A SURVEY OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF VARIOUS LEVELS OF
         LEAD REMOVAL UPON SELECTED INDUSTRIES
                        By

                 William F. Hamilton
                Cost Analysis Branch
       Strategies and Air Standards Division
    Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
          Environmental Protection Agency
                 October 19, 1973

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
   Subject                                                           Page
Introduction 	  —
Section 1.0:  Municipal Incinerators . . . .	  1-1
Section 2.0:  Grey Iron Foundries	2-1
Section 3.0:  Gasoline Additive Manufacturing  	  3-1
Section 4.0:  Primary Lead Smelters	. . .  .	4-1
Section 5.0:  Primary Copper Smelters  	  	  5-1
Section 6.0:  Storage Battery Manufacturing  	 ....  6-1
Section 7.0:  Primary Zinc Smelters  	  	.7-1
Section 8.0:  Secondary Lead Smelters	8-1
Section 9.0:  Lead Oxide Production  	  9-1
Section 10.0: Tin Can Manufacturing (Solder) 	 	 10-1
Section 11.0: Pigment Manufacturing  	 	 11-1
Section 12.0: Cable Covering Manufacturing 	 12-1
Section 13.0: Brass and Bronze Production  	 	.13-1
Appendix
Table A:  Lead Emissions by Source (1970)	A-l
Table B:  Lead Emission Sources - Estimated Growth Rates 	  A-2

-------
Introduction
     This report is an attempt to quantify the economic impact of various
particulate and vapor emission levels upon thirteen selected industries.
The study was undertaken in order to provide economic background infor-
mation for a study of the preferred pollutant path for lead emissions.
The industries selected for this analysis are those which are believed
to be major sources of lead emissions.   Since the majority of lead emis-
sions to the atmosphere occur in the particulate form the major thrust  of
the analysis is toward various levels of particulate control.
     The types of.particulate control devices evaluation in this report
are probably best described as being conventional control devices such
as baghouses, electrostatic precipitators, wet scrubbers, and the like.
Non-conventional control devices such as high-efficiency particulate
air filters (HEPA Filters) and the like have not been evaluated due to
the lack of cost information on them.  Non-conventional equipment would
probably be required if lead emissions  were deemed to be hazardous emis-
sions, as were asbestos, beryllium, and mercury.

-------
Section 1.0:  Municipal Incinerators                        •
Introduction
     The total quantity of solid waste generated annually in the United
States is approximately 200 million tons per year.   Of this amount ten
percent is currently being incinerated.   Lead emissions from municipal
incinerators have been estimated at 2400 tons per year, based on an average
                                                   2
emission rate of 0.24 Ib of lead per ton of refuse.   Given that there  are
approximately 275-300 municipal incinerators currently in operation, this
means that average daily emissions amount to approximately 46 Ib of lead
                3
per incinerator.   It is expected that the rate of  growth in the amount of
solid waste incinerated will be approximately 5 percent per year over the
next five years and that approximately 20 new incinerators will  be con-
structed each year.  These new incinerators are estimated to have an average
capacity of 250 tons of refuse per day as opposed to the average capacity
                                                           4
of existing incinerators of approximately 300 tons  per day.
     Standards of performance have been proposed that would limit particulate
emissions from new municipal incinerators with a capacity greater than  50 tons
per day.  The new source performance standards would apply only  to those
incinerators used to burn predominantly municipal solid wastes.   The
emission limitation is as follows:  "No more than 0.10 grain of  particulates
per standard cubic foot (SCF) of dry flue gases, corrected to 12 percent
carbon dioxide (C02)"5
Emission Sources^and Control Techniques
     Lead emissions from municipal incinerators come from the following
        6
sources:
     • Refuse dumping and handling.
     • Emissions from openings and cracks in furnace walls.
     ' Stack emissions.
     Whereas estimates of emissions from each of the above sources is not
available it appears that the major source of emissions is the stack.  For
this reason only stack-gas control techniques have  been evaluated.
                                   1-1

-------
     Three different control systems have been evaluated for control  of
participate emissions from municipal incinerators.  These systems are a
95 percent electrostatic precipitator, a 99 percent electrostatic precipi-
tator, and a fabric filter.  Control costs, in terms of capital require-
ments and annual operating costs, are shown in Figure 1-1 and Figure  1-2.
Capital costs are estimated on the basis of controlling a grass-roots
facility.  Costs to retrofit an existing incinerator would vary widely
depending upon the space available at the site in question.
Control Costs
     Existing municipal incinerators are subject to varying state and local
regulations.  Typical standards range from 0.03 to 0.3 grains per SCF,
corrected to 12 percent C02-  It is assumed that a 95 percent electrostatic
precipitator represents the average level of control required by state
and local standards.  The new source performance standard for municipal
incinerators is 0.1 grains per SCF, corrected to 12 percent C0«.  It  appears
that a 95 percent electrostatic precipitator will also be sufficient  to
meet this standard.  The following table shows the incremental capital
costs and operating costs that are required for control of municipal
incinerators for a 95 percent electrostatic precipitator, a 99 percent
electrostatic precipitator, and a baghouse.
                                Table 1-1
     Incremental Pollution Control Costs for Municipal Incinerators
  I.  95% Electrostatic Precipitator
           Capital Req'd   95% ESP Capital     Annual Cost    95% ESP Cost
Capacity  (Uncontrolled)     $        	%    (Uncontrolled)    $
100 TPD
200
300
SIIOOM
1670
2030
$130M
190
255
12%
11%
13%
$324M
464
575
$15M
22
30
5%
5%
5%
 II.  99% Electrostatic Precipitator
           Capital Req'd   99% ESP Capital     Annual Cost    99% ESP Cost
Capacity  (Uncontrolled)     $          %    (Uncontrolled)    $
100 TPD
200
300
$nooM
1670
2030
$170M
240
300
15%
14%
15%
$324M
464
575
$20M
28
37
6%
6%
6%
                                   1-2

-------
                            Table 1-1 (Con't)
III..  Baghouse
Capacity
100 TPD
200
300
Capital Req'd FF Capital Annual Cost FF Cost
(Uncontrolled) $ % (Uncontrolled) $ %
$1100M
1670
2030
$11 OM
210
300
10%
13%
15%
$324M
464
575
$17M
32
46
5%
7%
8%
     It should be noted that the costs for the fabric filter control  system
above do not include costs for cooling the gases on the assumption that
the temperature of the inlet gases would not be higher than what can  be
treated in conventional high temperature bags.  Current operating practice
at most municipal incinerators is to utilize electrostatic precipitators
instead of fabric filters.  One reason for this, in addition to the generally
higher operating costs for fabric filters, is said to be the temperature  of
the gases that must be treated.
Economic Impact
     Several observations can be made based upon the results presented in
Table 1-1.  One observation is that a relatively minor cost difference exists
between the precipitator and the baghouse, especially for the largest
incinerator studied.  A second observation is that the magnitude of the
control costs do not appear to be large enough to preclude the construction
of new municipal incinerators.  The major alternative to incineration is  the
use of a land fill, and as land becomes more expensive the alternative of
incineration becomes more and more attractive.  The capital costs required  .
for particulate control do not appear excessive even for the most expensive
applications.  The increased operating costs would probably be easily
passed on to the users of the municipal incinerator.
                                   1-3

-------
                  . I !._!_._

                  limici
br -f o'l-l utfonLCoritrb-l4l:nstaTf
Dal^incinera
 ;-Costs-vs-
                                    I n c i ne'r a t o r- C a p ac i ity-/r
                               :bH±
                               -H-H-
       l-H-tnst-a-1-Ted-Cost
 I ; :  I  I ; I  I


S30(Hn  ~^~'

                                            LTLi^aiiLTu:!

                                          1-4

-------
                                      Control- AnnuaUOpier-ating-C6s-ts-vs^
                                      Capaafty^T
  .-Inci nerat
                          Operating-:
                         tali charges.;'
                           . .  -  . 3, ,'
 tpicltrcapi
-H-$6-i-f-H
  U-.i_U_U .
 i-:-$40'-K-rJ
zixoinnn:
 •_.l I  U-f-M
 ! i ij ' Lj •'
 'TETFT'"'
."CL[ J._ JLLill
                                    200        300
                                      Capacity, TPD
                                            1-5

-------
                               REFERENCES

                               SECTION 1.0
1.  Systems Study of Air Pollution from Municipal Incineration, Arthur D.
    Little, Inc., March, 1970, pg. 1-4.

2.  Emission Study of Industrial Sources of Lead Air Pollutants - 1970,
    W. E. Davis and Associates, April, 1973, pg. 102.

3.  As of June, 1971, a total of 289 Municipal Incinerators were listed
    in Municipal Incineration:  A Review of Literature (AP-79), pgs. 173-180.

4.  Internal Memorandum - Battelle Columbus Laboratories, September, 1973.

5.  Background  Information for Proposed New Source Performance Standards
    (APTD-0711), EPA Office of Air Programs, August, 1971, pg. 19.

6.  Davis, W. E., op.cit, pg. 101.

7.   Costs.are based on ADL study referenced above (pg. 111-35), escalated
    by 21 percent to reflect 1973 costs and calculated on basis of 450 ACFM
    per TPD capacity.

8.  Cost based  on ADL study referenced above (pg. 111-36} for 2 shifts per
    day (4000 hours per year), escalated by 17 percent to reflect 1973
    costs.
                                   1-6

-------
Section 2.0;  Grey Iron Foundries
Introduction
     The iron foundry industry has exhibited an interesting trend over the
past quarter-century.  While the total output of the industry has been
steadily increasing from 12.2 million tons in 1947 to 13.9 million tons
in 1971 (an average annual growth rate of 0.6 percent per year) the number
of foundries has decreased by 50 percent from 3,200 foundries in 1947 to
1,600 foundries in 1971.  This is equivalent to closing more than 65 foundries
per year between 1947 and 1971.  This combination of increased industry
output and decreased number of foundries results in the average foundry
size being 8,700 tons per year 'in 1971 versus 3,800 tons per year in 1947.
Over the past few years the trend has been for shipments to increase at
approximately 2 percent per year, and it is expected that this trend will
                      2
continue through 1980.   The total foundry population, however, is expected
                                                                3
to continue to decrease to approximately 1,000 furnaces by 1980.   The
small foundries will continue to be the ones that close primarily due to
a lack of capital to modernize and mechanize.  The necessity for high
capital expenditures for pollution control has been a contributing factor
leading to past foundry closings, but has not been the principal reason
for the closures.
     Iron foundries are located in 48 states, with the greatest concentra-
tion being in the Great Lakes States.  Table 2-1 lists the foundry population
for selected states as of 1970:
                              Table 2-1
                  DOMESTIC IRON FOUNDRIES 19705
      State                                         No. of Foundaries
Pennsylvania                                              169
Ohio                                                      166
Michigan                                                  123
Illinois                                                  104
Wisconsin                                                  96
California                                                 90
Indiana                                                    80
Other (41  States)                                         847
Total                                                   1,675

                                  2-1

-------
     Emissions of lead to the atmosphere were estimated at 2,300 tons in
1970.   This is based upon an uncontrolled lead emission rate of 0.26
Ib per ton of product and an average control level of 25 percent.
Emissions Sources and Control Techniques
     Metal-melting processes are the major uncontrolled source of parti-
culate emissions in foundries.  Other processes emit minor amounts of
particulates, however.  The greatest source of particulate emissions from
melting processes, both in terms of the number of sources and the emission
strength of each source, is the cupola.  The second ranking source is the
electric-arc furnace.  Electric induction furnaces are relatively pollution-
free.7
     High efficiency emission control equipment for grey iron foundries
generally consists of either wet scrubbers or baghouses.  Low-energy wet
scrubbers are reported to have collection efficiencies of 85-95 percent,
high energy wet scrubbers are reported to collect more than 95 percent of
the total particulates, and baghouses have collection efficiencies in
excess of 99 percent.^
     A study conducted of 1,376 foundries in 1967 indicated that approximately
15 percent of the total foundries in the country had some type of control
       g
system.   The type of control system as well as the type of furnace being
controlled is detailed below in Table 2-2.
                              Table 2-2          .                       •
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS BY FOUNDRY TYPE (1967)

