United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA-eOO/2-78-004p
June 1978
Research and Development
Source Assessment:
Chemical and
Fertilizer Mineral
Industry,
State of the Art
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA~600/2-78-004p
June 1978
SOURCE ASSESSMENT:
CHEMICAL AND FERTILIZER MINERAL INDUSTRY
State of the Art
by
J. C. Ochsner and T. R. Blackwood
Monsanto Research Corporation
Dayton, Ohio 45407
Contract No. 68-02-1874
Project Officer
* S. Jackson Hubbard
Resource Extraction and Handling Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory-Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed,
converted, and used, the related pollutional impacts on our
environment and even on our health often require that new and
increasingly more efficient pollution control methods be used.
The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory - Cincinnati
(IERL-Ci) assists in developing, and demonstrating new and
improved methodologies that will meet these needs both effi-
ciently and economically.
This report contains an assessment of air emissions and
water pollutants from the chemical and fertilizer mineral indus-
try. This study was conducted to provide a better understanding
of the distribution and characteristics of emissions and efflu-
ents from this source. Further information on this subject may
be obtained from the Extraction Technology Branch, Resource
Extraction and Handling Division.
David G- Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
111
-------
PREFACE
The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory (IERL) of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the responsibility
for insuring that pollution control technology is available for
stationary sources to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act,
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and solid waste legisla-
tion. If control technology is unavailable, inadequate, or
uneconomical, then financial support is provided for the develop-
ment of the needed control techniques for industrial and extrac-
tive process industries. Approaches considered include process
modifications, feedstock modifications, add-on control devices,
and complete process substitution. The scale of the control
technology programs ranges from bench- to full-scale demonstra-
tion plants.
IERL has the responsibility for developing control technology for
a large number of operations (more than 500) in the chemical and
related industries. As in any technical program, the first step
is to identify the unsolved problems. Each of the industries is
to be examined in detail to determine if there is sufficient
potential environmental risk to justify the development of con-
trol technology by IERL.
Monsanto Research Corporation (MRC) has contracted with EPA to
investigate the environmental impact of various industries that
represent sources of pollutants in accordance with EPA's respon-
sibility, as outlined above. Dr. Robert C. Binning serves as MRC
Program Manager in this overall program, entitled "Source Assess-
ment," which includes the investigation of sources in each of
four categories: combustion, organic materials, inorganic materi-
als, and open sources. Dr. Dale A. Denny of the Industrial
Processes Division at Research Triangle Park serves as EPA Proj-
ect Officer for this series. Reports prepared in this program
are of two types: Source Assessment Documents and State-of-the-
Art Reports.
Source Assessment Documents contain data on pollutants from
specific industries. Such data are gathered from the literature,
government agencies, and cooperating companies. Sampling and
analyses are also performed by the contractor when the available
information does not adequately characterize the source pollut-
ants. These documents contain all of the information necessary
for IERL to decide whether a need exists to develop additional
control technology for specific industries.
IV
-------
State-of-the-Art Reports include data on pollutants from specific
industries which are also gathered from the literature, govern-
ment agencies, and cooperating companies. However, no extensive
sampling is conducted by the contractor for such industries.
Sources in this category are considered by EPA to be of insuffi-
cient priority to warrant complete assessment for control technol-
ogy decision making. Therefore, results from such studies are
published as State-of-the-Art Reports for potential utility by
the government, industry, and others having specific needs and
interests.
This study was undertaken to provide information on air emissions
and water pollutants from the chemical and fertilizer mineral
industry. The work was performed for the Extraction Technology
Branch, Resource Extraction and Handling Division, Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati. Mr. S. Jackson
Hubbard served as EPA Task Officer.
-------
ABSTRACT
This report describes a study of air 'and water pollutants emitted
by the chemical and fertilizer mineral industry. The potential
environmental effect of the source was evaluated using a hazard
ratio (defined as the ratio of the maximum time-averaged ground
level concentration to an ambient air quality standard for air
and the ratio of discharge rate to a water quality criteria for
water).
Air and water pollutants are generated during the conversion of
naturally occurring minerals into suitable forms for use in
chemical and fertilizer production. These minerals are barite,
borates, fluorspar, lithium minerals, mineral pigments, phosphate
rock, potash, salt, sodium sulfate, sulfur, and trona ore. The
representative plant size for each mineral, except borates, was
determined by dividing the total annual production by the number
of plants. (In the case of borates, one plant which accounts for
over 75% of annual production was considered representative.)
