United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EMB Report 81-CUS-18
September 1982
Air
NSPS Revision
Nonferrous Smelter
Flash Furnace
and Electric Slag
Cleaning Furnace
Emission Test Report
Phelps-Dodge
Hidalgo Smelter
Playas, New Mexico
-------
DCN 82-222-018-06-20
RN 222-018-06
NSPS REVISION
NONFERROUS SMELTER
FLASH FURNACE
AND ELECTRIC SLAG
CLEANING FURNACE
Emission Test Report
Phelps-Dodge
Hidalgo Smelter
Playas, New Mexico
Prepared for:
Frank R. Clay
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emissions Measurement Branch
ESED OAQPS MD-13
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Contract No. 68-02-3542
Work Assignment No. 6
ESED 80/13
Prepared by:
Robert V. Collins
Michael J. Krall
Larry 0. Edwards
October 8, 1982
-------
RADIAN
CONTENTS
Section Page
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 SUMMARY OF RESULTS 3
3 PLANT DESCRIPTION 5
3.1 Process Description 5
4 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY 9
4.1 Sampling Locations 10
4.2 Sampling 16
4.3 Visual Emissions Observations 19
4.4 Process Observations 24
5 ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY 27
6 QUALITY ASSURANCE 29
6.1 Source Sampling Audit Results 30
7 CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY 38
8 RESULTS OF PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS 40
8.1 Results of Visible Emissions 52
APPENDIX A* 57
APPENDIX B* 79
APPENDIX C* 89
APPENDIX D* 137
APPENDIX E* 165
Appendices attached to a limited number of copies; for information contact
Frank Clay.
-------
RADIAN
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page
3-1 Block flow diagram for the Outakumpu process 6
4-1 Sampling port location for flash furnace doghouse hooding . 11
4-2 Sampling port location for the flash furnace matte
tapping launder and launder to ladle transfer point
hooding 12
4-3 Sampling port locatino for the ESCF matte tapping and
slag skimming emissions 14
4-4 Sampling port location for the ESCF scrubber inlet 15
4-5 A schematic of the combined EPA Method 5 and 6 sampling
apparatus 17
4-6 Hidalgo smelter flash furnace visible emissions observer
position during matte tapping 20
4-7 Hidalgo smelter electric slag furnace visible emissions
observer position during slag skimming and matte tapping . . 21
4-8 A schematic of the combined EPA Method 5, 6, and 8
sampling apparatus . ...... 26
11
-------
RADIAN
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
2-1 Average Emission Rates Determined During Particulate
and Sulfur Dioxide Testing at Hidalgo Smelter 4
2-2 Average Particulate, Sulfur Dioxide, and Sulfiric Acid
Mist Flows about the ESCF Scrubber at the Hidalgo
Smelter 4
6-1 Attainable Accuracy and Precisin of Test Results Based
on the EPA Collaborative Tests of Stationary Source
Methods 32
6-2 Summary of Data Reduction Check 36
6-3 Summary of EPA Audit Sample Analyses 36
6-4 Summary of EPA Method 5/6 Impinger Collection Efficiency
Results 37
8-1 Results of Sampling Conducted During Matte Tapping
Operations at the Flash Furnace Launder*(Without
Lancing) 41
8-2 Results of Sampling Conducted During Matte Tapping
Operations at the Flash Furnace Doghouse Hooding
(Without Lancing) 42
8-3 Results of Sampling Conducted During Matte Tapping
Operations at the Flash Furnace Doghouse Hooding
(Including Lancing) .... 43
8-4 Results of Sampling Conducted During Slag Skimming
Operations of the Electric Slag Cleaning Furnace 44
8-5 Results of Sampling at the Electric Slag Cleaning
Furnace Scrubber Inlet 45
8-6 Results of Sampling at the Electric Slag Cleaning
Furnace Scrubber Outlet 46
8-7 Sampling Sequencing—Phelps Dodge Hidalgo, NM Copper
Smelter Matte Tapping—Flash Furnace Launder 48
8-8 Sampling Sequencing—Phelps Dodge Hidalgo, NM Copper
Smelter Matte Tapping—Flash Furnace Doghouse
Hooding 49
(Continued)
iii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
8-9 Sampling Sequencing—Phelps Dodge Hidalgo, NM Copper
Smelter Matte Tapping—Flash Furnace Doghouse Hooding
with Lancing 50
8-10 Sampling Sequencing—Phelps Dodge Hidalgo, NM Copper
Smelter Slag Skimming—Electric Slag Cleaning Furnace ... 51
8-11 Flash Furnace Method 9 Observations (Lancing emissions
not included) 53
8-12 Method 22 Observations During Flash Furnace Matte
Tapping 54
8-13 Method 9 Observations During Flash Furnace Matte
Tapping (Including lancing emissions) 54
8-14 Method 22 Observations During Flash furnace Matte
Tapping (Lancing emissions included) . . 55
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a field testing effort conducted at
the Phelps Dodge Hidalgo smelter near Playas, New Mexico. This effort,
conducted under U.S. EPA Contract 68-02-3542, Work Assignment No. 6, was
part of a series of studies designed to provide background data for a
portion of the revision of the New Source Performance Standards for the
primary copper industry. During the study, emissions collected by two
fugitive gas hooding systems were measured. One system vented the Outokumpu
flash furnace matte tapping and slag skimming operations; the other vented
the electric slag cleaning furnace (ESCF) slag skimming process. Also, mass
loading and S02 concentration entering and exiting the scrubber serving
the ESCF were measured.
The particulate and sulfur dioxide emission rates were determined using
combined EPA Reference Methods 5 and 6. Visible emissions were monitored
using the techniques of EPA Reference Methods 9 and 22 (proposed) to
determine the capture efficiency of the fugitive gas collection system.
While the visible studies are a measure of the fugitive particulate
emissions, they may also be indicative of the S02 emissions since the two
species are presumed to be proportional everywhere in the same gas stream.
The sulfuric acid mist emissions from the scrubber were monitored using
combined EPA Reference Methods 5 and 8. These Reference Method emission
rates are used in conjunction with production data of matte and slag to
calculate emission factors for the mass of particulate and sulfur dioxide
emitted per mass of matte or slag produced.
-------
Radian personnel performed all particulate, sulfur dioxide, sulfuric
acid mist and visible emissions testing. Research Triangle Institute (RTI)
personnel made process observations during testing.
The remaining sections of this report present a summary of the results,
a process description, sampling and analytical methodologies, quality
assurance documentation, and results.
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The data collected during the sampling at the Phelps Dodge Hidalgo
smelter are summarized in Tables 2-1 and 2-2; complete data are given in
Section 8 of this report. Because the tests were performed intermittently,
due to the nature of the process evaluated, the test results are given in
terms of pounds of pollutant per hour of sampling and in pounds of pollutant
generated per ton of product (matte or slag). It should be noted that
additional information has been requested from Phelps Dodge (by the process
observers, RTI) concerning operation time and production tonnages; there-
fore, the process observations and production rates (and therefore the
emission rate per unit of product) may be subject to small changes in the
future.
Several conclusions may be drawn from this study:
• Most of the emissions (particles and 802) occur during
matte tapping at the launder.
• Lancing adds substantially to the particulate emissions.
• Fugitive emissions, ranging between 20 and 45 percent
opacity, were found to exist around the launder and doghouse
hoods and greater than 80% of the time around the electric
slag cleaning furnace hoods.
