.824
28.80
28.73
12.603
1380.0
1159.3
4.7
654.05
7.35
100.
3.07
24.
*.84
22.6
86.79
17.3
11.616
.02
2.65
.7
28.73
12.603
93.5
.6083
.1200
.7283
.3667
.0262
.6147
.2089
.0146
1.3430
.5756
.0408
412.3233
51.1886
136.3741
9.3979
-------
TABLE 3 Acid Plant Inlet Arsenic/S02 Results
RUN NUMBER
I DATE
1 1 STACK PARAMETERS
PST - STATIC PRESSURE, "He (rwHc)
Ps - STACK GAS PRESSURE, "Ho ABSOLUTE (MMHG)
Z C02 - VOLUME Z DRV
Z fy ' VOLUME Z DRY
SO? - VOLUME X DRY
L
Z N2 - VOLUME X DRV
Ts - AVERAGE STACK TEMPERATURE °F (°C)
X ^0 - X MOISTURE IN STACK GAS, BY VOLUME
As - STACK AREA, FT*
PM - AVERAGE ORIFICE PRESSURE DROP, "t^O (nMH20)
VLC - CONDENSATE COLLECTED (InPlNGERS AND GEL), MLS
£>p - STACK VELOCITY HEAD "H20
-------
TABLE 4 Roll-out Converter Fugitive Arsenic/S02 Results
RUN NUMBER
I DATE
II STACK PARAMETERS
PST - STATIC PRESSURE, "Ho (mHc)
Ps - STACK GAS PRESSURE, "He ABSOLUTE (MHHG)
X C02 - VOLUME X DRY
X 02 - VOLUME X DRY
SCL - VOLUME X DRY
X N2 - VOLUME X DRY
Ts - AVERAGE STACK TEMPERATURE QF ( C)
X H20 - % MOISTURE IN STACK GAS, BY VOLUME
As - STACK AREA, FT2 (M2)
Mo - MOLECULAR WEIGHT OF STACK GAS, DRY BASIS
Ms - MOLECULAR WEIGHT OF STACK GAS, HET BASIS
Vs - STACK GAS VELOCITY, FT/SEC, (M/S:C)
OA - STACK GAS VOLUMETRIC FLOW AT STACK CONDITIONS, ACFM (NM3/MiN)
Os - STACK GAS VOLUMETRIC FLOW AT STANDARD CONDITIONS, DSCFM (NM'/MIN)
X EA - PERCENT EXCESS AIR
III TEST CONDITIONS
PB - BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, "Ho (MMHG)
DN - SAMPLING NOZZLE DIAMETER, IN. (MM)
T - SAMPLING TIME, MIN
VM - SAMPLE VOLUME, ACF (M3)
NP - NET SAMPLING POINTS
CP - PITOT TUBE COEFFICIENT
TM - AVERAGE METER TEMPERATURE °F (°C)
PM - AVERAGE ORIFICE PRESSURE DROP, "H20 (nMH20)
VLC - CONDENSATE COLLECTED (IMPINGERS AND GEL), MLS
OP - STACK VELOCITY HEAD "H20
-------
TABLE 5 Full Cycle Converter Fugitive Arsenic/S02 Results
RUN NIB1BER
1 DATE
II STACK PARATETERS
PST - STATIC PRESSURE, "He (itiHc)
Ps - STACK GAS PRESSURE, "Ho ABSOLUTE (twHc)
X COo - VOLUME X DRV
X 0? - VOLUME X DRV
Z CO • VOLUME X DRY
Z N2 - VOLUME X DRY
is - AVERAGE STACK TEMPERATURE <>F (°C>
X H20 - X MOISTURE IN STACK GAS, BY VOLUME
As - STACK AREA, FT2 (MZ)
HD - COLECULAR WEIGHT OF STACK GAS, DRY BASIS
Ps • MOLECULAR WEIGHT OF STACK GAS, WET BASIS