The emission factor for respirable particulates emitted from the
representative source ranges from 0.02 g/metric ton for sulfur to
110 g/metric ton for potash. The hazard ratio for respirable
particulates emitted from the representative source ranges from
0.00005 for sulfur to 0.9 for potash. Total particulate emis-
sions from the production of chemical and fertilizer minerals
contribute 0.2% of the national emissions burden.
Hazard ratios for water pollutants were developed only for the
phosphate rock industry as it was the only industry for which
complete information was available concerning river flow rate and
concentration. For a representative source, the hazard ratios of
elemental phosphorous, fluoride, and total suspended solids (TSS)
are 0.061, 0.051, and 0-0025, respectively.
The four significant wastewater problem areas in the mining and
beneficiation of minerals in the chemical and fertilizer industry
are mine water drainage, wastewater from the fluorspar industry,
phosphate rock slimes, and sulfur bleedwater brines. The Florida
phosphate rock slimes problem may well be the most important of
all fertilizer production problems. Suspended solids are the
principal pollutant in chemical and fertilizer wastewater dis-
charges. While a variety of treatment technologies are available
for removing suspended solids, only a small number are widely
VI
-------
used. The unlined settling pond is the most widely used form of
control technology.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract
68-02-1874 by Monsanto Research Corporation under the sponsorship
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers
the period October 1976 to August 1977, and work was completed as
of March 1978.
Vll
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Preface iv
Abstract vi
Figures xi
Tables xiii
Abbreviations and Symbols xiv
Conversion Factors and Metric Prefixes. .... , .xv
1. Introduction 1
2. Summary 3
3. Source Description 8
Process description 8
Source types 9
4. Emissions 39
Selected pollutants 39
Emission characteristics .40
Definition of the representative source 50
Hazard ratio 50
5. Control Technology 52
State of the art—air pollution control
technology 52
State of the art—water pollution control
technology 53
6. Growth and Nature of the Industry 57
Barite 57
Boron «... 58
Fluorspar 59
Lithium minerals 60
Phosphate rock . .60
Potash 61
Salt ,63
Sodium sulfate 63
Sulfur .66
Trona ore 66
References 70
Appendices
A. Principal producers and their geographical distribution.74
B. Emission factor estimates for mining and beneficiation
operation 85
C. State particulate emission burdens from the production
of specific materials 92
IX
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
93
D. Major wastewater problem areas
E. Hazard ratio calculations •
F. Effluent concentrations for various minerals at
various sites ,Qg
G- Sampling and analytical methodology • • • • •
H. Sampling mechanics and individual field test data. . . J.J.U
Glossary
x
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Barite, fluorspar, phosphate rock, lithium minerals,
and mineral pigments 8
2 Brine minerals: borax, natural soda ash, lithium
salts, salt, and potash 8
3 Rock salt and trona ore 9
4 Sulfur (the Frasch hot water process) 9
5 Barite beneficiation (wet process) 12
6 Barite beneficiation (dry grinding process) 13
7 Barite benef iciation (flotation process) 14
8 Borate benef iciation (Boron, California) 16
9 Flowsheet for the production of anhydrous borax at
Searles Lake, Trona, California, by American
Potash & Chemical Corp 17
10 Fluorspar beneficiation (HMS process) 19
11 Fluorspar beneficiation (froth flotation) 20
12 Spodumene beneficiation (flotation process) 21
13 Lithium salt recovery (natural brine, Silver Peak
operations) 21
14 Mineral pigment beneficiation 22
15 Location of Florida phosphate deposits 25
16 Phosphate rock beneficiation (eastern process).... 26
17 Phosphate rock beneficiation (western process).... 26
18 Potassium chloride beneficiation from sylvinite ore . 29
19 Langbeinite beneficiation 30
20 Potash recovery by solution mining of sylvinite ore . 30
21 Minerals recovery at Great Salt Lake 31
22 Rock salt mining and beneficiation 32
23 Sodium sulfate from brine wells 33
24 Cross section of a typical sulfur-bearing salt dome . 35
XI
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number Pag<