• The scrubber on the electric slag cleaning furnace off-gases
removed about 95% of the particulate material, about 45% of
the sulfur dioxide, but may have increased the sulfuric acid
mist content of the off gas slightly.
-------
TABLE 2-1. AVERAGE EMISSION RATES DETERMINED DURING PARTICULATE AND
SULFUR DIOXIDE TESTING AT HIDALGO SMELTER
Test
Taps
Particulate
Ib/hr*
Ib/ton
Sulfur Dioxide
Ib/hr*
Ib/ton
Matte Tapping
at Launder
Matte Tapping
at Doghouse
Hooding
Matte Tapping
at Doghouse
Hooding (with
Lancing)
Slag Skimming
27
27
13
45 0.23
6.4 0.032
8.6
11
0.060
0.072
320
29
24
130
1.6
0.15
0.16
0.88
*Testing was intermittent only during tapping or skimming; Ib/hr are per
hour of sampling.
TABLE 2-2. AVERAGE PARTICULATE, SULFUR DIOXIDE, AND SULFURIC ACID MIST
FLOWS ABOUT THE ESCF SCRUBBER AT THE HIDALGO SMELTER.
Test
ESCF Scrubber
Inlet
ESCF Scrubber
Outlet
Particulate
Ib/hr*
100
4.9
Sulfur Dioxide
Ib/hr*
180
99
Sulfuric Acid
Ib/hr*
0.03
0.07
*Testing was intermittent only during tapping or skimming; Ib/hr are per hour
of sampling.
-------
RADIAN
SECTION 3
PLANT DESCRIPTION
3.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The Outokumpu smelting process is used at the Phelps Dodge Hidalgo
smelter. A block flow diagram depicting this process is presented in Figure
3-1. Two furnaces, a flash furnace and an electric slag cleaning furnace,
operate as a unit to perform the same function as a reverbatory furnace but
at a greater thermal efficiency.
The flash furnace consists of three sections: the reaction shaft, the
settling basin and the uptake shaft. The smelting reactions take place in
the reaction shaft. Here, finely crushed, dried copper ore concentrate,
flux, and recycled dust are suspended in a stream of preheated air. The
mixture is continuously fed through burners located at the top of the
reaction shaft. Combustion of sulfur and iron generates the heat required
to smelt the feed concentrates, and fuel is added as required to maintain
the temperature when smelting.
The slagging reactions occur in the furnace settling basin, similar to
a typical reverbatory furnace. The smelted feed falls onto the slag layer
and sinks through to the matte layer. Slag is intermittently skimmed from
the end of the settling basin opposite the reaction shaft. The slag then
flows through the launder directly into an electric slag cleaning furnace.
All hooding serving the slag skimming operations about the flash furnace was
inoperative and therefore not sampled.
-------
RADIAN
Entering Streams
Exiting Streams
Fluxing Agents
Dried Concentrate.
Fuel
Preheated Air1
Fluxing Agents-
Reverts
Air
Copper Scrap-
Air-
Reducing Gas/Fuel-
Flash
Furnace
Slag
Matte Matte Slag
] L_
Converter
Blister T
Copper Slag
Anode
Furnace
Anode
Copper
Off Gases to Waste Heat
•^•Boiler and Sulfur
Recovery
El ectri c
Cleaning
Slag
Furnace
f
Gases to Scrubber
Slag to Dump
Off Gases to Sulfur
Recovery
Off Gases
Casting
Wheel
Anodes
Figure 3-1. Block flow diagram for the Outakumpu process
-------
Matte is intermittently tapped from the reaction shaft end of the
settling basin via five tapping ports. Doghouse style hoods vent the areas
adjacent to the furnace and are ducted to a single fan. Another set of
hoods, which vent all other matte handling operations, are similarly ducted
to a separate, single fan. Sampling ports were installed in these two gas
streams (i.e., the hood ducting) specifically for this testing effort.
Off gases exit the flash furnace through the uptake shaft at
approximately 1300°C and contain 8 to 14 percent sulfur dioxide (802).
These gases are then cooled in a waste heat boiler, the S02 being
recovered as sulfuric acid.
The copper-bearing slag from the flash furnace is further refined in
the electric slag cleaning furnace (ESCF). Reverts (waste materials of high
copper content generated from the smelting process) are added with the
molten slag. The proper temperature is maintained with resistance heating
using large carbon electrodes. Both the copper matte and the less dense
slag are intermittently tapped from the ESCF via two ports for each. The
ports and launders, which convey the molten slag to ladles, are vented with
hoods. Gases from these hoods are merged into a single duct. Sampling ports
were installed in this duct, serving the ESCF slag skimming operations,
specifically for this testing effort.
The off gases from the ESCF are ducted through a water-cooled duct to a
scrubber which removes particles and S02« Sampling ports at the scrub-
ber's inlet and outlet were also installed for this effort.
The ladles of molten matte are transferred to a converter by an
overhead crane for further refining. In the converter, iron sulfide (FeS)
is oxidized to iron oxide (FeO) and S02» Quartz is added to the converter
to bind with the FeO to form a slag. This slag is recycled to the ESCF via
ladles and an overhead crane. "White metal" remains after removal of the
-------
iron. Copper sulfide (Ci^S) is converted to a 98 percent pure copper
called "blister copper." Cold copper scrap is added during the blowing
cycle to absorb the heat produced by exothermic reactions. The blister
copper is then transferred to an anode furnace (again by ladles and crane)
where blown air oxidizes any remaining sulfide and results in a copper
containing Cu£0 as an impurity. The Cu£0 is then reduced with reformed
natural gas to produce a 99+ percent pure copper which is ready for anode
casting.
-------
SECTION 4
SAMPLING METHODOLOGY
Emission rates of particulate material and sulfur dioxide were
determined at the following locations:
• the duct serving the fugitive gas collection hoods for
the matte tapping operations at the flash furnace,
• the duct serving the fugitive gas collection hoods for
the slag skimming operations from the ESCF,
• the ESCF S0£ scrubber inlet, and
• the ESCF S02 scrubber outlet.
Sulfuric acid mist concentrations were also determined at the scrubber inlet
and outlet. In addition, visible emissions escaping the hooding systems
were measured, and the opacity of the emissions from the ESCF scrubber stack
outlet were visually determined.
During the pretest site survey at the Phelps Dodge Hidalgo smelter,
five sampling locations were selected. Two of these were located on the
matte tapping emissions duct from the flash furnace, one each was located at
the inlet to and outlet from the ESCF scrubber, and the fifth was located on
the duct from the slag skimming emissions from the ESCF. A more detailed
description of these sampling points is given below. Finally, the hooding
serving the slag skimming operations on the flash furnace was inoperative at
the time and therefore not sampled.
-------
RADIAN
4.1 SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Flash Furnace Matte Tapping and Handling
The emissions from the flash furnace matte tapping operations are
collected by two hooding systems. The combined gases from these two systems
could not be sampled without interference from emissions from other
operations. Therefore, a port was installed in each duct just downstream
from the hoods, before they are combined.
The first set of hoods, five "doghouse" style hoods, vent the areas
adjacent to each of the four matte tapping ports of the Hidalgo flash
furnace. The emissions captured by these hoods are routed into a single
duct, a blower, and then on to the main duct and eventually to a stack. The
sampling plane was in the inlet duct approximately five feet above the
second (furnace) floor. Figure 4-1 is a sketch of the ports for this
location. The ports were three inch pipe nipples, six inches long, welded
to the duct. The ports were at right angles to each other and the duct
axis. This sampling location meets the criteria for sampling locations as
described in EPA Reference Method 1.