Vs - STACK GAS VELOCITY, FT/SEC, (M/S:C)
OA - STACK GAS VOLUMETRIC FLOW AT STACK CONDITIONS, ACFP (NM'/MIH)
Qs - STACK GAS VOLUMETRIC FLOW AT STANDARD CONDITIONS, DSCFP (NMVMIN)
X EA - PERCENT EXCESS AIR
III TEST CONDITIONS
PB - BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, "He
VLC - CONDENSATE COLLECTED dMPINGERS AND GEL), MLS
QP - STACK VELOCITY HEAD "HjO (MMH20>
IV TEST CALCULATIONS
V*. - CONDENSED WATER VAPOR, SDCF («M3)
VM - VOLUME OF GAS SAMPLED AT STANDARD CONDITIONS, DSCF (N«3>
X H20 - PERCENT MOISTURE, BY VOLUME
MS - HOLECULAR WEIGHT OF STACK GAS, WET BASIS
Vs - STACK VELOCITY, FT/SEC (M/SEC)
X I - PERCENT ISOKINETIC
V ANALYTICAL DATA
A) ARSENIC FRONT HALF
PROBE (MG)
CYCLONE (MG)
FILTER (MC)
ARSENIC FRONT HALF TOTAL (MG)
mi, {«/**)
'/MR, (KG/HR)
B) ARSENIC - IMPINGER COLLECTION
IMPINGER «. ? («)
PPM, (MG/M*)
*/HR, (KG/KR)
IMPIHGER H.ft.S (MG)
PPM, MG/M3)
91m. (KG/HR)
C) ARSENIC - IMPINGER TOTAL (HO)
PPM, (MG/M3)
fl/HR, (KG/HR)
D) TOTAL ARSENIC (MG)
PPM, (MG/M?)
«/KR, (KG/HR)
E) IOIAL_SD? VMG)
PPM
(MG/M3)
I/HR, (KG/KR)
1
ENGLISH
UNITS
11/6/78
- .38
25.51
0
20
.09
79.91
104.9
0
22.17
28.83
28.63
89.32
94684.1
4.7
25.89
.187
188. 5
179.91
72
.04
77.7
2.66
0
2.01
0
154.05
0
28.83
69.32
100.8
.2046
.226
.045
.0500
.2498
.276
874.301
METRIC
UNITS
1 1/6/76
-9.G5
647.95
0
20
.09
79.91
40. 5
0
2.06
28.83
28.63
27.22
2682.3
4.7
G57.61
4.75
168.5'
S.10
12
.84
25.4
72.60
0
51.05
0
4.36
0
28.83
21.22
100.8
2.655
.130
2.785
.6382
.1027
.615
.1409
.0227
3.4000
.7791
.1254
10763.42
925.772!
2466.3987
396.8684
2
ENGLISH
UNITS
11/8/78
- .38
25.60
0
20
.14
79.86
103.
22. 7
28. 5
28. 6
85. 9
90187.
4.
25.98
.187
181
168.20
n
.84
77.4
2.45
24.6
1.84
1.16
144.44
.8
28.76
65.19
103.3
.0960
.101
.128
.135
.224
.2364
1304.077
METRIC
UNITS
11/8/78
-9.GS
650.24
0
20
.14
79.86
39.5
.8
2. 06
28. B5
28.76
25.97
2554.9
4.7
659.89
4.75
181
4.76
72
.84
25.2
62.23
24.6
46.74
.03
4.09
.8
28.76
25.97
103.3
1.100
.125
1.225
.2994
.0459
1.640
.4008
.0614
2.8650
.700!
.1073
15803.44
1449.706
3362.2364
591 .9554
3
ENGLISH
UNITS
11/9/78
- .38
25.61
0
20
.33
79.67
61.3
1.0
22.17
2B. 2
28. 1
81. 3
92967.
4.
25.98
.187
182. S
1S2.4S
72
.64
56.5
2.60
30.4
1.82
1.43
136.26
1.0
28.81
81.43
93.8
.324C
.3517
.0877
.0951
.4117
.446!