25 The Frasch process 35
26 Sulfur mining and beneficiation 36
27 Trona ore beneficiation (sodium sesquicarbonate
process .37
28 Trona ore beneficiation (monohydrate process) .... 37
29 Searles Lake minerals recovery 38
30 Selected phosphate rock sources 42
31 Particle size distribution of phosphate rock dryer
dust 43
32 Production trend of barite in the United States ... 58
33 Production trend of boron in the United States. ... 59
34 Production trend of fluorspar in the United States. . 60
35 Demand for phosphate rock in the United States. ... 62
36 Production trend of phosphate rock in the United
States 62
37 Demand trend for potash in the United States 64
38 Production trend for potash in the United States. . . 64
39 Demand trend for salt in the United States 65
40 Production trend for salt in the United States. ... 65
41 Demand trend for sodium sulfate in the United States. 67
42 Production trend for sodium sulfate in the United
States 67
43 Consumption trend of Frasch sulfur in the United
States. . 68
44 Production trend for Frasch sulfur in the United
States 68
45 Demand for soda ash in the United States 69
46 Production trend for soda ash in the United States. . 69
XII
-------
TABLES
Number Pag(
1 Salient Features of the Chemical and Fertilizer
Mineral Industry 4
2 Chemical and Fertilizer Minerals Production and
Population Densities by State 10
3 Chemical Analysis of Average Barite Ore 11
4 Potash Minerals 28
5 Typical Minerological Analysis of Potash Ore of
Carlsbad, New Mexico 28
6 Production and Particulate Emission Data for the
Chemical and Fertilizer Mineral Industry 41
7 Air Emission Sources of Phosphate Rock Mining and
Beneficiation 41
8 New Mexico Potash Particulate Emission Data 44
9 Hazard Ratio Calculations 51
10 Control Technology and Its Use for Removal of
Suspended Solids 55
11 Performance of Treatment Systems 56
Xlll
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
CD — concentration of the discharge
D — representative distance from the source
Dsp — distance from plant at which hazard ratio equals 0.1
F — hazard factor (ambient air quality standard)
HMS — heavy media separation
LC50 — lethal concentration which causes 50% mortality in
the test species
mi, m2 — slopes used in calculating distances to samplers
NIOSH — National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health
NO — nitrogen oxides
X
Q — representative mass emission rate
Sa — hazard ratio for air
A
Sp -- hazard ratio for respirable particulates
SI7 — hazard ratio for water effluent
w
so,i, 2,3,1* — high-volume sampler locations
TLV — threshold limit value
u — average wind speed
V — volumetric flow rate of river discharge
¥„ — volumetric flow rate of the river
I\
x., y. — Cartesian coordinates used to relate position of
ith sampler to the source
X., Y. — downwind and lateral distance, respectively, from
1 source along the dispersion centerline
0 -- angle of mean wind speed
IT -- 3.1416
a — standard deviation in the horizontal of the plume
•^ concentration distribution
a -- standard deviation in the vertical of the plume
concentration distribution
Y -- maximum time-averaged downwind concentration
max
xiv
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS AND METRIC PREFIXES3
CONVERSION FACTORS
To convert from To Multiply by
Degree Celsius (°C) Degree Fahrenheit top = 1.8 toc + 32
Kilogram (kg) Ton (short, 2,000 Ib mass) 1.102 x 10~3
Kilogram (kg) Pound-mass (avoirdupois) 2.204
Kilometer2 (km2) Mile2 3.860 x 10"1
Meter (m) Foot 3.281
Meter2 (m2) Foot2 1.076 x 101
Meter3 (m3) Gallon (U.S. liquid) 2.642 x 102
Meter3 (m3) Foot3 3.531 x 101
Metric ton Pound-mass 2.205 x 103
Radian (rad) Degree 5.730 x 10l
PREFIXES
Prefix Symbol Multiplication factor Example
Kilo k 103 1 kg = 1 x 103 grams
Milli m 10~3 1 mm = 1 x 10~3 meter
Micro y 10~6 1 g = 1 x 10~6 gram
Metric Practice Guide. ANSI/ASTM Designation: E 380-76e,
IEEE Std 268-1976, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, February 1976. 37 pp.
xv
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The conversion of naturally occurring mineral deposits into chem-
icals and fertilizers involves surface and underground mining and
a variety of beneficiation steps. Air and water pollution is
produced by individual sources (unit operations) during mining,
processing, and material transfer activities.