All emissions from flash furnace matte handling beyond the four
previously described doghouse hoods were collected in a single duct. The
location for the horizontal test plane was in this duct downstream (and in
the vertical run) and directly above the fan. This location was
approximately one-half duct diameter upstream of (below) the elbow which
directs the flow horizontal and parallel to the converter aisle. This test
plane was approximately one foot above the third floor level. This test
plan did not meet the 8 and 2 duct diamter criteria .as specified in EPA
Reference Method 1. Therefore, the EPA project officer requested that 12
sampling points be used. Figure 4-2 is a sketch showing the location of the
sampling ports. The ports were three inch pipe nipples, six inches in
length, and welded to the duct. The axes of the nipples were at right
10
-------
CONVERTER
AISLE
r
3" PORTS [
- - TOP VIEW
3" PORTS
30"
- - SIDE VIEW
LOOKING TOWARD
CONVERTER AISLE
5 FEET
Figure 4-1. Sampling port location for flash furnace doghouse hooding
11
-------
- - TOP VIEW
3" PORTS
ROW
TEMPORARY
PLATFORM
SUPPORTING
a -«— EYES —
"x x /> // //7~/777//x / x > /
3" PORTS
46"
- - SIDE VIEW LOOKING
TOUARD CONVERTER
AISLE
15" MINIMUM
/ / frs///ss//ss
yx^XxXX'xx/vxx^xxXXXXXXXXXxxx^
Figure 4-2. Sampling port location for the flash furnace matte tapping
launder and launder to ladle transfer point hooding
12
-------
RADIAN
angles to the duct axis and to each other. The axis of one nipple was in
the same plane as the center line of the downstream elbow.
ESCF Slag Skimming Hooding
All hooding collecting emissions from the slag skimming for the ESCF is
ducted into in a common duct. This duct runs roughly parallel to the
converter aisle, then through a series of compound bends, and becomes
vertical as it passes upward through the second floor. The location for the
sampling ports was approximately six feet above the third floor. A sketch
of the port locations is given in Figure 4-3. The ports were three inch
pipe nipples, six inches in length. The axis of each nipple was
perpendicular to the duct axis, and to each other. One nipple was welded on
the side of the duct opposite the converter aisle; the other was located
with its axis parallel to the converter aisle.
Electric Slag Cleaning Furnace Scrubber Inlet
The ports for the sampling of off gases from the ESCF entering the
scrubber were located on the cylindrical inlet duct to the scrubber just
downstream (below) the sleeved bellows expansion joint. A sketch showing
the location of the ports is given in Figure 4-4. The ports were three inch
pipe nipples, six inches in length and welded to the duct. The axis of each
nipple was at right angles to the duct axis, at right angles to each other
and in the same plane.
Electric Slag Cleaning Furnace Scrubber Outlet
The gases exiting the ESCF scrubber are directed up through a 18"
diameter duct which runs parallel and outside the ESCF building. Existing
sampling ports in the duct at the fourth level were used to sample this
stream. This test plane is used by Phelps Dodge during compliance sampling.
13
-------
CONVERTER
AISLE
- - TOP VIEW
3" PORTS
3" PORTS
FLOW
.sEcoEvaFiQOR
8 FEET
Figure 4-3. Sampling port location for the ESCF matte tapping and
slag skimming emissions
14
-------
TOP VIEW - -
3" PORTS
SLEEVED
EXPANSION
JOINT
SIDE VIEW - -
LEVEL OF TEMPORA;
SUPPORTING n
— EYES -0
FLOW
3" PORTS
24"
Y PLATFORM
15" MINIMUM
Figure 4-4. Sampling port location for the ESCF scrubber inlet
15
-------
RADIAN
4.2 SAMPLING
In order to determine the desired emission rates, at various times
during this project, Radian employed EPA Reference Methods 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
and 8 (Code of Federal Regulations, 40, Protection of the Environment, Parts
53 to 80, Revised as of July 1, 1980). The use of 12 sampling points at
each test plane was directed by the EPA Project Officer.
In the determination of mass loading and sulfur dioxide concentration,
EPA Reference Methods 5 and 6 were combined within a single sampling test.
A vital aspect of this testing was the sequencing and communication involved
to coordinate the sampling with the plant operations. Walkie-talkies,
provided by the U.S. EPA, were the main means of communication. RTI
officials observed when the slag was being skimmed and the matte being
tapped. This information was relayed to the sampling team and the sampling
commenced. If the plant operations ceased, the sampling was terminated.
The U.S. EPA requested that Radian traverse each diameter twice, sampling
each of the six points twice for 2-1/2 minutes. The reasoning was that
since each tap had a duration of only a few minutes, the sampling would be
biased if only one point was sampled per tap (5 minute sampling point).
With 2-1/2 minute sampling points, at least two points across the duct would
be sampled during each tap.
A schematic drawing of the sampling train and related equipment is
shown in Figure 4-5. Gas volume was measured with a dry gas meter
calibrated against a standardized dry gas meter. Stack temperature was
measured by Type K, chrome-alumel thermocouple calibrated against a mercury
thermometer. Velocity pressure and pressure drop across the orifice were
meaured using Magnehelic® gauges having ranges from 0-1 and 0-3 inches
H20, respectively.
16
-------
TEMPERATURE
SENSOR
TEMPERATURE
SENSOR
DRY
IMPINGER
ISOKINETIC
NOZZLE
STYPE
PITOT TUBE
ORIFICE
ORIFICE
GAUGE
SILICA GEL
DESICCANT
. FILTER
HOLDER
ICEDATII
VACUUM
LINE
VACUUM
GAUGE
TEMPERATURE
SENSORS
(T
BYPASS
VALVE
VL ? f
U
_1
(£) \
l^VJ
/ — x '
MAIN
VALVE
I
7020U1 1
DRY GAS
METER
PUMP
Figure 4-5. A schematic of the combined EPA Method 5 and 6 sampling apparatus
-------
A leak check of the entire train was conducted before and after each
run and the leak rate noted. The leak check was performed at either 15" Hg
vacuum or the highest vacuum obtained during the run. Pitot lines were leak
checked at 3" H2<) before and after each run to insure proper velocity
pressure measurements. The barometric pressure was read daily from an
aneroid barometer. The measured static pressure of the stack gas was added
to this atmospheric pressure to obtain the actual stack pressure.
Dry gas meter volume was noted at the beginning of sampling for each
point. The velocity pressure (AP) was read and the sampling rate (AH)
adjusted by a predetermined factor to obtain an isokinetic sample. Stack
temperature, hot box temperature, gas temperature at the exit of the final
impinger, dry gas meter inlet and outlet temperature, and the vacuum on the
train were all recorded at each sample point. Processed data forms
containing the above information for each run are included in Appendix C.
Immediately following a run, both the probe liner and nozzle were
brushed and rinsed with acetone to collect all particles. The hot box/cold
box assembly was taken to the mobile lab .for the remaining portion of the
sample recovery. All glassware upstream of the filter and the front half of
the glass filter holder were rinsed and the wash, containing particles which
had attached to the tubing walls, was combined with the probe rinse. This
mixture was eventually taken to dryness and the mass of the particulate
material determined. The filter itself was replaced in its original,
individual petri dish and the weight gain subsequently determined. Care was
taken to recover all fragments of the filter. Impingers were weighed to
determine the amount of water collected and the moisture content of the gas
calculated. The contents of the H202 impingers were quantitatively
transferred to polyethylene containers, marked, and sealed for storage and
shipment.