Control System
Baghouse
ESP
Wet Scrubber
Other
Total Controlled
Total Foundries
% Controlled

Cupola
39
1
30
no
180
1232
15%
Electric
Arc
20
-
4
-
24
42
57%

Induction
_
-
-
-
„
73
0%

Other
_
-
_
-
_
29
0%

Total Foundries
59
1
34
no
204
1376
15%
                                   2-2

-------
     It should be noted that whereas the number of controlled foundries
is only 15 percent of the total number of foundries it is generally the
larger foundries that control emissions.  This means that the overall
control level will be in excess of 15 percent for the entire industry.
Control Costs10
     Control costs for two representative foundry sizes and two control
systems are shown below in Table 2-3.  Since the cupola furnace represents
approximately 90 percent of the total furnaces used in grey iron foundries
this is the furnace type chosen for presentation in the table.
                              Table 2-3
                   CUPOLA POLLUTION CONTROLS (1973)
Melt Rate/Cupola                  8 Ton/Hr              16 Ton/Hr
Total Cupolas/Foundry                 12
Control System                    Baghouse      High-Energy Wet Scrubber
Installed Control Investment      $152,000              $302,500
% of Total Plant Investment          26%                    8%
Annualized Control Costs
-Direct Operating Cost           $21,000/yr            $47,000/yr
-Capital Charges and Depr.        24,000                48,000
-Total Annualized Costs         . $45,000/yr            $95,000/yr
-% of Sales Price                   2.8%                  1.1%
     It is obvious that definite economies of scale exist as larger foundries
are controlled.  Total control investment decreases from a substantial  26
percent of total plant investment to a more manageable level of 8 percent
as we go to the larger foundry.  Annualized costs are also substantially
less, when expressed as a percent of sales price, when the larger foundry
is controlled.
Economic Impact
     An evaluation of the effects of pollution control upon the grey iron
foundry industry was conducted in November, 1971, by A. T. Kearney and
Company.  A. T. Kearney based their analysis upon the cost data presented
in AP-74 (see Reference 7) and reached the following conclusions regarding
the effects of pollution control upon the industry:
     "The following summary observations might be made:
                                   2-3

-------
     1.  Price movements, except in the smaller foundries are not ex-
         pected to be significant as a result of pollution control
         installation alone.
     2.  Price movements, even when significant in smaller foundries,
         to achieve an adequate return on total assets (10 percent) after
         installing pollution control equipment, may have a negligible
         effect on shifting demand because of the factors causing demand
         to be relatively inelastic in the industry.
     3.  Price increases related to covering pollution control costs pro-
         bably will not result in widespread substitution.
     4.  Costs, profits, and cash flow, while significantly affected, can
         be offset by price increases having a negligible effect on demand,
         and, therefore, will not in themselves significantly affect invest-
         ment decisions to install pollution control devices or alter demand
         patterns.
     5.  The magnitude of the investment commitment to a basically non-
         productive asset, particularly in smaller foundries, may constitute
         a significant barrier.   Fast write-off alone, while benefitting cash
         flow, may not be sufficient inducement to commit capital to pollution
         control  devices.
     6.  Existing data is of little value in quantifying demand shift except
         in a broad, general--v/ay.   Without quantification, few inferences
         can be drawn as to the effect of employment and business failures."
     It is probably accurate to say that if control regulations were more
stringent than the ones evaluated by A. T. Kearney then this would further
hasten the closing of small foundries and accelerate the trend toward larger
new foundries.  Large foundries would be the least affected if control
requirements were more stringent.
                                   2-4

-------
                                 REFERENCES
                                 SECTION 2.0

 1.  Air Pollution Control Technology and Costs in Seven Selected Areas
     (Draft), Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute, Phase III Report submitted
     August 15, 1973, pg. 11.
 2.  Study of the Economic Impacts of Pollution Control on the Iron Foundry
     Industry, A. T. Kearney and Company, Inc., .November 30, 1971, pg.  1-3.
 3.  Ibid, pg. 1-4.
 4.  Ibid, pg. 1-4.
 5.  Ibid, Volume II, Exhibit 19.'
 6.  Emission Study of Industrial Sources of Lead Air Pollutants - 1970.
     W.  E. Davis and Associates, April, 1973, pg. 116.
 7.  Economic Impact of Air Pollution Controls on the Gray Iron Foundry Industry
     (AP-74), National Air Pollution Control Administration, November,  1970,
     pg.  2.
 8.  Ibid, pg. 30.
 9.  Ibid, pg. 78.
1.0.  Ibid, pgs. 33-47.
11.  Study of the Economic Impacts of Pollution Control on the Iron Foundry
   .  Industry, op.cit., pgs.  11-57 to 11-58.
                                     2-5

-------
Section 3.0:  Gasoline Additive Manufacture
Introduction
     The lead antiknock compounds tetraethyl  lead (TEL)  and tetramethyl
lead (TML) are currently produced by four domestic companies which operate
six production plants.  These plants are shown below in  Table 3-1.
                                Table 3-1
    v     U.S. ALKYL LEAD PRODUCTION PLANTS-OWNERSHIP AND CAPACITY (1973)
                                                         Annual  Capacity
     Company and Location                             (Thousand  Short Tons)
1.  E.  I.  DuPont deNemours & Co.                               170
      Antioch, Calif.
      Deepwater, N. J.
2.  Ethyl  Corporation
      Baton Rouge, La.                                         125
      Houston, Texas                                            75
3.  PPG Industries, Inc.                                        50
      Beaumont, Texas
4.  Nalco Chemical Co.                                          35
      Freeport, Texas                                         	
                                                               455
     The industry is currently producing additives at rates that are
approximately 60-80 percent of rated capacity.  Because  of various problems,
both with the emissions of lead to the atmosphere and also the effects of
lead upon the catalytic muffler, there is a definite possibility that lead
antiknock compounds will cease to be used at some point  in the future.  For
this reason no growth is expected in the industry.  Mo new plants are
expected to be built and existing plants are not expected to increase
their capacities.
     The reduction in lead usage will not be immediate.   The following
projection of gasoline lead content shown in Table 3-2 has been  prepared
by Bonner and Moore Associates, Inc., and shows a relatively minor decline
in lead consumption until 1976-1980.  It should be noted that the lead
content of gasoline shown in Table 3-2 is merely the current proposal and
not a final schedule.  A possibility exists that the reduction of lead
usage in gasoline will be more severe than what is shown in Table 3=2.
                                   3-1

-------
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
0.5
0.5
0.5
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.8
3.0
3.0
3.0
, 3.0
3.0
3.0
                                Table 3-2
                  TEL CONTENTS OF SCHEDULE A GASOLINES2
                                1971-1880
                TEL Content (Cm/Gal) for Octane:            % Lead Red'n
Year         93         94        TOO        Average         (1970 Base)
                                               2.0              4%
                                               2.0              4%
                                               1.9              4%
                                               1.8              4%
                                               1.7              7%
                                               1.6             11%
                                               1.3             NA*
                                               1.1             NA
                                               1.0             NA
                                               0.9             44%
*NA - Not available
     Lead emissions from gasoline additive manufacturing are estimated to
average 13.6 pounds per ton.  Total  lead emissions to the atmosphere in
                                                  3
1970 were estimated to be approximately 1900 tons.
Emission Sources and Control Techniques
     Both TEL and TML are produced either by alkylation of a sodium-lead
alloy or by electrolysis of an alkyl grignard reagent.  The use of the
sodium-lead alloy alkylation reaction, however, is the most wide-spread
and accounts for 92 percent of the total alkyl  lead production.  Emissions
from the sodium-lead alloy process originate from the furnace-venting
system (particulates), the process-venting system (vapors), and fugitive
releases (primarily vapors).  Emissions from the electrolytic (grignard
reaction) process originate from the process-venting system (vapors) and
from fugitive releases (primarily vapors).
     Control systems for the sodium-lead alloy process furnace-venting system
generally consist of wet scrubbers or baghouses.  All of the alkyl lead
manufacturers using the sodium-lead process have some type of particulate
control facilities.  The efficiency of the control systems runs either 80-
85 percent or 95-99 percent, depending upon whether the system is old or
new.  Although old systems (generally low-energy wet scrubbers) are being
                                   3-2

-------
replaced by new and improved control systems (generally high-energy
wet scrubbers or baghouses), more than 60 percent of the alky!  lead
production is currently practised using the old low-efficiency control
systems.
     Control systems for the sodium alloy process process-venting system
generally consist of packed column scrubbers.  Currently, TEL manufacturing
units are not equipped with control systems for the process-venting system
because of the relatively low concentrations of TEL vapor in the exhaust
air.  TML manufacturers, however, utilize scrubbing systems.
     The last source of lead emissions from the sodium alloy process is
fugitive emissions.  Currently no emission-control systems are applied
to control fugitive emissions.
     Control techniques for the electrolytic process process-venting
system consist of scrubbers.  Fugitive emissions from the electrolytic
process are not currently controlled.
Control Costs
     Costs for control of lead emissions from gasoline additive manufacturing
plants are based on the following control systems:
     - Low energy wet scrubbers (80-85 percent)
     - High energy wet scrubbers (95-99 percent)
     - Baghouses (99.5-99.9 percent)
     - Packed-bed scrubbers (variable efficiencies)
     Costs for control of the lead recovery furnace by means of various
control systems are shown in Table 3-3.
                                   3-3

-------
                                Table  3-3

                     LEAD  RECOVERY  FURNACE CONTROL COSTS*

                                             CONTROL SYSTEM
Lead Emissions  (Particulates)
- Before control
- After control (avg.)

Capital Cost**
Annual Operation Cost***
Low-Energy
Wet Scrubber
(80-85%)
55 Ib/ton
9.63 Ib/ton
High-Energy
Viet Scrubber
(95-99%)
55 Ib/ton
1.65 Ib/ton
Baghouse
(99.5%)
55 Ib/ton
0.17 Ib/ton
$5/ton cpcty.   $11/ton cpcty.  $23/ton cpcty.
   $1.50 ton       $3.50/ton     $6.90/ton
*Sodium alloy process only.
**Capital costs include equipment purchase cost for collector and auxiliaries
 plus the installation costs.   Retrofit costs also included for the two high-
 efficiency systems above.
***Annual operating costs  include capital-related costs, maintenance, labor,
 and utilities.

     Note that in Table 3-3 the costs of  retrofitting existing plants with

high-efficiency control systems (high-energy wet scrubbers and baghouses)

is .included.  These costs  are included because if these systems were to be

installed it would have to be in a retrofit situation since no new sources

are anticipated.  The existing  low-energy systems, if replaced due to

obsolesence with other low-energy systems, would not incur retrofit costs.