An investigation of the chemical and fertilizer mineral industry
was conducted to provide an understanding of the distribution and
characteristics of the air pollution emissions and wastewater
effluents. Data collection emphasized the accumulation of suffi-
cient information to ascertain the need for developing control
technology.
Information came from the literature, federal and state environ-
mental agencies, and personal contacts with industry.
This document contains information on:
• Emission sources and composition.
• Geographical distribution and production figures
for the minerals under study.
• Air emission levels as obtained by direct sampling
for the phoshate ro.ck and potash industries.
• A method to estimate the air emission levels due to
chemical and fertilizer mineral unit operations.
• Wastewater effluent concentrations and characteristics.
• Hazard ratios of air emissions and wastewater effluents.
• Types of control technology used and proposed for air
and water pollutants.
• Trends in the demand and production of chemical and
fertilizer minerals.
-------
Particular attention is paid to the phosphate rock industry due
to its predominant size in relation to other mineral productions,
Items of special interest to the reader may be Sections 4_and 5,
Emissions and Control Technology. In addition, a discussion of
major wastewater problem areas is given in Appendix D.
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY
The chemical and fertilizer mineral industry converts naturally
occurring minerals into forms suitable for use in chemical and
fertilizer production. During this conversion, air and water
pollutants are generated. The minerals are barite, borates,
fluorspar, lithium minerals, mineral pigments, phosphate rock,
potash, salt, sodium sulfate, sulfur, and trona ore. The purpose
of this document is to aid the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency in determining the need to develop new control technology
for the industry, with particular emphasis on the future.
The chemical and fertilizer mineral industry is necessary to our
national well-being, particularly with its basic tie-in to food
production. J?or example, over 90% of the phosphate produced in
Florida is used in agriculture.
Table 1 presents some important features of the industry which
will be referred to in the subsequent discussion.
For each mineral, except borates, the representative plant size
given in Table 1 was determined by dividing the total annual
production by +-hg m11™^1" of plants^(In the case of borates, one
plant which accounts for over 75% of annual production was con-
sidered representative.) Of course the actual size of plants in
an industry may vary considerably. The representative plant size
is an average value used to determine a representative mass
emission rate.
Other important features to note:
• Chemical and fertilizer mineral operations are typically
conducted in relatively isolated regions where the popu-
lation density is usually less than 50 persons/km2.
• The combined annual production for 7 of 11 minerals
accounts for only 7% of the total chemical and fertil-
izer mineral industry.
• The major air jpollutant of concern emitted during the
Ifl.b.e.miC.a-l and fe rjiilizer minerals is respir-
^ableTless than 7-um aepmetric mean aiameEer
matter.
-------
TABLE 1. SALIENT FEATURES OF THE CHEMICAL AND FERTILIZER MINERAL INDUSTRY
Number of Annual Representative
principal production, plant size,
Mineral
Barite
Borates
Fluorspar
Lithium
Mineral pigments
(Iron oxide pigments)
Phosphate rock
Potash
Brine salt
Rock salt
Evaporated salt
Sodium sulfate
Sulfur
Trona ore
Total
sites
24
3
11
4
15
23
76
37
19
11
5
13
3
170
metric tons metric tons/yr
1,167,0008
1,063,000
111,000
12,000°
H
63,500
h
44,276,000
13,479,000
20,900,000
12,160,000°
4,940,000°
1,864,000
7,325,000
3,682,0003
112,683,500
50,000
800,000
10,000
3,000
4,000
2 , 000 , 000
2,000,000
600,000
600,000
450,000
400,000
600,000
1,000,000
Emission rate
of respirable
particulates ,
g/s
0
0
0
0
0
4
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
.05
.90 .
.02
.002
.004
.0
.0
.30
.04
.20
.20
.0006
.60
Contribution
to national
emission
burden
Hazard ratio of total
for respirable particulates,
particulates
0.004
0.07
0.002
0.0002
0.0003
0.3
0.9
0.02
0.003
0.02
0.02
0.00005
0.05
0.
' 0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
%
001
001
0002
000007
0001
10
10
01
0007
003
001
, 000009
0.002
Average
population
density of
major
producing
areas ,
persons/km2
10
10
80
120
100
50
3
50
60
20
10
30
1
Emission
factor for
respirable
particulates ,
g/metric ton
17
21
36
10
20
37
110
9
1
9
7
0
11
.2
.3
.02
0.2
— • i — — — — V
1974 production. 1975 production. 1976 production. 1972 production. Includes only New Mexico mines. 1973 production.