18
-------
4.3 VISUAL EMISSIONS OBSERVATIONS
Visual emissions observations were made to evaluate various hood
capture systems and pollution control equipment. The testing was performed
using visible emissions observations of fugitive particulate matter as an
indicator of fugitive sulfur dioxide emissions. Results from these
observations, along with simultaneous sulfur dioxide and particulate
measurements, will provide input for revision of the New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) for the primary copper industry.
4.3.1 Observation Sites - Hidalgo Smelter
Five streams from the Phelps Dodge Hidalgo smelter were visually
evaluated, a follows:
the fugitive emissions escaping collection by the doghouse
style hoods at the flash furnace matte tapping ports,
the fugitive emissions escaping collection by the hoods
serving the flash furnace matte launders and launder—to-ladle
transfer points,
the ESCF scrubber outlet,
the fugitive emissions escaping collection by the hoods
serving the ESCF mate tapping port and launders, and
the fugitive emissions escaping collection by the hoods
serving the ESCF slag tapping ports and launders.
Figures 4-6 and 4-7 show the position of the observer for each launder on
the flash furnace and ESF, respectively.
19
-------
FLASH
FURNACE
FLOOR HOLE
TO LADLES
OBSERVER
LOCATION
CONVERTER AISLE
Figure 4-6. Hidalgo smelter flash furnace visible emissions observer
position during matte tapping
20
-------
LLJ
_1
CO
a:
LU
oc
LU
o
u
MATTE
TAPPING
LAUNDERS
ELECTRIC
SLAG
FURNACE
SLAG SKIMMING
LAUNDERS
FLOOR HOLE
TO LADLES
OBSERVER
LOCATION
70A2364
Figure 4-7. Hidalgo smelter electric slag furnace visible emissions
observer position during slag skimming and matte tapping
21
-------
4.3.2 Methodology
Two visible emissions methods were employed in the testing. The
technique of EPA Method 9, "Visual Determination of the Opacity of Emissions
from Stationary Sources" was used to determine the opacity of fugitive hood
emissions and scrubber stack emissions. The proposed EPA Method 22, "Visual
Determination of Fugitive Emissions from Material Processing Sources" was
used to determine the accumulated time that fugitive emissions were observed
escaping each hooding sytem evaluated. All in-plant observations were made
from a position approximately 15 feet directly in front of each launder.
Method 9
A certified observer is generally used by control agencies to evaluate
the opacity of an emission source. The observers are instructed at opacity
training schools. In order to become certified, observers must evaluate
plume opacity with 7.5 percent accuracies relative to transmissometer
measurement of plume opacity. Upon passing the course, they are certified
by the school for six months as capable of evaluating plume opacity by
visual inspection. Mr. Craig Beskid of Radian Corporation, who was a
certified visible emissions observer at the time, performed all Method 9 and
Method 22 testing.
When observing a plume, Method 9 requires that the observer stand:
• at a distance from the plume sufficient to provide a clear
view of the emissions,
• with his line of vision approximately perpendicular to the
plume direction, and
• with the sun oriented in the quadrant to his back.
22
-------
The method also requires that readings be made at 15-second inter-
vals over a minimum six-minute period at the point of greatest opacity in
the plume. The average of these minimum 24 readings is reported as the
average visual opacity. Data forms with these recorded readings are
contained in Appendix D.
For the purpose of this study, modifications to Method 9 were
necessary. First, Method 9 was performed indoors at the Hidalgo smelter
flash furnace and electric slag cleaning furnace. This was an improper
position relative to the emissions, the light source, and the background.
The emissions were read most often with light from above the emissions as
the emissions escaped the hooding system. All opacity observations used
the furnace facing, approximately two feet above the launders, as back-
ground. Most observations were performed during a simultaneous stack test.
Also, all observations were halted during excessive visual interferences
caused by fugitives from other nearby sources.
«
Method 22
This method is used to determine the amount of time that any visible
fugitive emissions occur during the observation period. Fugitive emissions
include emissions that:
• escape capture by process equipment exhaust hoods,
• are emitted during material transfer, or handling, and
• are emitted directly from process equipment.
Method 9 procedures implicitly include provisions for a cyclic process
such as a varying process load. However, for characterization of inter-
mittent fugitive emissions, where there are periods of no emissions, Method
9 is not adequate. Method 22, which does not require a certified observer,
is intended to make up this shortcoming. Method 22 essentially monitors the
percentage of time that fugitive emissions were observed.
23
-------
In addition to the modifications described above for the Method 9
testing, the most significant modifications and limitations to the Method 22
observations in this application are listed below:
• visible emissions interference due to hood leaks and nearby
processes (increased recorded emission time).
• Less than an adequate amount of light (<100 lux)
• Inability to attain proper observer position relative to
light source (may increase or decrease visibility of
emissions which are highly dependent on position of light
source).
4.4 PROCESS OBSERVATIONS
The matte tapping from the flash furnace and the slag skimming from the
ESCF were observed from the furnace-level floor during sampling. The
observers also coordinated the sampling with the plant operation. Communi-
cations were made via two way radios.
During the sampling of the matte tapping, the observer gave instruc-
tions to the teams to begin sampling when metal flow began and recorded the
time. Upon completion, or at the start of lancing for another tap, the
sampling was stopped and the time recorded. If a second tap was lanced
while metal was flowing from another tap, the sampling was halted during the
lancing. Sampling was resumed as soon as metal flow from the second port
began. Sampling continued as long as one of the taps was active.
The observer's task at the ESCF skim bays was essentially the same as
above. The sampling team sampled only when metal was flowing from the port.
The observer noted the extent that each ladle was filled and any other
information which was thought to be pertinent.
24
-------
RADIAN
At the request of the RTI personnel on site and with the approval of
EPA, a single run for the flash furnace matte tapping and all of the runs
for the ESCF skimming were made with the lancing emission included.
Sulfuric acid mist determinations were made at the ESCF scrubber inlet
and outlet only. At the request of the EPA, modifications were made in
Method 8. The train used is shown schematically in Figure 4-8. The filter
oven was held at 350-380°F to avoid the condensation of sulfuric mist. The
outlet, the sampling apparatus was as specified, including an unheated glass
fiber filter for the collection of sulfuric acid mist betweeen the 80%
isopropanol and hydrogen peroxide impingers. At the scrubber inlet, a
stainless steel probe line was used due to the high temperature
(800°F-1200°F) at that location.
The process observations at Hidalgo were performed primarily by RTI
with support from Radian. Coordination of the sampling activities was the
responsibility of Radian. The process documentation provided by RTI is
reproduced in Appendix A of this report. Some of the operating logs from
Hidalgo have been requested by RTI which will augment the process
observations appendix. This information will be used to corroborate the
data collected and, where possible, confirm some of the assumptions which
were made for matte and slag production rates and schedules.
25
-------
IfcUI'tllAlDllt
flow
ISOKIIIfcllC
SIYI't
t'tlOl IUUE
ro
SILICA GEL
DESSICCANT
a
s
0
UMIFU.E
fiAlKit"
FILTER
IIQlOfH
VACUUM
GAUGE
VACUUM
LINE
1EMPEHAIUHE
SENSORS
lol
/ UHYfiAS \
1 wEftn 1
\ , . '
BYPASS
VAIVE
lxlxl
p*q
s~\
y
PUMP
T
rJL-i ^ '
(xV| •*
MAIN
Figure 4-8. A schematic of the combined EPA Method 5, 6, and 8 sampling apparatus
-------
SECTION 5
ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY
This section deals with the handling, preparation and analysis of all
the recovered samples. EPA Reference methods 3, 5, 6, and 8 were used where
applicable (see reference in Section 4.2).