3037.4631
PETRIC
UNITS
11/9/78
-9. 65
6S0.49
0
?0
.33
79.67
16.3
1.0
2.06
26.92
28.81
24.82
2633.6
4.7
6S9.69
4.75
182.5
4.32
72
.84
13.6
66.04
30.4
46.23
.04
3.86
1.0
28.81
24.82
93.8
2.600
1.300
3.900
1.0103
.159E
1.056
.273(
.043!
4.95«
1.283!
.2021
33686.3
3275.6751
8726. 892(
1378.784!
AVERAGE
ENGLISH
UNITS
- .38
25,57
0
20
.19
79,81
89.8
.6
22.17
28.87
28.80
as. 31
92612.6
4.7
25.95
.187
184
166.85
72
.84
70.5
2.64
18.1
1.89
.86
144.92
.6
26.80
8S. 31
99.3
.2082
.2263
.0871
.0935
.2953
.319!
1738.6140
METRIC
UNITS
-9. 65
649.56
0
20
.19
79.81
32.1
.6
2.06
28.87
28.80
26.00
2623.6
4.7
659.13
4.75
184
4.73
72
.64
21.4
66.96
18.3
46.01
.02
4.10
.6
28.80
26.00
99.3
2.1163
.5183
2.6361
.6493
.102J
1.1037
.2711
.0424
3.7403
.9211
.145.
20084.4
1883,7161
5018.509!
789. W2<
-------
TABLE 6 Concentrate Dryer Arsenic/S02 Results
RUN NUMBER
1 DATE
II STACK PARAMETERS
PST - STATIC PRESSURE, "HG (MMHG)
Ps - STACK GAS PRESSURE, "Ho ABSOLUTE (MMHG)
Z C02 - VOLUME I DRY
Z 02 - VOLUME Z DRY
ST). - VOLUME I DRY
Z N2 - VOLUME Z DRY
Ts - AVERAGE STACK TEMPERATURE °F (°C)
Z H20 - X MOISTURE IN STACK GAS, BY VOLUME
As - STACK AREA, FT^ (M^)
MD - MOLECULAR WEIGHT OF STACK GAS, DRY BASIS
Ms - MOLECULAR WEIGHT OF STACK GAS, WET BASIS
Vs - STACK GAS VELOCITY, FT/SEC, (M/S:C)
QA - STACK GAS VOLUMETRIC FLOW AT STACK CONDITIONS, ACFM (NM /MIN)
Qs - STACK GAS VOLUMETRIC FLOW AT STANDARD CONDITIONS, DSCFM (NM'/MIN)
Z EA - PERCENT EXCESS AIR
111 TEST CONDITIONS
PB - BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, "He (MMHG)
DN - SAMPLING NOZZLE DIAMETER, IN. (MM)
T - SAMPLING TIME, MIN
VM - SAMPLE VOLUME, ACF (M3)
NP - NET SAMPLING POINTS
TM - AVERAGE METER TEMPERATURE °F (°C)
PM - AVERAGE ORIFICE PRESSURE DROP, "H20 (MMH20)
VLC - CONDENSATE COLLECTED (IMPIKGERS AND GEL), MLS
C.P - STACK VELOCITY HEAD "H^ (MnH20)
W TEST CALCULATIONS
Vw - CONDENSED VATER VAPOR, SDCF (NM3)
VM - VOLUME' OF GAS SAMPLED AT STANDARD CONDITIONS, DSCF (NM3)
Z H20 - PERCENT MOISTURE, BY VOLUME
Ms - MOLECULAR WEIGHT OF STACK GAS, WET BASIS
Vs - STACK VELOCITY, FT/SEC (M/SEC)
Z I - PERCENT ISOKINETIC
V ANALYTICAL DATA
A) ARSENIC FRONT HALF
PROBE (MG)
CYCLONE (MG)
FILTER (MG)
ARSENIC FRONT HALF TOTAL (MG)
PPM, (HG/M3)
#/HR, (KG/HR)
B) ARSENIC - IMPINGER COLLECTION
iHp.mcEB ffl. 2 (MG)
PPM, (MC/M')
#/HR, (KG/HR)
IHPINGER #3.1.5 (MG)
PPM, MG/M')
#/HR, (KG/HR)
C) ARSENIC - IMPINGER TOTAL (MG)
PPM, (MG/M3)
#/HR, (KG/HR)
D) TOTAL ARSENIC (MG)
PPM, (MG/M')
9/m, (KG/HR)
E) IPTAL_SQ2 VMG)
PPM
(MG/M3)
t/M, (KG/HR)
1
ENGLISH
UNITS
11/14/76
.