-------
The hazard or pollution potential of a representative source may
be assessed by the use of a hazard ratio.
The hazard ratio for an air pollutant, SA/ is the ratio of the
maximum time-averaged ground level concentration to an ambient
air quality standard:
SA =
(1)
where
Xmax = maximum time-averaged ground level concentration
F = hazard factor (ambient air ^quality standard)
For ground level sources, the hazard ratio for respirable partic-
ulates, Sp, is':
s =
Dl
where Q = representative mass emission rate, g/s
D = representative distance from the source, m
(for the purposes of Table 1, D = 400 m)
As can be seen, hazard ratios for phosphate rock and potash are
.at_ least an order ^pf magnitude -larger than those for any other
mxneraJLa. Other minerals may produce air emissions more toxic
lan respirable particulate matter, but the volume of emissions
from the phosphate rock and potash industries is large enough tp
overshadow them.
Of the total particulate emission from the phosphate rock indujj-
"Ifry, approximately 44%is ca,used bvt Igadinq^pf IraTTroaH hopper^
cars. The industry is aware of the problem, and companies are
" individually devising schemes to handle the situation. It is
estimated that by 1980, application of the best available control
technology will reduce air emissions by 26%.
Two items of interest which concern fluoride and radioactive pol-*-
lution from phosphate mining are noted. Fluoride compounds
(reported as fluorine) account for about 5% of the emissions.
The concentration in the emissions and the rock being mined are
not significantly different. _UrahiuitL_concentrations , which vary
directly with the phosphat^ nnnr!e«J-ra-Mon of phosphate ^CQfik,.
5sua3.lv are jTT'to 165 g/metric ton a of rock. More study may be
^needed to better define radioactive pollution from phosphate
mining.
al metric ton equals 106 grams; conversion factors and metric
system prefixes are presented in the prefatory material.
-------
At the time of this writing, the state of New Mexico is imple-
menting control regulations concerning the potash industry. It
is evident that further control will be necessary. The question
which remains for the industry is: How much?
The emissions from Ozark submerged-combustion evaporators are a
major problem for the two Carlsbad, New Mexico, facilities which
process langbeinite ore. Prior particle size measurements show
that all the particles in such emissions are less than 7 ym.
A sturjy •» ° ^viT-rrm+i yi in pT-ngrp.H^ to assess the applj-catic-n of
Monsanto ' s BRINK® fine particle elimi^tors_to_ ' tHejorogLfiin. Once
this problem area is solved, it i s^beTTevedT^iat^t'Re necessary
control technology will exist for the potash industry.
To summarize the state of control technology for the chemical and
fertilizer industry, it appears that the necessary controls exist
and are being applied by the industry to control air and water
pollution. The trend in fugitive emission control _( a ^relatively
new area of^ environmental concern)
JT
TicuTate "emissions from the productIoli~o~f"chemTc^T™^n3rfertilizer
minerals have been estimated to be 0.2% of the overall national
emission.
The hazard ratio for a water pollutant, S^, is the ratio of dis-
charge rate to a water quality criteria. The river concentration
is taken into effect so that what is being considered is an
excess relative dose.
The hazard ratio is defined as
S - V°
"
(VR + VD)
F
where S = hazard ratio for water effluent
V = volumetric flow rate of the discharge, m3/s
C = concentration of the discharge, mg/m3
VR = volumetric flow rate of the river, m3/s
F = hazard factor; EPA water quality criteria or 0.01 of
the LC50a (96-hr)
The list of hazard ratios for water includes only those for the
phosphate rock industry. It was the only industry for which com-
plete information was available concerning river flow rate and
concentration. For a representative source, discharging into
Florida's Peace River, the hazard ratios of elemental phosphorus,
fluoride, and total suspended solids (TSS) are 0.061, 0.051, and
0.0025, respectively.
LC50 is the lethal concentration which causes 50% mortality in
the test species.
-------
There are four significant wastewater problem areas in the mining
and beneficiation of minerals for the chemical and fertilizer
industry. They are:
• Mine water drainage
• Wastewater from the fluorspar industry
• Phosphate rock slimes
• Sulfur bleedwater brines
Suspended solids are the principal pollutant in wastewater
discharges. Treatment technologies available for removing sus-
pended solids are varied, but only a small number are widely
used. The unlined settling pond is, by far, the most widely used
form of control technology.