For determination of the dry molecular weight of the flue gas, the
EPA's Reference method 3 was used. Radian used a Fyrite® apparatus during
each test. During mid-run, the flue gas was hand pumped through a pitot
line into a sealed container holding either C02 or Q£ absorbing
solution. The gas was thoroughly mixed with the solution and the C02 or
02 percentile was read off the scale on the container. This procedure was
done at least twice. Once both C02 and 02 percentages were established,
the balance of the gas was assumed to be, composed of nitrogen.
Upon return to Radian's Austin laboratories, final weights were
obtained for all filters and the acetone/deionized water wash residues in
compliance with EPA Reference Method 5. Filters were desiccated for 24
hours and weighed to a constant weight. Initial and final weighing was
performed on a Mettler semi-micro balance. The acetone/deionized water
washes were quantitatively transferred to tared glass beakers and taken to
dryness. These samples were then desiccated 24 hours and weighed to a
constant weight. Acetone and deionized water blanks, 100 mL, were treated
in this same manner, and the samples corrected for these blanks.
27
-------
RADIAN
Using EPA Reference Method 6, the ~&2Q2 samples containing the
were diluted up to 500, 1000, or 2000 mL in volumetric flasks depending on
the S02 concentration. A 5 mL aliquot was pipetted into a 250 mL
Erlenmeyer flask and 20 mL of 100% isopropanol added. Two to four drops of
thorin indicator were added and the sample titrated to a pinkish-orange
endpoint with .01 N Ba(C104)2« The equation in Method 6 for calculation
of S02 concentration was followed. The Ba(C104)2 was standardized
daily against 0.01 N H2S04 prepared from a purchased analytical concen-
trate. Blanks, QA audit samples, and duplicates were titrated every tenth
sample.
Samples containing the glass fiber filters in an 80% isopopanol slurry
and were treated as above, except dilutions were made with 80% isopropanol.
Calculations were carried out as specified in Method 8.
28
-------
SECTION 6
QUALITY ASSURANCE
The work performed at the Phelps Dodge Hidalgo smelter incorporated a
comprehensive quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program as an
integral part of the overall sampling and analytical effort. The major
objective of the QA/QC program was to provide data of known quality with
respect to:
• completeness,
• accuracy,
• precision,
• representativeness, and
• comparability.
The quality assurance function was organized to provide independent
review and assessment of project activities and their ability to achieve the
stated data quality objectives. The QA coordinator for the project had the
responsibility of evaluating the adequacy and effectiveness of the QC system
and providing assurance that it was, in fact, responsive to the specific
needs of the program.
While the system of QA activities was necessarily independent of the
technical effort per se, the QC system was an integral part of the daily
technical effort. It was designed to provide an overall system for generat-
ing data of a specified quality. This section provides an assessment of the
QC program and a summary of resulting data quality as determined by the QA
audit.
29
-------
6.1 Source Sampling Audit Results
As part of the quality assurance program for this project a performance
and systems audit was performed during the period 13 November to 14 November
1981 while the Morenci sampling effort was under way. Audit activities,
results and conclusions are presented below. The same sampling crew and
equipment and identical procedures were used at the Hidalgo smelter.
6.1.1 Systems Audit
A systems audit is an on-site qualitative review of various aspects of
a total sampling and/or analytical system to assess its overall
effectiveness. The systems audit results represent a subjective evaluation
of a set of interactive systems with respect to strengths, weaknesses and
potential problem areas. The audit was designed to evaluate the following:
• Adherence to accepted procedures in performing reference
method source sampling,
• Adequacy of internal quality control procedures,
• Equipment and facilities,
• Qualification and training of personnel,
• Calibration procedures and documentation,
• Sample handling, custody and storage, and
• Data recording, review and handling.
The systems audit checklists, which were presented in Appendix B of the
Morenci report, delineate the specific aspects of the sampling/analytical
system which are deemed to be especially important in obtaining quality
data. The activities which were obtained during the audit included
determinations of:
30
-------
Velocity and volumetric gas flow rate (EPA Method 2)
Gas phase molecular weight (EPA Method 3),
Gas phase moisture (EPA Method 4),
Particulate concentration (EPA Method 5),
Gas phase (802) concentration (EPA Method 6), and
Visible fugitive emissions (EPA Method 9 and proposed Method
22).
Equipment calibration data sheets were also given in Appendix B of the
Morenci Report. After the equipment was used at both sites, the equipment
was post-calibrated, and those data forms are reproduced in Appendix B of
this report.
As indicated on the audit checklists, careful compliance with accepted
sampling procedures was observed for all sampling activities. The sampling
crew exhibited an obvious familiarity with the equipment and methods used.
Internal QC checks such as pre- and post-test leak checks of sampling train,
intermediate calculation of isokinetics, replicate Fyrite® analyses, etc.,
were carefully followed. The facilities and procedures used in sample
handling and storage were judged to be quite adequate. All data records
were well organized and utilized preformatted data sheets in most instances.
All equipment calibration data was complete and similarly well organized.
Overall, the systems audit indicated an efficient, well orchestrated
sampling effort which was judged to be adequate for achieving the data
quality for each of the EPA Methods as shown in Table 6-1.
31
-------
RADIAN
TABLE 6-1. ATTAINABLE ACCURACY AND PRECISION OF TEST RESULTS BASED
ON THE EPA COLLABORATIVE TESTS OF STATIONARY SOURCE
METHODS**
Parameter
Method
Volumetric Gas Flow Rate 2
Molecular Weight
Moisture
P articulate Mass
S02
Emissions Opacity
Emissions Visibility*
*Radian estimate
**Midgett, M. Rodney,
3
4
5
6
9
22
Environmental Science and
Accuracy
(%)
±11
±25
±10
±20
±20
±7.5
±10
Technology, 11,
Precision
(Standard
Deviation)
(%)
20
10
11
10
10
5
10
No. 7,
pp. 655-659.
32
-------
6.1.2 Performance Audit
A performance audit is a quantitative assessment of the data quality of
a sampling and/or analytical system. Both field and laboratory (analytical)
operations were addressed i-n the performance audit for this program. Audit
activities included:
• field checks of dry gas meter/control console calibration,
• field check of the laboratory balance (Mettler PC4400),
• field checks of the Fyrite® analyses,
• checks of field calculations,
• check of the data reduction program used for the sampling
data reduction, and
• analysis of S02 audit samples.
Results of the performance audit supported the results of the systems audit,
indicating that the test data quality should be as shown in Table 6-1.
Performance audit results presented below are expressed in terms of
relative accuracy. The relative accuracy for each parameter is calculated
as:
% A = (M-T) x 100
T
where,
% A = relative accuracy, percent
M = measured value
T = true value of reference standard
100 = factor for conversion to percentage basis
33
-------
COKMMUmOM
Dry Gas Meter/Control Console
Field checks of the dry gas meters/control consoles were performed
using a Kurz Model 543 flow calibrator (Serial No. 769). The Kurz instru-
ment had recently been calibrated by the manufacturer using an NBS traceable
mass flow meter (NBS test numbers 213-21/190522). The calibration factor,
was determined by averaging triplicate measurements at each of three meter
rates (nominally 0.25, 0.50 and 0.75 ACFM).
A second calibration indicated that the dry gas meter correction
factors had changed by less than five percent of their original calibration
value. Thus, the use of the original calibration factor was appropriate for
further data reduction.