     Costs for control of  the process venting system by means of packed bed

scrubbers are shown in Table 3-4.
                                Table 3-4

                     PROCESS VENTING CONTROL COSTS*

                            TEL Removal Efficiency   TML Removal Efficiency
                             50-60%         T0%~       97JT99.5%

Lead Emissions (Vapors)
- Before control            4 Ib/ton      4 Ib/ton    150 Ib/ton   150 Ib/ton
- After control (avg.)     1.8  Ib/ton   l.Zlb.ton   4.5 Ib/ton   .75 Ib/ton
Capital Cost**               $19/ton      $37/ton'
Annual Operating Cost***    $5.00/ton    $9.00/ton
                       $19/ton      $37/ton
                     $4.50/ton    $8.80/ton
*Sodium alloy process and electrolytic process.
**Capital costs include equipment purchase costs plus installation costs.
***Annuel operating costs include capital related costs, maintenance, labor,
 and utilities.
                                   3-4

-------
     Note that in Table 3-4 the TEL removal efficiencies are considerably
lower than the TML removal efficiencies.  This is due to the fact that
the relatively low TEL concentrations do not provide sufficient driving
forces for high-efficiency scrubbing.
     No costs for control of fugitive emissions have been included.   No
emissions control systems, other than good operating and housekeeping
procedures, are currently being applied in the industry.
Economic Impact
     Since the sodium alloy process accounts for over 90 percent of the
total annual lead additive production, the economic analysis focuses upon
this process.
     Table 3-5 presents an estimate of the cost of applying 99+percent
control efficiencies to the current domestic lead additive manufacturing
industry.  The total capital costs for this level of control for the entire
industry is $25.1 million.  The annual operating costs, not itemized
separately, amount to approximately $4.1 million per year, or $.005  per pound
of motor additive mix produced by the sodium alloy process.
                                Table 3-5
         SODIUM LEAD ALLOY PROCESS CONTROL COSTS @ 99+% EFFICIENCY
Emissions
Parti cul ate*
TEL Vapor**
TML Vapor***
Capital Cost
($MM)
$ 9.5
12.5
3.1
Annual Cost
($MM)

Total                               $25.1                   $4.1
                                                    ($.005/1b motor mix)
*99.5-99.9% efficiency
**70% efficiency
***99.5% efficiency
     When viewed in the perspective of average annual  capital expenditures
for the industry, the above additional capital requirement of $25.1MM does
not seem to be excessive.  (Whereas annual capital expenditures solely
for the gasoline additive industry are not available,  the average capital
expenditure for the period 1970-1972 for all firms manufacturing additives
amounted to $678MM.)  It appears that the industry could raise the
necessary capital for control of emissions at the 99+ percent level.
                                   3-5

-------
     The additional annual costs of approximately $4.1MM,  or $.005 per
pound of motor mix, could probably be absorbed by passing  the costs
forward to the lead additive user.  Based on an average lead additive
content of gasoline of 2.0 grams per gallon the increased  costs of
$.005 per pound of motor mix amount to only 2.2<£ per thousand gallons.
                                   3-6

-------
                                 REFERENCES

                               SECTION 3.0
1.  This section, with the exception of portions specifically referenced,
    is summarized from the report Economics of Lead Removal  in Selected
    Industries, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, August 31,  1973,  pgs.  81-99.

2.  An Economic Analysis of Proposed Schedules for Removal  of Lead  Additives
    from Gasoline, Bonner and Moore Associates, Inc.,  June  25, 1971,  pgs.
    3-3, 4-8.

3.  Emissions Study of Industrial Sources of Lead Air  Pollutants  -  1970,
    W. E. Davis and Associates, April, 1973, pg. 61.
                                3-7

-------
Section 4.0:  Primary Lead Smelters
Introduction
     The domestic lead industry experienced a surge of growth  in  both mine
output and smelter production between 1968 and 1970.   It was at this time
that development and utilization of the New Missouri  Lead Belt was  under-
taken.  This lead belt increased lead reserves in the United States by  a
considerable amount.  Two new lead smelters were constructed in Missouri
in 1968 to process the ores of the New Missouri  Lead Belt.  This  brought
the total of smelters in Missouri to three, and  the national total  to six.
The domestic smelter owners are shown in Table 4-1.
                                Table 4-1
                      DOMESTIC PRIMARY LEAD SMELTERS
                                                         Approximate
       Company                   Smelter Location      Company Capacity
St. Joe Minerals                 Herculaneum, Mo.       225,000 Tons
Bunker Hill (Gulf Resources)     Kellogg, Idaho          130,000
Missouri Lead                    Boss, Mo.              140,000
ASARCO                           Glover, Mo.     ~)
ASARCO                           El Paso, Tex.    (     270,000
ASARCO                           E. Helena, Mont. J  	
                                                        765,000 Tons
     Whereas growth in total lead output is expected to continue  at approxi-
mately 2-3 percent per year, the number of primary lead smelters  is not
expected to increase.  This is due to the fact that the industry  has excess
smelting capacity as a result of the recent increase in the number  of
              2
lead smelters.
     Lead emissions to the atmosphere from primary lead smelters  were
estimated to total 1700 tons in 1970.  This figure includes an estimate
                                               3
of 350 tons for windblown (fugitive) emissions.    This is an average of
approximately 5 Ib per ton of lead produced.
     New Source Performance Standards are in the process of being proposed
for new primary lead smelters.  These standards, still in the  preliminary
draft stage, are as follows:
                                  4-1

-------
     "No gases may be discharged into the atmosphere from any sintering
     machine, electric smelting furnace or converter which contain  sulfur
     dioxide in excess of 0.065 percent by volume (650 ppm).
     No gases may be discharged into the atmosphere from any  blast  fur-
     nace, dross reverberatory furnace or sintering machine discharge  end
     which:
          1.  Contain particulate matter in excess of 50 milligrams per
              normal cubmic meter (0.022 grains per dry standard  cubic
              foot).                                 4
          2.  Exhibit 20 percent opacity or greater."
     Even though a particulate standard is not being required for the
sintering machine, electric furnace, or converter, there still  must be a
high level of particulate control in order to use any of the  sulfur dioxide
control techniques that will meet the proposed standard.
Emission Sources and Control Techniques
     Production of lead is accomplished by the following steps:   sintering
of the lead ore concentrate, reduction of the sintered material in  a blast
furnace to form lead bullion, and refining of the bullion to  remove
impurities.  The lead smelting process, however, only includes  the  two
steps of sintering and reduction.  Lead refining is a separate  operation.
     Particulate emissions are generated in both the sintering  step as well
as the reduction step.  Sintering machines vary with regard to  certain
operating characteristics such as amount of gas recirculation (if any),
number of gas streams emitted, and direction of gas flow through  the
sinter bed (updraft vs. downdraft), but all forms of sintering  machines
emit particles which are generally captured by baghouses.  None of  the
existing lead smelters currently operate any collection equipment that
is more efficient in terms of particulate capture than a baghouse.
     Lead blast furnaces also generally use baghouses for removal of par-
ticulates.  The gases emitted from the blast furnace are first  cooled  with
dilution air prior to passing through the baghouse.
Control Costs
     Control costs for control of particulate emissions from  a  100,000
ton per year lead smelter are shown below in Table 4-2.  The  costs  for
control of the sinter plant particulate emissions represent the costs
                                  4-2

-------
for cleaning the gases prior to entering a sulfuric acid plant,  a  procedure
that would be required under the proposed New Source Performance Standards
for lead smelters.  If control of sulfur dioxide emissions  was not required,
then the cost of removing the particulates from the sinter  plant gas  stream
would be the same order of magnitude as the costs for the blast  furnace
particulate removal.
                                Table 4-2
              PRIMARY LEAD SMELTER PARTICULATE REMOVAL COSTS
                                 Sintering           Blast
                                  Machine           Furnace        Total
Installed Control Capital
-$(M)                             $1600M              140          $1740M
-$/ton capacity                   $16.00             1.40          $17.40
-% of total pit. invest.            3.6%              .3%            3.9%
Annualized Control Costs*
-Direct operating                  $189M              13             202
-Depr. & Cap. Chgs.                 264               19             283

-Total $(M)                        $453M              32             485
-tf/lb Lead                         .23^/lb           .02           .25<£/lb
*Does not include credits for recovered material.
     It is seen that the particulate removal  costs for the sintering  machine
emissions, due to the presence of the acid plant used for sulfur dioxide
control, are considerably in excess of the particulate removal  costs  for
the blast furnace emissions.  It might be pointed  out that a new source
lead smelter, if one was to be built, would be incurring a total  capital
cost of approximately $5 million for control  of the sintering machine
sulfur dioxide and particulate emissions.  The particulate removal  costs
shown above are, therefore, approximately 30 percent of the total  sintering
machine control costs.
Economic Impact
     Particulate removal costs are not expected to present a severe economic
hardship to a new source lead smelter in the remote event that  a new  source
smelter was constructed.  A recent study of the effect of the proposed New
                                  4-3

-------
Source Performance Standards on the domestic lead industry concluded that
the total cost for both particulate removal  and sulfur dioxide control
                                                   5
could be accommodated at a new source lead smelter.
     All existing lead smelters currently recover particulates from both
the sintering operation as well as the blast furnace operation, reportedly
at relatively high collection efficiencies.    It is not expected,  there-
fore, that requirements for a high level  of particulate control at
existing lead smelters would cause any undue economic hardship.
                                   4-4

-------
                              REFERENCES
                              SECTION 4.0
1.   Background Information - Proposed New Source Performance Standards
    for Primary Copper, Zinc, and Lead Smslters, (Draft), August, 1973,
    pg. 6.3-1.
2.   Ibid, pg. 6.3-31.
3.   Emission Study of Industrial Sources of Lead Air Pollutants - 1970,
    W. E. Davis and Associates, April, 1973, pg. 26.
4.   Background Information - Proposed New Source Performance Standards
    for Primary Copper, Zinc, and Lead Smelters, Op.Cit., pg. 1.1-2.
5.   Ibid, pgs. 6.3-31 to 6.3-33.
6.   Ibid, pg. 5.3-5.
                                  4-5

-------
Section 5.0:  Primary Copper Smelters
Introduction
    . The domestic copper industry is comprised of eight companies operating
a total of fifteen primary copper smelters.  These smelters, located pri-
marily in the Western United States due to the copper deposits that
are found there, are shown below in Table 5-1:
                                Table 5-1
                     DOMESTIC PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS1
        Company                    .            Smelter Location

Kennecott Copper Corp.                       McGill, Nev.
                                             Hurley, N. M.
                                             Hayden, Ariz.
                                             Salt Lake City, Utah
Phelps Dodge                                 Douglas, Ariz.
                                             Morenci, Ariz.
                                             Ajo, Ariz.
American Smelting and                        Tacoma, Wash.
Refining Co.                                 Hayden, Ariz.
                                             El Paso, Tex.
The Anaconda Co.                             Anaconda, Mont.
Cities Service Corp.                         Copper Hill,  Tenn.
Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co.          Miami, Ariz.
Newmont Mining Corp.                         San Manuel, Ariz.
Copper Range, Inc.                           White Pine, Mich.
     Growth in total domestic: copper consumption has averaged approximately
3 percent per year between 1961 and 1970.  Some areas of consumption,
however, have grown at a much more rapid rate.  The use of copper in the
electrical and electronics category grew at an average rate  of 9.5 per-
cent per year between 1961 and 1967.   The use of copper in  consumer
goods experienced a growth rate between 1961 and 1971 of 8.5 percent
per year.  In spite of these areas of rapid growth, it is  expected that
future growth in copper consumption will average approximately 3 percent
                                 2
per year over the next few years.   It is expected that two  additional
copper smelters will be constructed by 1980 to accommodate  the additional
                    3
required production.   This incremental capacity will be supplemented  by
expansions at existing smelters.
                                   5-1