The Florida phosphate rock slimes problem may well be the most
important of all fertilizer production problems. The industry
has been active for a number of years to devise methods for
dewatering the slimes, but until available schemes become econ-
omically feasible, settling ponds will be widely used.
-------
SECTION 3
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Materials used in the chemical'and fertilizer industries include
a number of different mineral compositions, so industry mining
practices involve a spectrum of conventional surface and under-
ground methods. Processing also varies to some degree, being
dependent upon the particular mineral or product.
Typical unit operations, used by the industry as a whole, include:
Drilling
Blasting
Quarrying
Truck loading and unloading
Dragline operation
Conveying
Crushing and grinding
Screening
Flotation
Thickening
Filtering
Evaporation
Drying
Bagging
Storage
«*
These minerals may be placed in four categories according to
their processing operations. Block diagrams for each category
are given in Figures 1 through 4.
OPEN PIT
MINING
PREVALENT
CRUSHING,
GRINDING,
SCREENING
CLASSIFICATION,
FLOTATION,
FILTERING
DRYING,
BAGGING,
STORAGE
Figure 1. Barite, fluorspar, phospnare rock, lithium
minerals, and mineral pigments.
LAKE BRINE
EVAPORATION,
PRECIPITATION
*_.
DRYING,
BAGGING,
STORAGE
Figure 2. Brine minerals: borax, natural soda
ash, lithium salts, salt, and potash.
-------
UNDERGROUND
MINING
CRUSHING,
SIZING,
PACKAGING
IMPURITY REMOVAL,
EVAPORATION,
CRYSTALLIZATION
•»- SALT PRODUCT
DRYER,
STORAGE
Figure 3. Rock salt and trona ore.
PUMP HOT
WATER TO
FORMATION
MOLTEN MATERIAL
REMOVED TO
THE SURFACE
85% _
SHIPPED IN
LIQUID FORM
Figure 4. Sulfur (the Frasch hot water process).
Each mineral is described below in terms of annual production,
composition, and unit operations to provide a broad perspective
of the chemical and fertilizer mineral industry. A breakdown of
population density and mineral production by state is presented
in Table 2.
SOURCE TYPES
Barite (1-3)
Production—
Q.S. production of barite in 1975 totaled 1,167,000 metric tons,
a 16% increase over 1974 levels. Based on production figures for
(1) Fulkerson, F. B. Barium. In: Mineral Facts and Problems.
1975 Edition. Preprint from-Bureau of Mines Bulletin 667.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 13 pp.
(2) Stevens, R. M. Barite. Mining Engineering, 29(3):53-54, 1977
(3) Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards of Performance, Mineral Mining and Processing
Industry, Volume II/ Minerals for the Chemical and Fertilizer
Industries. Contract 68-01-2633, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Washington, D.C., January 1975. 310 pp.
-------
TABLE 2. CHEMICAL AND FERTILIZER MINERALS PRODUCTION
AND POPULATION DENSITIES BY STATE
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Kansas
Kentucky
Lpuisiana
Michigan
Missouri
Montana
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
. — •
Mineral
Srine salt
Barite
Barite
Iron Oxide pigments
Barite
Borates
Lithium
Potassium salts
Evaporated salt
Sodium Bulfate
Fluorspar
Phosphate rock
Barite
Iron oxide pigments
Evaporated salt
Phosphate rock
Barite
Fluorspar
Iron oxide pigments
Brine and rock salt
Fluorspar
Barite
Brine and rock salt
Sulfur
Iron oxide pigments
Brine and rock salt
Barite
Fluorspar
Phosphate rock
Barite
Fluorspar
Lithium
Evaporated salt
Iron oxide pigments
Potash
Evaporated and rock salt
Brine and rock salt
Lithium
Phosphate rock
Brine salt
Brine and rock salt
Evaporated salt
Iron oxide pigments
Barite
phosphate rock
Barite
Fluorspar
Brine and rock salt
Sodium sulfate
Sulfur
Fluorspar
phosphate rook
Potash
Brine salt
Sodium sulfate
Iron oxide pigments
Rock salt
Iron oxide pigments
Phosphate rock
Trona ore
Production
10 3 metric tons
_a
122
152
_b
10
1,063
—
159
1,367
1,118
-
34,535
-
—
-
1,328
-
60
-
1,267
-
-
11,929
3,019
-
4,370
178
-
1,328
498
-
3
-
-
1,837
132
4,718
9
2,214
-
4,224
4.5
-
19
2,214
_
-
9,391
373
3,727
1
1,328
272
650
373
-
1,104
-
1,328
3,682
Population
density,
persons/km2
30
0.2
10
10
10
50
30
50
3
80
10
30
30
60
30
2
2
370
3
150
120
3
100
15
100
40
20
5
130
80
30
1
Dashes indicate data not available. Estimated from current capacity.