25.98
20.
.06
79.94
166.1
18.1
40.34
28.82
26.86
29.96
72515.2
43489.1
4.7
25.98
.360
90.
80.52
12.
57.6
2.29
337.5
.194
15.89
71.75
18.1
26.66
29.96
102.8
.0237
.0120
• V"
.VJ044
.0022
.0281
-.0143
257.6183
METRIC
UNITS
11/14/78
659.89
20.
.06
79.94
74.5
16.1
3.75
28.82
26.86
9.13
20S4.3
1232.0
4.7
659.89
9.23
90.
2.28
12.
14.2
58.17
337.5
4.93
.45
2.03
18.1
26.86
9.13
102.8
.146
.004
.ISO
.0738
.0055
..v*
.026
.0138
.0010
.
**" '
.1780
.0676
.0065
3216.05
593.9047
1562.2518
116.9398
2
ENGLISH
UNITS
ll/H/78
25.96
20.
.07
79.93
129.3
18.2
40.34
28.82
26.65
29.37
71087.2
38676.6
4.7
25.98
.360
90.
80.55
12.
59.9
2.26
337.6
.198
15.89
71.46
18.2
26.85
29.37
98.4
.3330
.1531
'
.0044
.0020
.3434
.1551
265.7966
METRIC
UNITS
11/14/78
659.89
20.
.07
79.93
54.1
18.2
3.75
28.82
26.85
8.95
2013.8
1095.7
4.7
659.89
9.23
90.
2.28
12.
.84
15.5
57.4
337.6
5.03
.45
2.02
18.2
26.85
a. 95
96.4
2.098
.042
2.140
1.0571
.0695
.028
.0138
.0009
2.1680
1.0710
.0704
3715.94
689.0037
1835.6099
120.6521
3
ENGLISH
UNITS
11/14/78
25.98
20.
.07
79.93
118.3
15.6
40.34
26.62
27.13
29.16
70578.9
47225.4
4.7
25.98
.360
90.
60.52
12.
.64
47.5
2.31
266.0
.201
13.56
73.19
15.6
27.13
29.16
96.5
.6781
.3739
.0526
.0290
.7307
.4029
346.4510
METRIC
UNITS
11/14/76
659.69
20.
.07
79.93
47.9
15.6 .
3.75
28.82
27.13
6.89
1999.4
1337.6
4.7
659. 89
9,23
90.
2.28
12.
.84
8.61
58.7
288.0
5.11
.38
2.07
15.6
27.13
8. 89
96.5
3.915
.470
4,385
2,1149
,1697
.340
.1640
.0132
4.7250
2.2789
.1829
4074.50
737.6298
196S.1571
157.7172
AVERAGE
ENGLISH
UNITS
11/14/7C
25.98
20.
.07
79.93
137.9
17.3
40.34
28.82
26.95
29.50
71393.6
43130.4
4.7
25.98
.360
90.
80.53
12.
.84
55.0
2.29
321.0
.198
15.11
71.60
17.3
26.95
29.50
99.2
.3469
.1797
.020:
.0111
.367'
,190f
290.28*
METRIC
UNITS
11/14/78
659.89
20.
