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
------- |