Laboratory Balance
The accuracy of the laboratory balance (Mettler PC4400) was checked
using a set of NBS traceable Class S weights. Replicate weighings were made
on weights ranging from 0.01 g to 100 g. The greatest difference between
balance reading and actual weight was observed with the 0.5 g weight. This
difference was 0.01 g or 2.0 percent.
Fyrite® Analyses
®
Ambient air was analyzed during the performance audit using the Fyrite
gas analyzer for carbon dioxide and oxygen. The precision and accuracy for
these determinations were within the readabilty of the analyzers (±0.5
percent). Based on this data and the systems audit results, the gas
composition determinations should be within the precision and accuracy
ranges estimated for this method (Table 6-1).
34
-------
Field Calculations and Computerized Data Reduction
A check of field measurements and calculations used for determining the
location of sampling traverse points (EPA Method 1) indicated that the
points were correctly located. Radian's computerized Source Sampling Data
Reduction Program was used to reduce all velocity, flow rate, molecular
weight, particulate mass and SC>2 data. Example data sets for Methods 2,
3, 4, 5 and 6 were submitted for reduction using this program and the
results compared to those obtained by hand calculation using the equations
and procedure specified in the Reference Methods. The comparison of results
indicated excellent agreement between the two procedures with the magnitude
of the difference attributable to rounding differences. The results of this
comparison are summarized in Table 6-2.
Sulfur Dioxide Determinations
The sulfate content of the impinger solutions resulting from the
adsorption of sulfur dioxide were analyzed per EPA Reference Method 6 using
the barium perchlorate-thorin titration method. The data quality for these
determinations were assessed by submitting blind EPA Stationary Source
Quality Assurance S02 Reference Standards. These audit standards were
analyzed with the impinger samples. The results for these determinations
are summarized in Table 6-3. The percent accuracy for these analyses is
within the 7.0 percent control limit.
Four of the thirteen Method 5 and 6 tests incorporated a third hydrogen
peroxide impinger to document the S0£ collection efficiency of the
impinger train. As shown in Table 6-4, the results from the analyses of
these additional impinger solutions indicate the collection efficiency using
two impingers was greater than 99 percent.
35
-------
TABLE 6-2. SUMMARY OF DATA REDUCTION CHECK
Parameter
Velocity (ft/sec)
Volumetric Flow Rate (dscf/min)
Molecular Weight (Ibs/lb-mole)
Particulate Concentratin (gr/dscf)
Data
Reduction
Program
Results
15.3505
24184
28.85
0.637
Hand
Calculated
Results
15.3657
24203
28.85
0.639
Accuracy
-0.04
-0.08
0.0
-0.3
TABLE 6-3. SUMMARY OF EPA AUDIT SAMPLE ANALYSES
Sample
Number
8136
6065
Measured
ng S02/dscf
805
1317
Actual
ng S02/dscf
762.6
1334.6
Accuracy
(%)
+5.6
-1.3
Control
Limit
±7.0
±7.0
36
-------
TABLE 6-4. SUMMARY OF EPA METHOD 5/6 IMPINGER COLLECTION EFFICIENCY RESULTS
MM S02 in MM S02 in Collection
Sample Number Impingers 1 and 2 Impinger 3 Efficiency (%)
EMB-013HMT 99.2 0.8 >99
EMB-015HDH 99.4 0.6 >99
EMB-021HSO 99.9 0.1 >99
EMB-022HSI 99.9 0.1 >99
37
-------
SECTION 7
CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY
While in the field, all samples were under the care of Michael J. Krall
during the periods of November 17 through November 24, 1981, and January 12
through January 15, 1982. Throughout these periods, all samples were
processed for transport back to Radian's Austin laboratories within 24 hours
after collection. This involved placing filters in petri dishes and sealing
them with tape. Probe washes and S02 samples were kept in polyethylene
bottles, their lids taped shut, and the initial volume noted. All samples
were logged and stored in the Radian mobile lab on site.
»
On November 24, the first set of samples was transported by automobile
from Deming, New Mexico, to El Paso, Texas. The samples were placed in the
custody of Continental Airlines aboard Flight No. 75. Upon arrival in San
Antonio, Michael J. Krall transported the samples by automobile to Radian's
Austin laboratories where they remained overnight. Final processing of the
samples was completed on December 7, and the samples were placed in storage.
The second set of samples was taken from January 12-15, 1982 and
processed in the identical manner as the first set. On January 15, Michael
J. Krall turned over custody of the samples to Robert V. Collins who trans-
ported the samples back to Radian's Austin laboratories via the mobile
laboratory where they remained over the weekend. On January 18, Robert V.
Collins turned custody back over to Michael J. Krall who processed the
samples through their final stage on January 20. The samples were then
placed in storage. At no time during the process of collection, storage on
38
-------
RADIAN
site, transport, or final analysis was there any evidence that these samples
were tampered with.
However, one set of samples taken between December 1-4 from the ESCF
slag skimming and scrubber operations was lost by Radian at their Austin
laboratories. This loss necessitated another trip to Hidalgo during the
period January 12-15 to acquire similar samples from the ESCF slag skimming
and scrubber operations. Although these samples were successfully returned
to Radian's Austin laboratories, the scrubber samples were later judged to
be non-representative due to abnormal operation of the ESCF during the
scrubber sampling.
39
-------
SECTION 8
RESULTS OF PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS
A summary of particulate and sulfur dioxide sampling results of the
matte tapping and slag skimming are presented in Tables 8-1, 8-2, 8-3 and
8-4. The summary of particulate, sulfur dioxide, and sulfuric acid mist
sampling results from the ESCF scrubber inlet and outlet are presented in
Tables 8-5 and 8-6.
The matte tapping and slag skimming particulate and sulfur dioxide
results from the computerized data reduction are in units of mass of
pollutants per hour (of sampling). These results were converted to mass of
pollutants per ton of matte or slag produced (during sampling) using the
following equation:
Mass of Pollutant = PMR x 9
Ton of Production n
(60 min/hr) I
where: PMR, in pounds per hour, is the pollutant mass rate of particulate
or sulfur dioxide as calculated through the computerized data
reduction.
9, in minutes, is the sampling time.
40
-------
TABLE 8-1. RESULTS OF SAMPLING CONDUCTED DURING MATTE TAPPING OPERATIONS
AT THE FLASH FURNACE LAUNDER (WITHOUT LANCING).
Run
EMB-009HMT EMB-011HMT EMB-013HMT Average
Date
Time
Lbs Particulate/hr
Lbs PartIculate/Ton
Lbs S02/hr
Lbs S02/Ton
Matte Production, Tons
Episodes
Gas Flow, DSCFM
11/17-18/81
1123-0859
51
0.25
320
1.6
200
9
26,000
11/18/81
1045-1817
48
0.23
360
1.7
208
9
32,400
11/18/81
1914-2330
35
0.19
270
1.5
183
8
29,600
45
0.23
320
1.6
197
41
-------
TABLE 8-2. RESULTS OF SAMPLING CONDUCTED DURING MATTE TAPPING OPERATIONS AT
THE FLASH FURNACE DOGHOUSE HOODING (WITHOUT LANCING).