-------
     Lead emissions to the atmosphere were estimated to be 1700 tons in  ,
     4
1970.   This estimate is based upon an average control  level  for the
copper industry of 85 percent.
     New Source Performance Standards are in the process of being pro-
posed for primary copper smelters.  These standards, still in the
preliminary draft stage, are as follows:
     "No gases may be discharged to the atmosphere from any affected
     facility which:
     1.  Contain sulfur dioxide in excess of 0.065 percent by volume
         (650 ppm).
     2.  Exhibit 10 percent opacity or greater if a sulfuric acid plant
         is utilized to control,sulfur dioxide emissions."^
     Whereas the above proposed standards are primarily written in such
a way as to limit sulfur dioxide emissions, the limitation of particulate
emissions will also be effected.   This is because the control technology
that is currently available for control of sulfur dioxide emissions
requires that the smelter operator first remove any parti dilates from the
gas stream before it is treated for sulfur dioxide removal.
Emission Sources and Control Techniques
     The process for production of blister (unrefined)  copper consists of
roasting, smelting, and oxidizing.  The purpose of the  roasting step,
carried out in either fluid-bed or multiple-hearth roasters, is to re-
move a portion of the sulfur in the ore.   During this process particulates
are emitted.  The smelting step of the copper production process generally
takes place in reverberatory furnaces.  Only one smelter out of the total
of fifteen smelters utilizes a different type of furnace.  This smelter
uses an electric furnace instead of a reverberatory furnace.   In any
event, particulates are emitted during the smelting operation no matter
what type of furnace is employed.  The last step in the production
process for blister copper, the oxidation step, takes place in a converter
which is also a source of particulate emissions.
     Particulate control devices are generally limited  to high-voltage
electrostatic precipitators.  Baghouses are not currently used for
                                  5-2

-------
particulate removal at existing domestic copper smelters and it is
doubtful that they would be employed at any new installations.   This is
because a combination of high moisture content, high sulfur trioxide
content, and high temperature;; in the smelter gas stream lead to cor-
rosive conditions that are not easily handled in baghouses.  It should be
noted that whenever the gas streams must be treated for removal of sulfur
dioxide then the particulate removal equipment that must precede the sul-
fur dioxide removal equipment must be particularly efficient.
Control Costs
     Control costs for removal of particulates from a new source copper
smelter are shown in Table 5-2.  The smelter configuration chosen for
this exhibit consists of a roaster, a reverberatory furnace, and a
converter.  The gas stream from the converter is ducted along with the
gas stream from the roaster into a sulfuric acid plant for sulfur dioxide
control.  The costs shown in Table 5-2 for particulate removal  for the
roaster and converter represent the costs of cleaning the gas prior to
sulfur dioxide removal in the acid plant.  The discharge gases from the
reverberatory furnace are treated in an electrostatic precipitator.
The smelter size is 85,000 ton/yr of copper.
                                Table 5-2
PARTICULATE
Capital Cost
-$(M)
-$/ton capacity
-% of Pit. Invest.
Annual i zed Costs*
Direct
Capital Related
Total

-------
     It should be noted that the cost of sulfur dioxide removal  for the
above plant, assuming a dual stage acid plant is used as the control
device, raises the capital requirements from $3.6M to $9.7M (9.5 percent
of total plant capital) and increases the annualized costs from  $950M
to approximately $2690M (1.57^/lb of copper).
Economic Impact
     Particulate removal costs of the magnitude shown above in Table 5-2
are not expected to result in adverse economic impact for either new
source smelters or existing smelters.  Total control costs for both sulfur
dioxide emissions and particulate emissions can have adverse economic
impact in certain situations.  This is due primarily to the magnitude of
the sulfur dioxide removal costs, however.  The particulate removal costs
alone are not considered to be large enough to cause adverse economic
impact  for  the average primary copper smelter.
                                   5-4

-------
                               REFERENCES

                               SECTION 5.0


1.  Background  Information  - Proposed New Source Performance Standards
    for Copper, Zinc, and Lead Smelters  (Draft), August, 1973, pg. 6.1-2.

2.   Ibid,  pg. 6.1-20.

3.  Ibid, pg. 6.1-20.

4.  Emission Study of Industrial Sources of Lead Air Pollutants - 1970,
    W. E. Davis and Associates, April, 1973, pg. 28.

5.  Background  Information  - Proposed New Source Performance Standards
    for Copper, Zinc, and Lead Smelters, op.cit., pgs. 1.1-1.2.
                                  5-5

-------
Section 6.0:  Storage Battery Manufacture
Introduction
     The lead-acid storage battery is the most widely used of the several
types of storage batteries.  The value of shipments for lead-acid storage
batteries is estimated at 93% of the total value of shipments for all
storage batteries.  A recent Dun and Bradstreet survey indicated a total
of 240 establishments manufacturing storage batteries in the United
States.  The major battery manufacturers are shown in Table 6-1  below.
                                Table 6-1
                    MAJOR DOMESTIC BATTERY MANUFACTURERS
          Company               '                       Location
ESB, Inc.                                           Philadelphia, Pa.
Gould, Inc.                                          Chicago, 111.
General Battery Corp.                               Reading, Pa.
Globe-Union, Inc.              .                     Milwaukee, Wise.
General Motors Corp.                                Anderson, Ind.
 (Delco-Remy Div.)
Eltra Corp.                                          Toledo, Ohio
 (Prestolite Div.)
     The annual growth rate for lead-acid storage batteries is estimated
at 5 percent per year as compared to 6 percent per year for all  storage
batteries.   The principal factors in the growth of lead-acid batteries
have been the increase in the number of new motor vehicles and the growing
number of vehicles on the roa.d which require replacement batteries.
Assuming that all new plants are average-sized, an average growth rate  of  5
percent per year means that approximately 13 new battery plants  will  be
constructed each year over the next five years.
     Lead emissions to the atmosphere from battery plants were estimated
                    2
at 480 tons in 1970.   This is equivalent to approximately 11 Ib of lead
per battery plant per day.
Emissions Sources and Control Techniques
     The only emission sources and control technique considered  in this
section will be the processes; and techniques applicable to the battery
                                   6-1

-------
production process.  The processes dealing with preparation of the lead
oxide, a step that is included in a significant number of battery plants,
is covered in another section of this report.
     The major sources of particulate emissions in a battery manufacturing
plant are the lead melting pots, casting machines, oxide mixing,  and
pasting and assembly.  The lead melting pots can be the major source of
lead particulate emissions.  Fumes of lead oxide occur when molten lead
alloy is transferred to the grid casting machines.  Also, lead oxide dust
occurs during the oxide mixing step when the mixture is dumped.  The
major sources of emission at the pasting machines are the dry paste
accumulated on the machines and the transfer of paste to the machines.
In the assembly step the insertion of the separators and welding  of
the elements are the sources of lead emissions.
     Emissions during the battery manufacturing process are generally
controlled by means of baghouses.
Control Costs
     An estimate of particulate control costs for control of emissions
from a 5000 battery/day battery plant is shown in Table 6-2.  Costs
shown are for baghouse filters plus auxiliary equipment such as hoods,
ducting, and blowers.
                                Table 6-2
                       BATTERY PLANT CONTROL COSTS
Investment                                              $170,000
Direct Operating Cost                                   $  8,300/yr
Depreciation                                              17,000
Interest                                                  17,000
Total Cost                                              $ 42,300/yr
^/Battery                                                  2.6
-------
Economic Impact
    . Neither the additional capital costs nor the additional  operating
costs for control of lead participate emissions from battery manufac-
turing plants appear to be significant with regard to economic impact.
At an estimated manufacturer1.'; cost of $10 per battery,  approximately
one-third to one-half of the retail value, the additional  control  costs
represent only 0.26 percent of sales.  It does not appear unreasonable
to assume that prices could be raised sufficiently to cover a cost increase
of this magnitude.  Even if costs for control of lead emissions from the
lead oxide preparation step are added to the costs shown above it  still
does not appear that there would' be significant economic impact upon the
battery manufacturing industry.
                                   6-3

-------
                               REFERENCES

                               SECTION 6.0
1.   This section, with the exception of portions specifically referenced,
    is summarized from the report, Screening Study to Develop Background
    Information and Determine the Significance of Emissions from Lead
    Battery Manufacture, Vulcan-Cincinnati, inc., December 4, 1972.

2.   Emission Study of Industrial Sources of Lead Air Pollutants - 1970,
    W. E. Davis and Associates;, April, 1973, pg. 53.
                                   6-4

-------
Section 7.0:  Primary Zinc Smelters
Introduction
  .   The domestic zinc industry has undergone a period of change in the
past few years.  Seven primary zinc smelters have closed since 1968.
Domestic slab zinc capacity in 1968 was approximately 1,300,000 tons per
year of slab zinc.  Fourteen primary slab zinc smelters were in operation
in 1968; in 1972 the number of primary slab zinc smelters totalled seven.
The rash of closings has been due to a number of factors, some of which
were out-dated operating techniques, rising raw material costs, rising
wages, high transportation costs, and pollution control requirements.
The structure of the domestic slab zinc industry is summarized in Table
7-1.
                                Table 7-1
                        DOMESTIC SLAB ZINC CAPACITY*
           Company               Smelter Location     Approximate Capacity
ASARCO                         Amarillo, Tex.              55,000 Tons
ASARCO                         Corpus Christi, Tex.       108,000
Blackwell Zinc (AMAX)          Blackwell, Ok.              88,000
National Zinc                  Bartlesville, Ok.           63,000
New Jersey Zinc                Palmerton, Pa.             118,000
St.  Joe Minerals               Monaca, Pa.                225,000
Bunker Hill (Gulf Resources)   Kellogg, Idaho             109,000
                                                          766,000 Tons
*Does not include ASARCO's zinc oxide plant at Columbus, Ohio.
     The structure of the domestic zinc industry is still in a  state of
flux.  The closing of the ASARCO smelter in Amarillo, Texas has been
announced, as has the closing of the AMAX (Blackwell  Zinc) facility in
Blackwell, Oklahoma.  The future of the National Zinc smelter in Bartles-
ville, Oklahoma is also in doubt.  AMAX plans to open a smelter in Depue,
Illinois that it recently purchased, and ASARCO has announced that it is
considering building a new primary zinc smelter on the Ohio River in
Kentucky.  There are indications that another new smelter may also be
constructed, but this is only a tentative conclusion.  The net  result of
these assorted closings, openings, and re-openings is that there will

-------
probably be 6-8 smelters in operation by 1980 with a total  industry capa-
city of 825,000-1,050,000 ton;; of slab zinc per year.   Growth in demand
for slab zinc is expected to average 3-4 percent per year during the
period 1971-1975.
     Lead emissions to the atmosphere from primary zinc smelters have
                                   2
been estimated at 240 tons in 1970.    Total lead emissions  to the atmos-
phere are estimated to have declined somewhat from this figure due to the
smelter closings mentioned above.
     New Source Performance Standards are in the process of being proposed
for primary zinc smelters.  These standards, still in the preliminary
draft stage, are as follows:
     "No gases may be discharged to the atmosphere from any roaster which
     contain sulfur dioxide in excess of 0.065 percent by volume (650 ppm).
     No gases may be discharged into the atmosphere from any sintering
     machine which:
     1.  Contain particulate matter in excess of 50 milligrams per normal
         cubic meter (0.022 grains per dry standard cubic foot).
                                                3
     2.  Exhibit 20 percent opacity or greater."
Whereas a particulate emission standard is not specifically proposed for the
roasting operation, it should be noted that particulate removal  is necessary
if the roaster gas is to be treated in any conventional sulfur dioxide
removal system.
Emission Sources and Control Techniques
     The smelting of zinc ores is carried out by either a pyrometallurgica-1
process or a combination pyrometallurgical-electrolytic extraction process.
In the pyrometallurtical process the ore is first roasted to remove some
sulfur, then sintered to form a feed for the reduction step, then reduced
to form zinc metal.  In each of the above steps particulates are emitted
to the atmosphere.  Whereas the degree of particulate emissions is generally
the same for most roasters and also for most sintering machines, there is
a great deal of difference in the degree of particulate emisisons from
the various reduction operations.  A horizontal retort reduction operation
emits a large quantity of particulatts whereas either a vertical retort
reduction step or an electrothermic reduction step emits very little, if
                  4
any, particulates.
                      \
                                   7-2