.07
79.93
58.8
17.3
3.75
28.62
26.95
6.99
2022.5
1221.8
4.7
659.89
9.23
90.
2.28
12.
.84
12.6
56.09
321 .0
5.02
.43
2.04
17.3
26.95
6.99
99.2
2.0530
.1720
2.2250
1 .0819
.0816
.1320
.0639
.0050
2.3570
1.1458
.0666
3668.63
673.5127
1794.3396
131.7697
10
-------
TABLE 7 PROCESS SAMPLE ANALYSIS
SAMPLE
: Converter 1
: Converter 2
Converter 1
; Converter 2
Converter 1
Converter 2
: Furnace Matte
: Furnace Slag
Furnace Matte
: Furnace Slag
: Furnace Matte
: Furnace Slag
Furnace Concentrate Feed
: Furnace Concentrate Feed
: Finished Cu Anode
: Finished Cu Anode
Concentrate before dryer
Concentrate after dryer
Concentrate before dryer
Concentrate after dryer
Concentrate before dryer
Concentrate after dryer
Dryer Cyclone Scrubber Water
Dryer Cyclone Scrubber Water
Dryer Cyclone Scrubber Water
DATE SAMPLED
ll/ 6/78
ll/ 6/78
ll/ 7/78
ll/ 7/78
IV 8/78
IV 8/78
ll/ 1/78
ll/ 1/78
IV 2/78
ll/ 2/78
11 / 3/78
11 / 3/78
IV 2/78
11 / 3/78
11 / 7/78
ll/ 8/78
11 / 9/78
ll/ 9/78
11/14/78 am
11/14/78 am
11/14/78 pm
11/14/78 pm
ll/ 9/78
11/14/78 am
11/14/78 pm
AS %
.009
.025
.180
.082
.0463
.0436
.174
.200
.0348
.0292
.085
.033
.148
.028
.049
.077
.043
.047
.017
.014
.014
.017
18. ppm
5.9ppm
2.5ppm
11
-------
SECTION 4
LOCATION OF SAMPLING POINTS
Matte Tapping Fugitive Emission Ducts
Matte tapping fugitive emissions were collected through two ducts at
the smelter. One duct evacuated fumes from the ladle area, which was below
the floor where tapping personnel worked, while the other duct carried
fumes away from the tap hole area located above the floor. The two ducts
ran parallel in a vertical direction to the roof which was approximately
120 feet above the ground. A crossover duct running diagonally connected
the vertical ducts on the lower part of the vertical run. This crossover
duct contained a damper that allowed all of the emissions to flow through
only one of the two vertical ducts and although ports were installed on
both vertical ducts above the roof, the damper in the crossover pipe routed
all the emissions through a single vertical duct during the test. Drawings
related to this site show dual ductwork, however, only one duct had flow
during testing, and the matte tapping summary sheets show data for this
duct only.
Samples from the single vertical matte tapping fugitive emission duct
were taken above the roof approximately 120 feet above the ground. Sampling
ports were located at a 90° angle to each other to allow for horizontal
traverses during sampling. The nearest upstream flow disturbance was lo-
cated greater than 8 diameters away from the sampling location. Twenty
four traverse points were selected with twelve points on each traverse.
Figure 1 is a schematic of the sampling location.
Slag Tapping Fugitive Emission Duct
Slag tapping fugitive emission samples were taken through a 60" verti-
cal duct located approximately 120 feet above the ground. One sampling port
was utilized for both horizontal traverses during sampling. The nearest
upstream flow disturbance was located more than 8 duct diameters
from the sampling position. The nearest downstream disturbance was a bend
located 8' away from the sampling location. Twenty-four traverse points
were selected with twelve points on each traverse. Figure 2 is a diagram
of this sampling location.