Run
EMB-010HDH
EMB-012HDH
EMB-015HDH
Average
Date
Time
Lbs Particulate/hr
Lbs Particulate/Ton
Lbs S02/hr
Lbs S02/Ton
Matte Production, Tons
Episodes
Gas Flow, DSCFM
11/17-18/81
1123-0900
6.2
0.031
16
0.081
200
9
10,500
11/18/81
1045-1816
9.9
0.048
37
0.18
208
9
10,900
11/18/81
1914-2330
3.1
0.017
33
0.18
183
8
10,600
6.4
0.032
29
0.15
197
42
-------
TABLE 8-3. RESULTS OF SAMLING CONDUCTED DURING MATTE TAPPING OPERATIONS
AT THE FLASH FURNACE DOGHOUSE HOODING (INCLUDING LANCING).
Run
EMB-023HDHL
Date
Time
Lbs Particulate/hr
Lbs Particulate/Ton
Lbs
Lbs
Matte Production, Tons
Episodes
Gas Flow, DSCFM
11/24/81
0901-1221
8.6
0.060
24
0.16
144
7
10,700
43
-------
TABLE 8-4. RESULTS OF SAMPLING CONDUCTED DURING SLAG SKIMMING OPERATIONS
OF THE ELECTRIC SLAG CLEANING FURNACE
Run
EMB-054HSS
EMB-055HSS
EMB-056HSS
Average
Date 1/14/82 1/14/82 1/14-15/82 —
Time 1316-1433 1509-1944 1957-0750 —
Lbs Particulate/hr 11 10 12 11
Lbs Particulate/Ton 0.075 0.073 0.069 0.072
Lbs S02/hr 120 150 120 130
Lbs S02/Ton 0.86 1.1 0.68 0.88
Slag Production, Tons 142 140 180 154
Episodes 346 —
Gas Flow, DSCFM 28,800 29,600 30,000 —
44
-------
TABLE 8-5.
Run
Date
Time
Lbs/Part iculate/hr
Lbs/S02/Hr
Lbs H2S04/hr
Gas Flow, DSCFM
in
RESULTS OF SAMPLING AT THE ELECTRIC SLAG CLEANING FURNACE SCRUBBER INLET |to
is
EMB-016HSI
11/20/81
1430-1603
100
200
*
5700
EMB-020HSI EMB-022HSI
11/22/81 11/23/81
0910-1141 0940-1144
110 120
150 280
* *
4900 4600
EMB-050HSl8t
1/12/82
0956-1300
100
170
0.06
5000
*»
EMB-052HS!8t Average Z
1/12/82
1604-1759
83 100
110 180
0.00 0.03
5900
*Did not sample for sulfuric acid mist.
"^Results are to be considered only appropriately representative of the scrubber conditions due
to abnormal operation of the ESCF during the sampling period.
-------
IB
TABLE 8-6. RESULTS OF SAMPLING AT THE ELECTRIC SLAG CLEANING FURNACE SCRUBBER OUTLET J fej
0
s
Run
Date
Time
Lbs/Particulate/hr
Lbs S02/hr
Lbs H2S04/hHr
Gas Flow, DSCFM
EMB-017HSO
11/20/81
1430-1603
1.3
160
*
8900
EMB-019HSO
11/22/81
0910-1141
0.98
63
*
7400
EMB-021HSO EMB-051HS08t
11/23/81 1/12/82
0940-1144 0905-1310
1.4 19
17 70
* 0.10
6800 5300
*»
EMB-053HS08t Average 2
1/12/82
1605-1800
1.9 4.9
31 99
0.04 0.07
5900
*Did not sample for sulfurlc acid mist.
'''Results are to be considered only approximately representative of the scrubber conditions due to
abnormal operation of the ESCF during the sampling period.
-------
n is the number of trapping or skimming operations which were
sampled. (Note: more than one operation may be in progress
during sampling.)
T-£ is the fraction of the tapping or skimming time that the
ith tap or skim was in use during the observing period.
M-£ is the fraction of the normal ladle which was removed from
the furnace during the observed ^th tap or skim.
L, in tons, is the weight of a normal ladle of matte or slag as
specified by the plant personnel.
The T-£, Mi} and L terms are presented in Tables 8-7, 8-8, 8-9, and
8-10. These were derived from correlating the start and stop times on the
data sheets with the process observations. The test results are expressed
in units of mass of pollutants per unit sampling time (not clock time).
Examination of the data in Tables 8-1, 8-2, 8-3, and 8-4 shows that the
emission rates of both particulate matter and S02 pef ton of matte or slag
vary some, but no larger consistent differences or trends are apparent. It
•
was the observation of the samplers that the emission rate was strongly
dependent upon the time and surface area of exposed molten material. Thus,
a faster flow would lead to fewer emissions, but since sampling was stopped
when the flow stopped, emissions from the open surface in the ladle, waiting
for transfer, which may be significant, were not addressed by this testing
protocol.
It should be noted that the particulate emission factor for the single
matte tap run that included lancing was significantly higher than the
previous runs at the same sampling location. This lends credence to the
notion that perhaps lancing will increase the particulate rate and should be
dealt with as a contributing source of pollution. The limitation, of
course, is that no concrete conclusion can be drawn from only one data
point.
47
-------
TABLE 8-7. SAMPLING SEQUENCING—PHELPS DODGE HIDALGO, MM COPPER SMELTER
MATTE TAPPING—FLASH FURNACE LAUNDER
Date
Episode
EMB-009HHT
EMB-011HMT
Tj MI
EMB-013HMT
11/17/81
1123-1132
1210-1217
1303-1309
1313-1318
1326-1329
1528-1539
1546-1551
1612-1621
1
1
1
1
.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
11/18/81
0854-0869
1045-1052
1058-1103
1109-1116
1217-1224
1301-1305
1348-1356
1739-1743
1753-1802
1808-1817
1914-1920
1924-1931
1956-2006
2008-2015
2029-2015
2221-2228
2236-2247
2327-2330
.5
25
.3
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
.9
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
T1 is the fraction of the total duration of the £th tap or skim which was sampled.
MI la the fraction of the normal ladle which was reaoved froa the furnace during the
observed ^th tap or sfcia.
L, in tons, is the weight of a normal ladle of oatte or alag as specified by the plant
personnel.
48
-------
TABLE 8-8. SAMPLING SEQUENCING—PHELPS DODGE HIDALGO, NM COPPER SMELTER
MATTE TAPPING—FLASH FURNACE DOGHOUSE HOODING
Date
11/18/81
Episode
0853-0900
1045-1051
1057-1103
1107-1115
1216-1223
1258-1303
1347-1356
1738-1743
1752-1801
1807-1816
1914-1920
1923-1930
1955-2005
2008-2015
2028-2037
2220-2228
2236-2247
2326-2330
EMB-010HDH
EMB-012HDH
Tt
Mi L
.5
25
.3
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
EMB-015HDH
Tt
11/17/81
1123-1132
1209-1217
1303-1309
1313-1318
1326-1328
1527-1539
1547-1551
1612-1621
1
1
1
1
.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
.9
.4
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
TI is the fraction of the total duration of the ^th tap or skim which was sampled.
M! is the fraction of the normal ladle which was removed from the furnace during the
observed £th tap or skim.
L, in tons, is the weight of a normal ladle of matte or slag as specified by the plant
personnel.
49
-------
TABLE 8-9. SAMPLING SEQUENCING—PHELPS DODGE HIDALGO, NM COPPER SMELTER
MATTE TAPPING—FLASH FURNACE DOGHOUSE HOODING WITH LANCING
EMB-0123HDHLH
Date Episode
11/24/81 0901-0912
0922-0936
1045-1049
1123-1134
1152-1207
1217-1221
Tt Mt
.7 1
.5 1
1 1
.4 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
.2 1
L
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
T£ is the fraction of the total duration of the ^th tap or skim which
was sampled.