-------
     Control of particulates is accomplished by electrostatic precipi-
tators or baghouses for the roasting and sintering operations described
above.  No participate control is generally employed in the reduction
process.  This is due to the extremely large gas volumes that would have
to be treated if the horizontal retort method was employed or else due
to the extremely low level of particulate emissions that occur with either
the vertical retort method or the electrothermic method.  It should be
noted that whenever sulfur dioxide control is required the gas stream
is generally treated quite thoroughly for particulate removal.
     In the combination pyrometallurgical-electrolytic extraction process
the zinc ore is first roasted to form a calcine in a manner similar to
the pytometallurgical process.  The zinc metal is then electrolytically
extracted from the calcine.  In this process only the pyrometallurgical
roasting step is a source of particulate emissions.  Control techniques
for particulate removal for this process are identical to the control
techniques described above, namely electrostatic precipitators and
baghouses.
Control Costs
     Costs for control of particulate emissions in a new source pyro-
metallurgical zinc smelter with a capacity of 100,000 tons per year are
shown below in Table 7-2.  The costs shown for control of the roaster
emissions are for the gas cleaning equipment that would be used in
conjunction with an acid ple-.nt for control of sulfur dioxide emissions.
If no sulfur dioxide control was required then the cost of particulate
removal would more nearly approximate the costs shown for the sintering
step only.
                                Table 7-2
PARTICULATE CONTROL
Control Capital
M)
ton capacity
of Pit. Invest.
COSTS - NEW SOURCE
Roast
$1 740M
17.40
3.5%
PYROMETALLURGICAL
Sinter
154
1.54
0.3%
ZINC SMELTER
Total
$1894M
18.94
3.8%
                                  7-3

-------
                            Table 7-2 (Con't)
Annualized Costs*         Roast             Sinter             Total
Direct           '         $242M               18                260
Capital Related            290                20                310
Total $(M)                $532M               38                570
     Zinc                  .27i              .02               .29$
*Does not include credit for recovered material.
     Table 7-2 shows the total costs for parti cul ate removal from a con-
ventional new source zinc smelter, assuming that no parti cul ate control
equipment is needed for control of the reduction operation.  This require-
ment excludes a horizontal retort reduction operation.  The vertical
retort reduction step, as we'll ,as the electrothermic reduction step, was
assumed not to require a parti cul ate removal system.
     Costs for parti cul ate control at a new source electrolytic smelter,
assuming that an acid plant was used for sulfur dioxide control, would be
approximately S1740M for capital requirements and $532M/yr for annual ized
costs.  This is because no sintering machine is used in an electrolytic
zinc smelter.  Since basic capital costs for an electrolytic zinc smelter
are higher than a pyrometallurgical smelter, the capital cost of $1740M
represents 2.2 percent of the total plant investment.
Economic Impact
     Particulate removal costs are not expected to impose an adverse
economic impact upon new source zinc smelters.  A recent study of the
proposed New Source Performance Standards for primary zinc smelters
indicated that control costs for both particulate removal and sulfur
dioxide removal could be accommodated at new source zinc smelters.
It might be noted that sulfur dioxide removal costs for a new source
electrolytic smelter would add approximately $3.9 million to the $1.7
million in capital requirements shown above and would add approximately
$1.1 million in annualized costs to the $.5 million shown in Table 7-2.
     Particulate removal costs are not expected to generate an adverse
economic impact at existing smelters that do not utilize the horizontal
retort reduction step.  This is because particulate removal costs at
smelters that do not utilize the horizontal retort are relatively minor.

                                 7-4

-------
At smelters utilizing the horizontal retort reduction process, however,
there is a definite adverse economic impact generated by the current
state requirements to control particulate emissions.   As mentioned pre-
viously, both the ASARCO smelter at Amarillo, Texas,  and the Blackwell
Zinc Smelter at Blackwell, Oklahoma, are expected to  close.   The closing
of these two smelters is believed to be primarily due to the particulate
standards that the smelters would have to face if they were  to remain
open.  It should also be noted that one reason that has been advanced
to explain the closing of a number of'smelters that are no longer in
operation is that the cost of particulate removal from the horizontal
retort reduction step was excessive.
                                  7-5

-------
                               REFERENCES
                               SECTION 7.0

1.  Background  Information - Proposed New Source Performance Standards
    for Copper, Zinc, and LeiacT'Smelters, (Draft), August, 1973, pg. 6.2-1
2.  Emission Sudy of  Industrial Sources of Lead Air Pollutants - 1970,
    W. E. Davis and Associates, August, 1973, pg. 32.
3.  Background  Information - Proposed New Source Performance Standards
    for Copper, Zinc, and Lead Smelters, op.cit., pg. 1.1-2.
4.  Ibid, pgs 3.1-157 to 3.1-161.
5.  Ibid, pgs.  6.2-31-A to 6.2-38.
                                  7-6

-------
Section 8.0:  Secondary Lead Smelters
Introduction
     The secondary lead industry processes  lead scrap  into  various alloys
or into pure lead metal.  The recovered product is  then  sold  directly or
is fabricated into final products such as storage batteries,  pigments,
or castings.
     Approximately 23 companies own secondary lead  facilities.  There
is a total of approximately 45 secondary lead smelting plants in  the
United States.   Table 8-1 lists the companies owning  secondary lead
smelting plants.
Table 8-1


1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
OWNERSHIP OF SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING
Owner
NL Industries
Murph Metals
Gould, Inc.
St. Joe Minerals Company
Arron Electronics, Inc.
General Battery
Conrex Corp.
Seitzinger's, Inc.
East Pennsylvania Manufacturing Co.
American Smelting and Refining Co.
Northwestern Smelting and Refining Co.
Memphis Lead Co.
Dixie Industries, Inc.
Allied Smelting Corp.
Industrial Smelting Co.
Willard Lead Products
Gulf Coast Lead Co.
Acco Mining Co.
North American Smelting Co.
Hyman, Vieners and Sons
Aetna Smelting and Refining Co.
U.S. Smelting, Refining, and Mining Co.
Inland Metals Refining Co.
PLANTS
Number of Plants
13
2
3
3
1
1
2
1
1
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
                                                              45
SOURCE:  Compilation of data from Metal  Statistics  Yearbook,  American
         Bureau of Metal Statistics (New York:1969) pg.  64;  Industry
         Reports, Dun and Bradstreet, Inc.;  and data collected through
         company contact.

                                  8-1

-------
     Production of secondary lead has tended to be cyclical  over the past
10 years with an overall growth trend of approximately 3 percent per
     2
year.   This pace is expected to continue for the foreseeable future, due
mainly to the increasing demand for lead storage batteries.   It is
believed that approximately two new plants per year can be expected
through 1975.
     Lead emissions to the atmoshpere from secondary lead smelters were
estimated to total 220 tons in 1970.3
     New Source Performance Standards have been proposed for new secondary
lead smelters and refineries that would limit particulate emissions from
blast furnaces and reverberatory furnaces.  Pot furnaces with a charging
capacity of more than 250 kilograms would be subject to visible emission
limitations only.  The proposed standards would limit particulate
emissions from blast and reverberatory furnaces to 0.022 gr/DSCF and
would limit visible emission:; to 20 percent opacity.  The proposed stan-
dard for pot furnaces would limit visible emissions to less  than 10 per-
             4
cent opacity.
Emission Sources and Control Techniques
     Emissions of particulate matter to the atmosphere from secondary
lead furnaces can be 30-40 Ib per ton of lead produced if only centrifugal
dust collectors, settling chambers, or low-energy scrubbers  are used. A
well-controlled secondary lead smelter would use baghouses or high-energy
scrubbers to control emissions.  When baghouses are used to  control blast
furnace emissions an afterburner is usually used before the  baghouse in
order to incinerate any materials that would blind the fabric.  An after-
burner is not needed for the reverberatory furnace or for the pot furnace
control system.
Control Costs
     Control costs have been developed for two representative new source
secondary lead smelters.  These costs represent the level  of expense
required by the proposed New Source Performance Standards.   The costs  are
presented in Table 8-2 below:

                                  8-2

-------
                                Table 8-2
           CONTROL COSTS FOR NEW SOURCE SECONDARY LEAD SHELTERS
                                   Model A                     Model  B
Furnace Type                     Reverbatory                    Blast
Furnace Size                       50 tons                       50
Control Equipment               U-Tube Cooler               U-Tube Cooler
                                Fabric Filter               Fabric Filter
                                                             Afterburner
Capital Cost                        $188M                       $157M
Annualized Cost* - Total             $21M                        $51M
                 - $/Ton            $1.65                       $4.05
*Includes capital charges and credit for recovered material.
Economic Impact
     Based upon an average sales price of approximately $300 per ton  of lead,
the annualized costs of $1.65--$4.05/ton are equal to 0.6-1.4 percent  of
sales price.  This level of additional annual cost could probably be
recovered in general price increases in the industry.  Even if price
increases of an amount equal to the control costs shown above is not
possible it does not appear as; if a significant adverse economic impact
would be imposed upon the secondary lead industry.  Of course, individual
firms with low profit margins that are forced to retrofit control equipment
to reach a level of control  equivalent to the proposed New Source Perfor-
mance Standard could experience some difficulties.  It is not known how
many firms would fall into this category.
     The additional capital  costs shown in Table 8-2 of $157,000-$188,000
per 50-ton furnace are equivalent to approximately 16-18 percent of an
uncontrolled furnace capital requirement of $1,000,000.  Whereas this
amount is not insignificant, it was not deemed to be great enough to
prohibit the installation of new source secondary lead smelters.  Again,
individual firms with diminished profitability may incur serious financing
problems if retrofit control technology was utilized.
                                   8-3

-------
                               REFERENCES
                               SECTION 8.0
1.  The Economic Impact of New Source Performance Standards Upon the Secon-
    dary Lead Smelting Industry, Robert J. Elias and Gary F.  Evans,
    January, 1972, pgT 1.
2.  Ibid, pg. 2.
3.  Emission Study of Industrial Sources of Lead Air Pollutants - 1970,
    W. E. Davis and Associates, April, 1973, pg. 39.
4.  Background Information for Proposed New Source Performance Standards
    (APTD-1352A), June, 19737 pg. 37.
5.  Ibid, pgs. 37-38.
                                 8-4

-------
Section 9.0:  Lead Oxide Production

Introduction

    . Of the total amount of lead oxide consumed in 1971  of almost 500

thousand short tons, approximately 83 percent was estimated to be used

in storage batteries.  The remainder is primarily used in the manufacture

of pigments.  There are four main types of lead oxides:   white lead oxide,

red lead oxide, litharge, and black oxide.  Black oxide, the most widely

used form of lead oxide, is actually a mixture of lead and litharge.