Acid Plant Inlet
Acid plant inlet samples were taken through a 60" horizontal duct lo-
cated approximately 8 feet above the ground. The sampling ports on the top
and side of the duct allowed for vertical and horizontal traverses. The
12
-------
nearest upstream flow disturbance was greater than 8 diameters away from
the sampling position. The nearest downstream disturbance was located
1% duct diameters away from the sampling position. Twenty-four traverse
points were selected with twelve points on each traverse. Figure 5 is
a schematic of the sampling location.
Converter Fugitive Emission Duct
Converter fugitive emission samples were taken through a 38" X 84"
rectangular vertical duct located approximately 60 feet from the ground.
Six sampling ports were evenly spaced across the 84" face of the duct that
allowed for horizontal sampling. The nearest downstream flow disturbance
was located approximately 5 feet (1 duct diameter equivalent) away from the
sampling position. The nearest upstream disturbance was a bend located
approximately 20 feet (4.75 duct diameter equivalent) away from the sampling
points. Figure 6 is a schematic of this sampling location
Concentrate Dryer Stack
Concentrate dryer Fugitive samples were taken through a 84" diameter
vertical fiberglass duct located approximately 110 feet above the ground.
Two sampling ports placed at Hght angles allowed for horizontal traverses
during sampling. The nearest downstream disturbance was the stack exit
which was 40 feet (6 duct diameters) from the sampling points. The nearest
upstream disturbance was two ducts entering the stack 56 feet (8 duct dia-
meters) away from the sampling position. Figure 8 is a schematic of the
concentrate dryer fugitive emission duct.
13
-------
t
TO STACK
t
t
FROM MATTE TAPPING
EMISSION HOODS
I
TRAVERSE POINT LOCATIONS
VERSE FRACTION OF
POINT STACK I.D.
LOCA*
TIONS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.021
.067
.118
.177
.250
.356
.644
.750
.823
.882
.933
.979
1.28
4.02
7.09
10.64
iaoo
21.34
38.66
45.00
49.36
52.91
55.98
58.72
Figure 1. Matte tapping.
14
-------
TRAVERSE POINT LOCATIONS
60"
STACK
t
FROM SLAG TAPPING
EMISSION HOODS
TRA-
VERSE
POINT
LOCA-
TIONS
FRACTION OF
STACK I.D.
SLAG TAPPING
DISTANCE
FROM INSIDE
WALL (IN)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.021
.067
.118
.177
.250
.356
.644
.750
.823
.882
.933
.979
1.28
4.02
7.09
10.64
15.00
21.34
38.66
45.00
49.36
52.91
55.98
58.72
Figure 2. Slag tapping.
15
-------
Figure 3. Slag tapping fugitive emission
duct traverse point location
procedure.
Traverse
WOOD PLATFORM
1. Points are marked on the wood platform as illustrated above. Note that
30" distance from the line marked on the wood platform and sampling port
is the same as the radius of the duct.
2. Points marked on each line (AC) and (AB) from the center point A.
Point Distance "
(AB)1 8.66
(AB)2 15.00
(AB)3 19.36
(AB)4 22.92
(AB)5 25.98
(AB)6 28.74
AC 1 8.66
AC 2 15.00
AC 3 19.36
AC 4 22.92
AC 5 25.98
AC 6 28.94
16
-------
3. During Sampling
Point Probe distance Probe must intersect
In Stack the line at the
following points
1 41.55 AC 6
2 36.69 AC 5
3 37.75 AC 4
4 35.72 AC 3
5 33.54 AC 2
6 31.22 AC 1
7 31.22 AB 1
8 33.54 AB 2
9 35.72 AB 3
10 37.75 AB 4
11 39.69 AB 5
12 41.55 AB 6
17
-------
SLAG TAPPING FUGITIVE
EMISSION SYSTEM
SAMPLING POSITION
HOODS
SAMPLING POSITION
TO STACK
MATTE TAPPING FUGITIVE
EMISSION SYSTEM
Figure 4. Plant schematic - The matte tapping and slag
tapping fugitive emission systems.
18
-------
TRAVERSE POINT LOCATIONS
60"
TRA-
VERSE
POINT
LOCA-
TIONS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
11
12
FRACTION OF
STACK I.D.