M£ is the fraction of the normal ladle which was removed from the furnace
during the observed jth tap or skim.
L, in tons, is the weight of a normal ladle of matte or slag as specified by
the plant personnel.
50
-------
TABLE 8-10. SAMPLING SEQUENCING—PHELPS DODGE HIDALGO, NM COPPER SMELTER
SLAG SKIMMING—ELECTRIC SLAG CLEANING FURNACE
EMB-054HSS
Date
1/14/82
Episode
1316-1346
1349-1407
1422-1433
5109-1528
1530-1541
1543-1548
1918-1944
Tl Hi
I .8
1 .8
1- .8
1 .9
.6 .5
L
40
40
40
40
40
EMB-055HSS EMB-056HSS
Ti MI
1 .8
.6 1
.3 1
1 1
.8 1
L TI Mt L
40
40
40
40
40
1/15/82
1957-2007
2007-2019
2023-2032
2034-2035
2038-2052
0735-0750
.8 .9
1 .9
.7 .9
.1 .9
1 1
.9 .8
.5 1
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
Tj is the fraction of the total duration of the ith tap or skin which was sampled.
MI is the fraction of the normal ladle which was removed from the furnace during the
observed jth tap or skim.
L, in tons, is the weight of a normal ladle of matte or slag as specified by the plant
personnel.
51
-------
Using the averages of the data from the scrubber inlet and outlet
(Tables 8-5 and 8-6), a scrubber efficiency of approximately 95% particulate
removal and 45% S02 removal may be calculated. There appeared to be a
small increase in sulfuric acid mist across the scrubber.
8.1 Results of Visible Emissions
Two types of visible emission testing were performed: Method 9 which
yields results that are a time weighted opacity and Method 22 which
indicates the fraction of time visible emissions were present. A lower
opacity reported for Method 9 indicates a greater capture efficiency for the
hooding system being evaluated, if all other factors are constant.
Six process points were visually evaluated at the Hidalgo smelter. The
processes evaluated were:
• flash furnace matte tapping (lancing emissions not included),
• flash furnace matte tapping (lancing emissions included),
• scrubber stack (11/20 - 11/23 operating condtions),
• scrubber stack (12/3 operating conditions),
• electric slag cleaning furnace slag skimming (lancing
emissions included), and
• electric slag cleaning furnace matte tapping (lancing
emissions included).
These processes were evaluated using the techniques of Methods 9 and 22,
where applicable. This section presents the results of those observations.
52
-------
RADIAN
8.1.1 Flash Furnace Matte Tapping (Lancing Emissions 'Not Included)
Method 9. The launder No. 2 hood system was observed most often.
Based on approximately one hour of observations, the average opacity of
fugitive emissions escaping capture by the launder No. 2 hood system was 20
percent. The fugitive emissions around the hooding systems for both launder
No. 1 and No.3 also showed average opacities of 20 percent. Fugitive
emissions around the hooding systems for launders No. 4 and No. 5 were
observed to have average opacities of 40 percent and 30 percent,
respectively. Table 8-11 summarizes the Method 9 data.
TABLE 8-11. FLASH FURNACE METHOD 9 OBSERVATIONS
(Lancing emissions not included.)
Process Observed
Matte tapping
Matte tapping
Matte tapping
Matte tapping
Matte tapping
Launder
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Number of
Events
Observed
3
8
1
6
1
Average
Opacity
20
20
20
40
30
Total
Observation
Time (min/sec)
32:00
55:00
21:00
30:00
4:00
Method 22. During matte tapping, fugitive emissions were observed
escaping continually from each launder hood system observed. The results of
these observations are shown in Table 8-12.
53
-------
TABLE 8-12. METHOD 22 OBSERVATIONS DURING FLASH FURNACE MATTE TAPPING
Percent Observed
Matte tapping
Matte tapping
Matte tapping
Matte tapping
Launder
Number
1
2
3
5
Number of
Events
Observed
1
1
1
2
Percent
Time Emissions
Observed (%)
100
100
100
100
Total
Observation
Time (min/sec)
9:36
7:27
11:15
12 :08
8.1.2 Flash Furnace Matte Tapping (Lancing Emissions Included)
Method 9. Based on approximately 20 minutes of observations, launder
No. 5 hood system fugitive emissions had an average opacity of 40 percent.
Fugitive emissions around hooding systems for launders No. 1, No. 3, and No.
4 had average opacities of 30, 35, and 45 percent respectively. Average
opacities from matte tapping, including lancing emissions, are shown in
Table 8-13. It may be noted that the lancing operation increased the
average opacity about 10% (compare Tables 8-11 and 8-13).
TABLE 8-13. METHOD 9 OBSERVATIONS DURING FLASH FURNACE MATTE TAPPING
(Including lancing emissions.)
Process Observed
Matte tapping
Matte tapping
Matte tapping
Matte tapping
Launder
Number
1
3
4
5
Number of
Event s
Observed
1
1
1
2
Average
Opacity
(%)
30
35
45
40
Total
Observation
Time (min/sec)
13:00
10:00
9:00
23:00
54
-------
RADIAN
Method 22. A total of 29 minutes of observations were made on hooding
systems for launder No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4 using the techniques of Method
22. Each hooding system was observed constantly during the test period.
Table 8-14 lists the observation time for each launder hooding system.
During the matte tapping, both with and without lancing, some fugitive
emissions were always observed.
TABLE 8-14. METHOD 22 OBSERVATIONS DURING FLASH FURNACE MATTE TAPPING
(Lancing emissions included.)
Process Observed
Matte tapping
Matte tapping
Matte tapping
Launder
Number
2
3
4
Number of
Events
Observed
1
1
1
Percent
Time Emissions
Observed (%)
100
100
100
Total
Observation
Time (min/sec)
7:42
10:20
11:05
8.1.3 Scrubber Stack
The scrubber stack is not a source of fugitive emissions, therefore, no
Method 22 observations were performed. Method 9 observations were performed
for two sets of scrubber operating conditions.
Based on approximately 6.5 hours of observations for the November
scrubber operating conditions (11/20-11/23), the average scrubber opacity
was less than five percent. For the December scrubber operating conditions
(12/3), approximately two hours of observations were made. The average
opacity was less than five percent.
55
-------
8.1.4 Electric Slag Cleaning Furnace Slag Skimm-tug (Lancing Included)
Method 9. Approximately 1.5 hours of opacity observations were made
for launders No. 1 and No. 2. The average opacity of fugitive emissions
escaping capture by the launder No. 1 hooding system was 40 percent. For
launder No. 2 the average opacity was 35 percent.
Lancing emissions contributing to opacity were included in these
observations. However, the duration of lancing emissions was approximately
three minutes per skim. Two skims were observed for approximately 1.5
hours. Therefore, the inclusion of lancing emissions did not significantly
effect the reported average opacity of 40 percent.
Method 22. Slag skimming launders No. 1 and No. 2 were observed for a
total of 108 minutes. Fugitive emissions escaped capture by the hooding
systems at launder No. 1 and No. 2, 99 percent and 81 percent of the time,
respectively.
Electric Slag Cleaning Furnace Matte Tapping
Source sampling of the off gases from this process was not performed.
Only visual observations were made.
Method 9. Based on 24 minutes of observation of launder No. 1, the
fugitive emissions escaping capture by the hooding system had an average
opacity of 45 percent.
Method 22. Launder No. 1 was observed for approximately 11 minutes.
During this time, fugitive emissions were observed escaping 82 percent of
the time.
56
------- |