Black oxide is produced by battery manufacturers for their own use.
The producers of lead oxide (excluding black oxide) are  shown below in

Table 9-1.  The major battery manufacturers are shown in Table 9-2.
                                Table 9-1

   LEAD OXIDE MANUFACTURERS, EXCLUDING MANUFACTURERS OF  BLACK
Lead Oxide, Yellow (Lead Monoxide) (Lead Oxide) (Litharge)  (Plumbous Oxide)
American Smelting and Refining Co.
The Bunker Hill Co.(c)
Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.
  Chems. and Metals.Division
National Lead Co.(c'
Evans Lead Division
Morris P. Kirk & Son, Inc.
Hammond Lead Products, Inc.
Southeastern Lead Co. (SELCO)
Denver, Colorado
Seattle, Washington

Joplin, Missouri
Atlanta, Georgia
Brooklyn, New York
Chicago, Illinois
Dallas, Texas
Oakland, California
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
St. Louis, Missouri
Charleston, West Virginia
Los Angeles, California
Hammond, Indiana
Columbus, Georgia
Lead Oxide, Red (Plumbo-Plumbfc Oxide) (Red Lead)
The Bunker Hill Co
Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.
  Chems. and Metal Division
National Lead Co.(c)
Seattle, Washington

Joplin, Missouri
Atlanta, Georgia
Brooklyn, New York
Chicago, Illinois
Dallas, Texas
Oakland, California
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
St. Louis, Missouri
                                   9-1

-------
                            Table 9-1 (Con't)


Evans Lead Division                             Charleston, West Virginia
Morris P. Kirk & Son, Inc.                      Los Angeles, California
Hammond Lead Products, Inc.                     Hammond, Indiana

Lead Dioxide (Lead Peroxide) (Lead Oxide, Brown)

Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.
  Chems. and Metals Division                    Joplin, Missouri
Hummel Chem. Co., Inc.                          Newark, New Jersey
                                                South Plainfield, New Jersey
Mallinckrodt Chem. Works                        St. Louis, Missouri
Pacific Engineering & Production
  Co. of Nevada                                 Henderson, Nevada
The Shepherd Chem. Co.                          Cincinnati, Ohio


Source:  Chemical Economic Handbook, Stanford'Research Institute, October,
1968, and Battelle-Columbus Laboratories.

(a)  Black oxides are produced by storage battery manufacturers, for internal
     use.
(b)  Now owned by Gulf Resources and Chemical Corp.
(c)  Now called NL Industries, Inc.
                                Table 9-2
                   MAJOR DOMESTIC BATTERY MANUFACTURERS
       Company                                              Location

ESB, Inc.                                              Philadelphia, Pa.
Gould, Inc.                                            Chicago, 111.
General Battery Corp.                                  Reading, Pa.
Globe-Union, Inc.                                      Milwaukee, Wise.
General Motors Corp.
 (Delco-Remy Div.)                                     Anderson, Ind.
Eltra Corp
 (Prestoute Div.)                                      Toledo, Ohio
     While black oxide is undoubtedly manufactured by battery companies

other than those listed above, it is likely that these companies manufacture

60-70 percent of all black oxides produced.  The total number of battery
                                                   2
plants in 1972 was estimated at 240 establishments.

     In Table 9-3 below the production of lead oxides is divided into two

categories in order to approximate the future growth in non-battery-use

lead oxides.  Note that whereas the total production of lead oxides has
increased by an average of 7.8 percent per year between 1967 and 1971,

                                   9-2

-------
the production of lead oxides for non-battery uses has declined by an
average of 3.5 percent per year.  For this reason no new non-battery-use
lead, oxide plants are expected in the near future.
                                Table 9-3
                       DOMESTIC LEAD OXIDE PRODUCTION
                                TT67-1971
                                                             Average
                                    1967          1971        Growth
Battery Oxides (Black Oxide     299.2 M Tons     421.3      8.9% per yr
 and Litharge)
Other Oxides (White Lead         37.0             32.3     (3.3%) (Decrease)
 and Red Lead)
                                336.2            453.6      7.8% per year
     Lead emissions from lead oxide production plants (including battery
oxide plants) were estimated at 0.7 Ib per ton of lead  processed.   During
                                                       3
1970, total lead emissions were approximately 140 tons.
Emission Sources and Control Techniques
     One method of lead oxide production is by tumbling pieces of lead in
a modified ball mill.  After start-up the oxidation is  self-sustaining and
can be controlled by the humidity in the large volume of inflowing air.
The airflow picks up the oxide powder plus some finely  divided lead
particles.  The powder is usually collected by three successive techniques:
settling chambers, cyclones or centrifugal mills, and baghouses.
     The next most common method of lead oxide production is the Barton
Pot.  Once the lead is heated, the incoming air oxidizes the lead exothermally
and carries off the lead oxide plus some unoxidized lead.
     Another form of lead oxide production is the reverberatory furnace
which is used primarily for litharge production.
     Control techniques for both the Barton pot and the reverberatory fur-
nace production methods are similar to the control techniques used for
control of particulate emissions from the modified ball  mill.
Control Costs
     Control costs for representative control systems are shown in Table
9-4.  The control costs shown in Table 10-4 have been based on a typical
battery wide plant since the major application of lead  oxides is in
batteries.  It is believed t'nat the costs for non-battery-use lead oxide
emission controls would be similar in magnitude.
                                   9-3

-------
                                Table 9-4
               BATTERY OXIDE PLANT PARTICULATE CONTROL COSTS*
Control
Equipment
Settling Chamber
Cyclone
Baghouse
Sub-Total
Add'l Baghouse
Capital
Cost
$ 4,300
8,800
31,700
$44,800
31,700
Annual ized Estimated Collection
Cost** Efficiency (Incremental)
$ 800/yr
1,410
5,790
$ 8,000/yr
5,790
50 %
30
19.95
99.95 %
.049
Total                $76,500    ,$13,790/yr             99.999%
*Costs based on 4300 ton/yr lead oxide production.
**Costs include capital charges but no credits for recovered material.
Economic Impact
     From Table 9-4 it is seen that annualized costs for a lead oxide
plant operating at a collection efficiency of 99.95 percent amount  to
$8,000/yr, or approximately $1.86 per ton of lead oxide produced.   At a
collection efficiency of 99.999 percent the annualized cost increases by
$1.35/ton to a total of $3.21 per ton of lead oxide produced.  It  is
believed that the cost of a 99.95 percent collection efficiency is  already
incorporated into the current price for lead oxide of approximately $333/ton.
That means that if a control efficiency of 99.99 percent was desired  then
a price increase of approximately $1.35/ton of lead oxide would be  required.
This increase, equivalent to 0.4 percent of the current price, appears
insignificant.  It also appears that the incremental capital requirement of
$31,700 for an additional baghouse would exert little financial strain  upon
the average lead oxide plant.
                                   9-4

-------
                               REFERENCES
                               SECTION 9.0
1.  This section, with the exception of portions  specifically  referenced,
    is summarized from the report, Economics of Lead Removal in  Selected
    Industries, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, August 31,  1973,  pgs.  53-70.

2.  Screening Study to Develop Background Information and  Determine  the
    Significance of Emissions from Lead Battery Manufacture, Vulcan-Cin-
    cinnati, Inc., December 4, 1972, pg.  1.

3.  Emission Study of Industrial  Sources  of  Lead  Air Pollutants  - 1970,
    W. E.  Davis and Associates, April,  1973, pg.  44.
                                   9-5

-------
Section 10.0:  Tin Can Manufacturing (Solder)
Introduction
    Metal can manufacturing Is an industry consisting of over one hundred
companies operating approximately three hundred plants.  The industry is
quite concentrated, with the four largest companies in 1967 accounting
for 73 percent of total can shipments.   Growth in the value of shipments
of all metal cans averaged 6.6 percent per year for the period 1958 to
1970, spurred by the use of metal cans for beverage containers.  Whereas
future growth in metal can shipments is predicted at an annual rate of
3.7 percent per year during the 1970's, the grov/th in shipments of cans
requiring solder is considerably less than this.  The reason for this is
that, cans that do not require solder are being used more and more in the
beverage can market.  The use of soldered cans in the non-beverage can
market, a market with an historically low growth rate, will be offset
by the decline in the use of soldered cans for beverages.  The result
will be that by 1975 the total soldered can production could drop to
50 billion cans from a 1973 estimated level of 65 billion cans.  By
1980 the production of soldered cans could drop to 30-40 billion cans,
a decrease of 6-10 percent from the estimated 1973 level.  There may not
be a corresponding drop in the number of souces producing soldered cans;
rather it might be expected that existing sources would cut back on their
production and that new sources may specialize in non-soldered cans.  In
any event, growth in the number of sources is not expected.
    Emissions from a can manufacturing plant are generated at the rate
of approximately 3 pounds per ton of lead contained in the solder.
                                                                  2
Emissions in the United States in 1970 were estimated at 110 tons.
Emission Sources and Control Techniques
    Lead emissions are generated at two locations in a can-manufacturing
plant.  The two sources are the solder bath and the wiping station.  Of
the total annual lead emissions of approximately 110 tons, about 20 per-
cent result from solder bath emissions and 80 percent from wiping station
emissions.  Solder bath emi.'jsion control systems consist of cyclones,
wet scrubbers, or baghouses,,  Wiping station emissions could also be
controlled by cyclones, wet scrubber, or baghouses.
                                 10-1

-------
Control Costs
     Control costs for various control levels for both the solder bath and
the -wiping station are shown in Table 10-1.  Note that costs have been
calculated for control of total particulate emissions with the use of
high-efficiency cyclones, low efficiency wet scrubbers, and baghouses.
The costs shown in Table 10-1 are not adjusted for retrofit costs.  The
cost of retrofitting an existing plant would vary not only with the type
of control equipment, but more importantly, with the configuration of the
specific plant in question.
Economic Impact
     To measure the economic impact of emission standards two viewpoints
were taken:  first, the impact of the capital investment needed to meet
standards and second, the impact of the increased operating costs.  The
impacts are discussed with regard to a can line (in effect, a one-can-line
company) and with regard to likely impact on small and large can makers.
     Capital investment requirements to meet standards will be discussed
first.  Industry sources indicate that a can line will cost between $1 million
and $1-1/2 million.  Preceding calculations indicate that for 45 to 99.9
percent lead removal at both the solder and wiping stations, a cost of
$4,930 to $14,100 would be incurred.  This amounts to 0.3 to 1.4 percent
of can-line costs and, therefore, indicates that capital costs for lead-
emission control are low compared to the capital cost of the can-making
equipment.
     According to U.S. Department of Commerce figures, capital expenditures
by the metal-can industry were $137.9 million dollars in 1970.  The
estimate of equipment cost for industry control of lead emissions (at the
45 percent and 99.9 percent efficiency level) is $2.2 million and $6.5
million, respectively or 1.6 to 4.7 percent of 1970 capital expenditures.
Large can companies would generally be in the best position to raise the
capital needed; however, these are the very companies that have installed
                                  10-2

-------
                                ESTIMATED COST OF  SUMMARY  OF EMISSIONS  FROM CAN-LINE  SOLDERING OPERATIONS
One Can Line
• Type cf Equipment
jf
No Control
High-Efficiency Cyclone
Low-Efficiency Wet Scrubber
Ba£i;oiJ5c
No Control V
High-Efficiency Cyclone
Low-Efficiency Wet Scrubber
Baghousc
No Control
High-Efficiency Cyclone
Low-Efficiency Wet Scrubber
Baghouje
Removal
Efficiency
percent

45
15
99.9

45
15
99.9

45
15
99.9
Estimated
Capital Cost,
dollars

« o czn
V> ut uuv
4, 080
7.600

2,280
3,510
6.500

4.930
7.590
14, 100
Estimated
Annual Operating
Cost, dollars
Solder Bath Control
..
<> 520
840
1,320
Wiplng-Station Control
•»•
410
650
1.030
(M
Total Can Linev
•>•
930
1.490
2.350

Estimated
Capital Cost,
million
dollars

SI. 2
1.8-
3.4

1.0
1.5
2.9

2.2
3.3
6.5
Metal Can Industry
• Estimated
Annual
Operating Cost.
million dollars

0.23
0.38
0.59
^
0.18
0.29
0.46

0.41
0.67
1.05

Lead Emissions,
tons/year
21.7
11.9
4.5
0.02
92.7
51.0
2.3
o.i
114.4 .
62.9
6.8
0.12
Source;  Cost data from National Air Pollution Control Administration, "Control Techniques for Paniculate Air Pollutants",  Dept. HEW, NAPCA
        Publ. No.  AP-51, 19C9.  Data corrected to February, 1973.  •
(a)  Includes depreciation and other capital charges at 13.37 per year.
(b)  Even if one control unit is used for both the solder bath and wiping station total can line costs will be approximately the same as when two
    separate control units are used.