.021
.067
.118
.177
.250
.356
.644
.750
.823
.882
.933
.979
DISTANCE
FROM INSIDE
WALL (IN)
1.28
4.02
7.09
10.64
15.00
21.34
38.66
45.00
49.36
52.91
55.98
58.72
o
FROM
CONVERTER HOODING
SYSTEM
ACID PLANT INLET
Figure 5. Acid plant inlet.
19
-------
TRAVERSE
POINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
FRACTION OF
DUCT I.D.
.044
.146
.296
.704
.854
.956
DISTANCE '
FROM INSIDE
WALL (IN)
1.66
5.56
11.24
26.76
32.44
. 36.34
T
38"
1
: ! :
81" I
TOP VIEW
t
TO ACID PLANT
OOP OOP
t
FROM CONVERTER HOODING
SAMPLING PORTS
SIDE VIEW
Figure 6. Converter fugitive emission system.
20
-------
t
CONVERTER FUGITIVE EMISSION DUCT
—— TQ
STACK
I
0
ACID PLANT INLET DUCT
SAMPLING
POSITION AC|D
• —^- PLANT
INLET
HOODS
CONVERTER
Figure 7. Plant schematic - converter fugitive
emission system.
-------
86"
TRAVERSE POINT LOCATIONS
TOP OF STACK
t
TRA-
VERSE
POINT
LOCA-
TIONS
1
2
3
4
5
6
FRACTION OF
STACK I.D.
.044
.146
.296
.704
.854
.956
DISTANCE
FROM INSIDE
WALL (IN)
3.75
12.59
25.45
60.55
73.41
8Z25
CONCENTRATE DRYER STACK
FROM
CONCENTRATE DRYERS
Figure 8. Concentrate dryer stack.
22
-------
SAMPLING
POSITION
ro
CO
CONCENTRATE
DRYERS
K
CYCLONE
Jc
WET
SCRUBBER
STACK
Figure 9.
Plant schematic
emission system
- concentrate dryer fugitive
-------
SECTION 5
SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE
A) Arsenic/Sulfur Dioxide Sampling
The sampling train used for arsenic/sulfur dioxide collection consists
of an EPA Method 5 train modified by adding two additional impingers in
series to the four used in the Method 5 train. The first two impingers con-
tained 150 mis of distilled water each, third, fourth and fifth impingers
contained 150 mis of 10% hydrogen peroxide each. The sixth impinger contain-
ed 250 grams of silica gel.The Arsenic/sulfur dioxide sampling train schema-
tic is presented in Figure 10.
Before each test a velocity traverse of the stack was done to determine
the average stack temperature and velocity pressure. The velocity traverse
was done according to EPA Methods 1 and 2. A grab sample of the stack gas
was taken and analyzed with a thermal conductivity detector gas chromato-
graph for C02, 02> ^2, and CO. Before the first test at each location the
moisture content of the gas stream was estimated by either condensation in
.impingers as in EPA Method 4, or by wet and dry bulb thermometer if the
•stack gas temperature was below 120°F.
The arsenic/sulfur dioxide samples were taken at traverse points at the
center of equal areas within the stack. The number of traverse points was
determined by the number of duct diameters upstream and downstream from the
nearest flow disturbances. The sampling rate was adjusted to isokinetic
conditions using a nomograph which had been set based on the preliminary
velocity traverse data, and moisture estimate.
The sampling time per traverse point was 3-10 minutes depending upon
the sampling location. Leak checks of the sampling train were done at the
beginning of each test, just before the sampling port change, and at the
end of the test. At the end of each test the sampling train was inspected
for cracked or broken glassware, and to assure that the filter remained in-
tact.
Sample Recovery
The sampling nozzle and probe liner were rinsed with 0.1N NaOH and
brushed out with a nylon bristle brush with a teflon tubing handle. The
remainder of the sampling train was removed to the mobile laboratory. The
front half of the filter and connecting glassware were rinsed with 0.1N
NaOH and this rinse was added to the nozzle and probe rinse. The filter
was removed from the filter holder and placed in a Polyethylene container,
24
-------
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
12.
13.
12
13
17
Figure 10. Arsenic sulfur dioxide sampling train.
KEY
Calibrated Nozzle
Heated Probe
Reverse Type Pi tot
Cyclone Assembly
Filter Holder
Heated Box
Ice Bath with Impingers
Thermometer
Check Valve
25
14. Vacuum Line
15. Vacuum Gauge
16. Main Valve
17. Air Tight Pump
18. By-Pass Valve
19. Dry Test Meter
20. Orifice
21 . Pi tot Manometer
22. Thermometer
-------
Which was labeled and sealed. The first two impinger solutions were
measured and placed in a glass sample container along with a 0.1N NaOH
rinse of the impingers. The contents of the third, fourth and fifth im-
pingers were measured and placed in a separate glass sample container
along with a distilled water rinse of the impingers. The silica gel in
the sixth impinger was weighed to the nearest 0.5 gram, and regenerated.
B) Analysis
Sulfur Dioxide Analysis
The samples were analyzed for sulfur dioxide by taking an aliquot
of the hydrogen peroxide impinger solutions and titrating with barium
perchlorate solution and thorin indicator as described in EPA Method 6
(Determination of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Stationary Sources).
Arsenic Analysis
1. Filter- Warm filter and loose particulate matter with 50ml 0.1N
NaOH for about 15 minutes. Add 10ml concentrated HN03 anc' bring to boil for
15 minutes. Filter solution through No. 41 Whatman paper and wash with hot
water. Evaporate filtrate, cool, redissolve in 5ml of 1:1 HN03, transfer
to a 40ml volumetric flask and dilute.
2. Probe Wash and Impinger Solutions-These should be combined and a
100ml sample withdrawn. Add 10ml concentrated HNOs and evaporate to a few
mi 11 niters. Redissolve with 5ml 1:1 HN03 and dilute to 50mls. A reagent
blank should be carried through the same procedure. The resulting blank
solution should be used in the dilution of standards to matrix match samples
and standards.
3. All the samples prepared above should be screened by air/
acetylene flame. The filter samples may require dilution with 0.8N HNOs.
Impinger solutions containing more than 26 mg/1 of arsenic should be
diluted since linearity decreases dramatically above that level.
Since an entrained hydrogen flame provides about five times as much
sensitivity as the air/acetylene flame, a matrix check of a sample in a
hydrogen flame should be carried out by the method of standard additions,
and compared with a value obtained from matrix matched standards in a
hydrogen flame. If values are comparable (+5%) the air entrained hydrogen
flame may be used.
Due to
flame shoul~ »....*.,.. ~
cooler hydrogen flame
high concentrations of copper on the filter an air/acetylene
d always be used to dissociate any AsCu compounds stable in the
•ogen flame.
4. For samples below the 1 mg/1 level, hydride generation is necessary.
An appropriate aliquot of digested sample in 0.8N HN03 containing less than
about 10 ng of arsenic is chosen (some screening may be necessary). Five
26
-------
mis of concentrated H2 $04 is added to the sample which is then placed on
a hot plate until $03 fumes fill the flask. A reduction in volume to about
5ml or less may be necessary. This step removes HNOs which causes a violent
reaction when the reducing agent is added resulting in poor reproducibility
and lowered sensitivity by producing l^, NC^ and possible other species.
One ml of 30% KI and 1ml of 30% SnCl2 are added to the sample, the
former to act as a catalyst in hydride formation and the latter to reduce
all the arsenic to As+3. The sample is then diluted to about 15ml and 15ml
of concentrated HCL is added. Powdered Zn (or NaBH4) is then added, the
reaction vessel is immediately closed and the nitrogen or argon carrier
flow initiated. A peak should be produced within a few seconds.
27
------- |