-------
and are installing TFS and two-piece can lines, which do not require a
soldering operation.  The small merchant can companies are generally not
in a relatively good position for raising capital, and these are the
firms that operate a higher proportion of soldered can lines.
     Turning now to the question of the impact of increased operating costs on
the can industry, the Bureau of Domestic Commerce reported metal can ship-
ment of $4.14 billion in 1972,.  Further, it reported consumption of aluminum
and steel equivalent to 84.5 billion 12-ounce cans.   Thus, the average price
of a can in 1972 is estimated to be 4.9<£.  At the 45 percent lead removal,
estimated operating costs for emissions controls are $930.  At the model
can-line porduction rate of 144 million cans per year, this amounts to an
annual cost increase of 0.64<£ per thousand cans or 0.013 percent.  If
99.9 percent lead removal is desired, operating costs of $2,350 will be
incurred.  This would increase annual can costs by 1.6<£ per thousand or
by 0.032 percent.
     If this slight increase in costs is passed along in sales price, the
soldered metal can will be placed at a very minor disadvantage in compe-
tition with other types of non-soldered containers.   Since soldered cans
are currently losing markets to other types of metal cans, it is likely
that lead-emission control specifications will assist to a small degree in
the demise of the soldered can.  The swing of the economic balance in
favor of the non-soldered can will have the greatest negative impact on
small can manufacturers.  This is true because the smaller companies
will have a higher proportion of .solder can production than the large
companies.
     If the lead-control costs are absorbed by the can maker, rather than
the buyer, then profit margins will drop.  The profit margins of the two
largest can makers have ranged between 14.1 and 9.8 percent in the past
4 years, while profits as a percent of sales were 2.7 to 5.1 percent.
Limited data on small can producers indicate profits as a percent of
sales were in the 2.0 to 3.0 range for 1968 to 1969.  It appears that the
increased cost of lead-emission control can be absorbed by the can manu-
facturers; the larger companies will oe better able to absorb the increased
cost.
                                  10-4

-------
                              REFERENCES

                             SECTION 11.0
1.  This section, with the exception of portions specifically referenced,
    is summarized from the report, Economics of Lead Removal  in  Selected
    Industries, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, August 31,  1973,  pgs.  71-80.

2.  Emission Study of Industrial Sources of Lead Air Pollutants  - 1970,
    W. E. Davis and Associates, April, 1973, pg. 80.
                               10-5

-------
Section 11.0:  Pigment Manufacture
Introduction
     The four major lead pigments are red lead,  white lead,  lead  chromates,
and leaded zinc oxides.  Minor lead-based pigment materials  include
molybdenum orange, lead antirronite, oxychloride  of lead,  blue  basic lead
sulfate, dibasic lead phosphate, and lead metal  flakes.   The consumption
volume of these minor lead-based pigment materials is low.
     Table 11-1 details the 12 domestic producers of lead-based pigments
and the 23 locations at which the various pigments are produced.
                               Table 11-1
                 DOMESTIC PRODUCERS OF LEAD-BASED PIGMENTS
     Company
NL Industries
American Smelting
and Refining Co.
The Bunker Hill Co.
Eagle Picher Ind.
Kewanee Oil Co.
Allied Chemical
J.T. Baker Chem. Co.
E. I. DuPont
Hercules
Mineral Pigments Corp.
Prince Mfg. Co.
New Jersey Zinc Co.
    Location
Charleston, W. Va.
Atlanta, Ga.
Brooklyn, N. Y.
Chicago, 111.
Dallas, Tex.
Oakland, Cal.
St., Louis, Mo.
LO:J Angeles, Cal.
Perth Amboy, N. J.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Denver, Co.
E. Helena, Mont.
Seattle, Wash.
Joplin, Mo.
Louisville, Ky.
Elyria, Ohio
Marcus Hook, Pa.
Phillipsburg, N. J.
Newark, N. 0.
Glen Falls, N. Y.
Muirkirk, Mo.
Bowenstown, Pa.
Quincy, 111.
        Product
Red lead, white lead
Red lead
Red lead
Red lead, white lead
Red lead, white lead
Red lead, white lead
Red lead, lead chromate,
white lead
Red lead
White lead
White lead
Red lead
White lead
Red lead, white lead
Red lead, white lead
Lead chromate
White lead
Lead chromate
Lead chromate, white
lead
Lead chromate
Lead chromate
Lead chromate
Leaded zinc oxides
Leaded zinc oxides
                                  11-1

-------
     There are numerous factors affecting future growth  in  the  lead  pig-
ment industry.  Probably the most important factor is  the legislation
regarding lead-based paints.  Legislation is profuse at  the national,
state, and local levels to reduce the hazard to children of being
poisoned from eating paint flakes containing lead pigments.   Five  bills
pertaining to lead in paints are now in Congress.  Senate Bill  606
("Lead in Paint") seems to have the least resistance from paint industry
officials.  The Bill calls for 0.06 percent (600 ppm)  maximum lead con-
tent in "Trade" sales paint effective January 1, 1974.   The exception  is
if HEW research, prior to that date, shows that a higher concentration
between 0.06 percent and 0.5 percent maximum lead content could be
shown not harmful to children.  The relevance of this  legislation  becomes
apparent when one realizes that until recently 3-7 percent  lead content
in paints was standard.
     Manufacturers report that roughly half of the $3  million paint  market
is for "Trade" sales while the other half is for "Industrial  and Govern-
ment" sales.  Many of the large companies having well-diversified  product
lines report that consumption of lead pigments for "Trade"  sales is  only
1-2 percent of what it was four to five years ago.  In a similar fashion,
the "Industrial and Government" category sales are consuming only  40-50
percent as much lead as they were four to five years ago.
     Another factor causing the decline in lead pigments in paint  is the
switch to latex paints from oil paints.  Lead pigments do not seem to
be as necessary in the water-based paints.
     Table 11-2 shows the decline in the uses of various categories  of
lead pigments.  Note that red lead and litharge are the  major lead oxides

                               Table 11-2
                       LEAD CONSUMPTION IN PIGMENTS
                                1967-1971
                              1967         1971          Decrease
Red Lead and Litharge      7(5.6 M Tons     61.8        5.2%  per year
White Lead                  B.I             4.7       12.7%
Leaded Zinc Oxide           1.3             NA         NA
Other*                     17.2            14.7        3.9%
Total                     103.2 M Tons     81.2       5.8%  per year
*A major portion of this material is used for making chrome colors.
                                  11-2

-------
     The net result of the various factors affecting lead-based  paints
is that no new plants for the manufacture of lead-based paints is
expected for some time to come.
    . Lead emissions from pigment manufacturing operations  were estimated
at 63 tons for 1970, or an average of 1.3 pounds per ton.   It should  be
noted that lead emissions from paint mixing operations  added an  additional
                                   2
147 tons of lead emissions in 1970.
Emission Sources and Control Techniques
     The source of emissions in the manufacture of red  lead is the  rever-
batory furnace where the litharge (another form of lead oxide) is transformed
into red lead.  Baghouses are the normal  means of emission control  from
these reverbatory furnaces.
     Emission sources in the manufacture of chrome pigments are  the mixing
and grinding operation and the process dryers.  K'et scrubbers or baghouses
can be used for control of particulate emissions from the  various lead
chromate pigment manufacturing steps.
     White lead is generally manufactured either by chemical processes or
a fuming process.  A typical chemical process is to react  lead or litharge
with acetic acid or acetate ions.  This reaction produces  soluble basic
lead acetate which is then reacted with carbon dioxide  to  form the  white
lead carbonate which is then separated by filtration.   The white lead is
then dried, ground, and bagged for shipment.  The fuming process requires
that the product is cooled and collected in baghouses rather than by  filtration.
     Due to the fact the emissions from white lead manufacturing operations
is believed to be quite low, coupled with the fact that only small  amounts
of white lead are produced each year, control schemes for  particulate
emission control from these sources was not determined.
     The consumption of leaded zinc oxides, which are manufactured  mainly
by primary zinc smelters and refiners, has decreased considerably over
the past few years.  Leaded zinc oxides can either be produced by
mechanically blending zinc oxide and lead sulfate or by cofuming combina-
tions of zinc and lead sulfide ores.  The resulting fume is cooled  and
collected in baghouses.  Due to the currently minor amount of leaded
zinc oxide production, control costs for this process have not been
developed.

                                  11-3

-------
Control Costs
     Control costs for red lead plants are shown in Table  11-3  for  current
control levels.  Table 11-4 illustrates control  costs  at a level  that
utilizes an additional baghouse or its equivalent.
                               Table 11-3
RED LEAD PLANTS - CURRENT CONTROL COSTS
Recovered
Product
186 TRY
465
931
Control
Capital
$ 44. OM
112.0
200.0
Control Cost*
(Before Credits)
$ 8.9M
17.6
36.8
  Annual
Production
 3600 TPY
 9000
18000
*Includes capital charges
**Value of recovered product estimated at 20
-------
                               Table 11-5
                    LEAD CHROMATE PLANT - CONTROL COSTS
                                 Control                    Annualized
      Operation                  Capital                      Cost*
Building Ventilation             $40.8M                      $10.5M
Drying Operations                 32.7                         8.7
Total                            $73.5M                      $19.2M
*Includes capital charges.
     Note that the control costs shown in Table 9-5 are before any credits
for recovered material.  This net cost, after credits, would drop from
$19.2M/yr to approximately $8.2M/yr, or 38$ per ton of product.
Economic Impact
     In general, for an average lead-based pigment manufacturing plant, it
appears that the incremental control costs developed earlier will  have little
or no adverse impact upon the plant.  The magnitude of the cost increases
are such that they probably could be passed on to the consumer, or absorbed
into existing profit margins, with little or no difficulty.  It does not
appear that the incremental control capital would present serious financing
problems either.
     It must be kept in mind that incremental control costs, if required,
would probably not be incurred by new sources.  This is because future
growth in this industry appears unlikely.  The additional control  costs
would be incurred by existing plants and could hasten the demise of firms
that are in poor financial condition.
                                   11-5

-------
                               REFERENCES

                              SECTION 11.0
1.  This section, with the exception of portions  specifically  referenced,
    is summarized from the report, Economics of Lead Removal in  Selected
    Industries, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, August 31,  1973,  pgs.  7-41.

2.  Emission Study of Industrial  Sources of Lead  Air Pollutants  - 1970,
    W. E. Davis and Associates, April,  1973, pgs.  71-72.
                                   11-6

-------
Section 12.0:  Cable Covering
Introduction
     Lead cable coverings fall into two classes of product.   One  class
is permanent lead-sheathed cable where the lead covering forms  an
integral part of the finished product.  The other class is temporary
lead-cured cable where the lead is only used during the manufacturing
process and then stripped from the cable and remelted.   The use of lead
cable covering in the curing process is considerably larger than  the use
of lead sheathed cable.  It is estimated that at least  90 percent of the
lead cable covering extruded in the United States at this time  is used
for temporary lead-cured cable.*
     The major producers of lead-sheathed and lead-cured cable  are shown
below in Table 12-1:
                               Table 12-1
                          MAJOR CABLE PRODUCERS
                      (LEAC SHEATHED AND LEAD-CURED)
General Electric                                  Bridgeport, Conn.
Cerro Wire and Cable                              New Haven, Conn.
Essex International, Inc.                         Marion, Ind.
Hatfield Wire and Cable                           Linden, N. 0.
Okonite Company                                   Ramsey, N. 0.
Anaconda Wire and Cable                           New York, N.  Y.
General Cable                                     New York, N.  Y.
Rome Cable Division                               Rome, N. Y.
Phelps Dodge Cable and Wire:                       Yonkers, N. Y.
Collyer Insulated Wire                            Lincoln, R. I.
     Additional smaller producers of lead-sheathed and  lead-cured cable
may number 15-20.  Total sources, therefore, are on the order of  26-31
locations.
     The use of lead for lead-sheathed and lead-cured cable has been de-
clining over the past few years.  In 1973, it is estimated that approximately
53,000 tons of lead will be consumed in lead-sheathing  and curing operations.
This is a decline of approximately 10,000 tons from the 1967 level of  63,000
tons.  This decrease of 4 percent per year is expected to continue.   For
this reason no new sources are expected in the near future.
*It should be noted that a third product class exists.  This is lead-cured
hose and it is believed that the quantity of lead extruded annually in the
United States during hose manufacture is appreciably larger than that
processed during cable manufacture.  This produce class was not investigated
during the course of this study.
                                   12-1

-------
    Annual lead emissions from the lead cable covering industry are
estimated at 2.0 pounds per ton of lead processed, or approximately
50 tons in 1970.2
Emission Sources and Control Techniques
    The melting kettle is believed to be the only source of lead emissions
from the cable covering process.  Control techniques applicable to lead
cable covering plants include dry cyclone collectors (45 percent efficiency),
low-efficiency wet scrubbers (75 percent efficiency), and baghouses (99.9
percent efficiency).
Control Costs
    Table 12-2 shows the estimated cost of removing particulates from a
typical melting operation in a lead cable covering plant.
                              Table 12-2
               PARTICIPATE REMOVAL COSTS - MELTING OPERATION
1 .
2.
3.
Control Equipment
High Efficiency Dry Cyclone
Low Efficiency Wet Scrubber
Baghouse
Efficiency
- 45 %
75
99.9
Installed
Capital Cost
$ 4,300
4,800
11,900
Operating
Cost
$ 900/yr
1,300
2,300
Bases:  - Air flow rate of 3000 cfm,
        - Exhaust air temperature less than 100°F,
        - Average particulate diameter of 5 micrometers,
        - Average particulate emission rate of 1.7 Ib/hr,
        - 8760 operating hours per year.
    Applying the control costs for a typical melting operation to various
model plants results in the costs shown below in Table 12-3.
                              Table 12-3
              MODEL CABLE COVERING PLANTS TOTAL CONTROL COSTS
                              Plant #1   Plant #2   Plant #3   Plant #4
Annual Lead Consumption:     6,000 Tons   10,000      4,250     10,000
Number of Melting Kettles:       3221
Total Annual Control Cost

-------
Economic Impact                                    '
   . The magnitude of the control costs shown above for lead cable  covering
operations appears minimal.  It is expected that costs of a similar magnitude
would be required in lead sheathing operations.   It does not appear as  if
cost of the magnitude shown above would result in an adverse economic
impact upon the lead cable covering industry, particularly for larger
plants.  Variances in control  costs will exist from plant to plant, but
even so it appears that total  costs are not large enough to cause  signi-
ficant adverse economic impact.
                                   12-3

-------
                               REFERENCES

                             SECTION  12.0
1.   This section,  with the  exception of portions specifically referenced,
    is summarized  entirely  from the report, Economics of Lead Removal
    in Selected Industries,  Battelle ColumbusTabbratones, August 31,
    1973, pgs.  42-52.

2.   Emission Study of  Industrial  Sources of Lead Air Pollutants - 1970,  '
    W. E. Davis and Associates,  April, 1973, pg. 84.
                                  12-4

-------
Section 13.0:  Brass and Bronze Production

Introduction

     The brass and bronze ingot industry processes copper alloy scrap into

various grades of brass and bronze.  The ingots may then be fabricated

immediately into final products or they may be sold to foundries for

further processing.  The ingots would then be used to produce a variety

of brass and bronze castings.

     At the end of 1971 approximately 60-70 brass and bronze ingot plants

were in operation in the United States.   Table 13-1 is a listing of the
major domestic suppliers of brass and bronze ingots.
     Domestic production of brass and bronze has tended to stay in the
                                                      2
range of 250-350 thousand tons over the past 15 years.   It is doubtful
that any sudden spurts in demand will occur in the immediate future so no

new sources are expected.
                               Table 13-1

                MAJOR SUPPLIERS OF BRASS AND BRONZE INGOTS

              Supplier                                Location

 1.  American Metal Climax, Inc.                      New York, N. Y.
 2.  American Smelting and Refining Co.               New York, M.Y.
 3.  G. A. Avril Co.              '                   Cincinnati, Ohio
 4.  Barth Smelting Corp.                             Newark, N. Y.
 5.  Belmont Smelting and Refining World              Brooklyn, N. Y.
 6.  W. 0. Bullock, inc.                              Fairfield, Ala.
 7.  Colonial Metals Co.                              Columbia, Pa.
 8.  Benjamin Harris and Co.                          Chicago Heights, 111.
 9.  H. Kramer and Co.                                Chicago, 111.
10.  P. Lavin and Sons                                Chicago, 111.
11.  North American Smelting Co.                      Wilmington, Del.
12.  Rocessing Bronze Co.                             Mars. Pa.
13.  I. Schumann Co.                                  Cleveland, Ohio
14.  Sipi Metals Corp.                                Chicago, 111.
15.  Sunken-Galamba Corp.                             Kansas City, Kansas
16.  United States Metal Products Co.                 Erie, Pa.
17.  Hyman Viener and Sons                            Richmond, Va.

SOURCE:  Internal EPA Report.
                                  13-1

-------
      New Source Performance Standards  have  been  proposed  in  order  to
 limit participate emissions from new source secondary brass  or bronze
 ingot production plants.   The proposed standard  for reverberatory  fur-
 naces limits emissions  to 0.022 gr/DSCF and limits  opacity to  no more
 than  10 percent.  The proposed standard for electric furnaces  and  blast
 furnaces limits opacity to not more than 10 percent.   The standards apply
 to batch furnaces with  a capacity of 1000 kilograms or greater per heat,
 and to continuous furnaces capable of producing  250 kilograms  or more of
 metal per hour.  The standards do not  apply to the  manufacture of  brass
 or bronze from virgin metals or to brass or bronze  foundry operations.
 Furthermore, the standards apply to particulate  emissions from furnaces
   i   3
 only.
      Lead emissions to  the atmosphere  in 1970 were  estimated to average
 4 Ib  per ton of lead contained in the  product, or approximately 40 tons
 in total for 1970.4
 Emission Sources and Control Techniques
      Particulate emissions sources in  brass and  bronze ingot production
 plants include the reverberatory furnace, the electric furnace, and the
 blast furnace.   Uncontrolled reverberatory  furnaces are reportedly capable
 of 80 Ib of particulate emissions per  ton of ingot  produced.   The  level
 of emissions from blast furnaces is approximately equal to that from
 reverberatory furnaces; the level of emissions from electric furnaces
 are lower.
      Fabric filters are extensively used to control emissions  from the
 three types of furnaces.   Only recently have electrostatic precipitators
 been  adopted as control devices.  Although  no scrubbers have yet been used
•to control  emissions to the level of the proposed standard,  such levels
 are within  the capacity of scrubbing technology.
 Control  Costs
      Control costs for three model reverberatory furnaces are  shown in
 Table 13-2.  The control  strategy for each  model  includes a  cooler and
                                   13-2

-------
a fabric filter.  The model reverberatory furnaces are belie'ved to be
representative of replacement installations in the brass and bronze
industry.
                               Table 13.2
        MODEL REVERBERATORY FURNACE PARTICULATE CONTROL COSTS7
Furnace Capacity
Annual Production
Capital Cost
Annual ized Cost* - Total
- Per Ton
Model A
20 tons
2000 tons
$74M
$13M
$6.52
Model B
50 tons
5000 tons
$11 OM
$20M
$4.01
Model c
- 75 tons
7500 tons
$130M
$24M
$3.24
*Includes capital charges and credits for recovered material.
Economic Impact
     Given an average sales price of approximately $1000 per ton, it is
seen that even the most severe annual cost impact shown in Table 13-2 is
less than 1 percent of sales price.  Of course, individual plants in a
retrofit situation could possible experience costs higher than are shown
in Table 13-2, but on the average the annual cost impact upon the producers
of brass and bronze ingots apjDears minimal.  There appears no reason why
prices could not be raised by an amount sufficient to recover the incremental
control costs.
     It also appears as if the additional capital requirements will not
impose a severe financial burden upon the industry.
     In general, then, the effect upon the brass and bronze industry of
a control level equivalent to the New Source Performance Standard appears
minor.
                                    13-3

-------
                               REFERENCES
                              SECTION 13.0
1.   The Economic Impact of New Source Performance Standards Upon the Brass
    and Bronze Industry, (undated), pg.  1.
2.   Ibid, pg. 4.
3.   Background Information for Proposed New Source Performance Standards
    (APTD-1352a), June, 1973, VoTume I,  pg. 45..
4.   Emission Study of Industrial Sources of Lead Air Pollutants - 1970,
    W. E. Davis and Associates, April, 1973, pg. 9Y.
5.   Background Information for Proposed New Source Performance Standards,
    op. cit., pg. 45.
6.   Ibid, pg. 45.
7.   The Economic Impact of New Source Performance Standards upon the Brass
    and Bronze Industry, op. cit., pg. 13.
                                    13-4

-------
APPENDIX

-------
                                 Table A
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
*0nly
**Em1
LEAD EMISSIONS BY
Source*
Municipal Incinerators
Grey Iron Foundries
Gasoline Additive Mfg.,
Primary Lead Smelters
Primary Copper Smelters
Storage Battery Mfg.
Primary Zinc Smelters
Secondary Lead Smelters
Lead Oxide Production
Tin Can Mfg. (Solder)
Pigment Mfg.
Cable Covering Mfg.
Brass and Bronze Production
includes sources covered in this
ssion Study of Industrial Sources
SOURCE (1970)
Emissions** /
2400 Tons
2300
1900
1700
1700
480
240
220
140
no
63
50
40
11,343 Tons
report.
of Lead Air Pollutants
I of Total
21.2%
20.3
16.8
15.0
15.0
4,2
2.1
1.9
1.2
1.0
.6
.4
.4
100.0%
- 1970,
W. E. Davis and Associates, April 1973.
                                   A-l

-------
                                  Table B
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
0.
1.
2.
LEAD EMISSION
Emission Source
Municipal Incinerators;
Grey Iron Foundries
Gasoline Additive Mfg.,
Primary Lead Smelters
Primary Copper Smelters
Storage Battery Mfg.
Primary Zinc Smelters'
Secondary Lead Smelters
Lead Oxide Production
Tin Can Mfg. (Solder)
Pigment Mfg.
Cable Covering Mfg.
SOURCES-ESTIMATED
Estimated ,
Growth Rate
5% per year
2%
0
2-3%
3%
5%
3-4%
3%
(3%)4
(6-10%)
(5%)
(4%)
3. Brass and Bronze Production 0
GROWTH RATES
Number of
Sources-! 970
275-300
1600
6
6
15
240
7
45
32
300
23
26-31
60-70
                                                                Average Annual
                                                                Add'l Sources
                                                                     20
                                                                   1000 Total
                                                                Foundries by 1980
                                                                      0
                                                                      0
                                                                   17 Total
                                                                Smelters by 1980
                                                                     13
                                                                 6-8 Total
                                                                  Smelters
                                                                  by 1980
                                                                      2
                                                                      0
                                                                      0
                                                                      0
                                                                      0
                                                                      0
2Growth in total quantity demanded per year.
-5-year average.
^Excludes one zinc oxide plant.
 () denotes negative growth rate.
                                  A-2

-------