10
-------
the first 10 months, it appears that U.S. barite production in
1976 will increase by 5% over 1975. Nevada produced more than
70% of the 1975 output, followed by Missouri, Arkansas, Georgia,
Alaska, California, Illinois, and Tennessee. A list of the prin-
cipal producers and their geographical distribution is provided
in Appendix A.
Source Composition—
Barite (BaSOiJ is the only source of barium and barium compounds.
Theoretically, barite contains 65.7% barium monoxide (BaO) and
34.3% sulfur trioxide (S03). The chemical analysis of average
barite ores is presented in Table 3 (4).
TABLE 3. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF
AVERAGE BARITE ORE (4)
Component Percent
Barium sulfate 94 to 96
Iron (III) oxide 0.8 to 2.0
Strontium sulfate 0.1 to 2.0
Barium carbonate 1.0
Silicon dioxide 3.0 to 6.0
Water 0.5 to 2.0
Fluorine nil
Lead nil
Zinc nil
Most commercial sources are bedded deposits and vein deposits in
limestone, dolomitic sandstone, and shale, or residual deposits
in which chunks of barite are enclosed in clay. Barite some-
times occurs as a gangue mineral in metallic ores such as lead,
zinc, and silver, and it is frequently associated with fluorspar.
Examples of replacement-type deposits occur in Arkansas, Nevada,
and California. Residual deposits are found in Georgia, Missouri,
Tennessee, and several eastern states.
Mining—
The barite industry uses a variety of mining methods depending on
the size and type of deposit.
Bedded and vein deposits are mined by open pit or underground
methods. In Nevada, barite in bedded deposits is blasted from
open quarries with little or no subsequent sorting or
beneficiation.
(4) Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Second
Edition, Vol. 3. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,
New York, 1967. 927 pp.
11
-------
Residual deposits of barite are usually mined by power shovels or
dragline in open pits after removal of overburden. Overburden in
Missouri is rarely over 0.6 m or 0.9 m, but in Georgia it may
range from 3 m to 15 m. In most cases, the clay strata is hauled
to the washing plant by dump trucks.
Beneficiation—
The methods used in the beneficiation of barite depend on the
nature of the ore and the type of product to be made.
Of the significant U.S. locations producing either barite ore or
ground barite, approximately 50% use log washing and jigging
methods to prepare the ore for grinding. About 30% are dry
grinding operations, and the remainder utilize froth flotation
techniques for the beneficiation of the washed and/or jigged ore.
Wet process—Wet processing plants use washers or jigs to remove
clay from the barite ore. The soft mined ore is passed through a
breaker and fed to the log washer. The washed ore is then
screened in a trommel circuit, dewatered, and finally jigged to
separate gravel from the product. A flow diagram for wet process-
ing is given in Figure 5.
MAKEUP WATER AND RECYCLED WATER
FROM THE TAILINGS POND
ORE
•KDEWATER)
f WRODUCT
WATER TO
SETTLING POND
I LOG WASHER
ROTARY
BREAKER ^ WASTE TO
SOLID SETTLING POND
WASTE
WASTE TO
SETTLING POND
-»
-------
transferred into the product silos. The barite is removed from
these silos either to bulk hopper cars or to the bagging plant.
A flow diagram for dry processing of barite is given in Figure 6
ORE
ROLL
CRUSHER"1
t _ _ SCREW
IAA/VI CONVEYOR
»- BULK PRODUCT
*• BULK PRODUCT
BAGGER
Figure 6. Barite beneficiation (dry grinding process).
Flotation Process—This process consists of crushing the ore to
free it from gangue material, washing it to remove the clay,
jigging the washed ore to separate the gravel, and grinding and
beneficiating it by froth flotation to recover barite concen-
trates. The concentrates are filtered, dried, and bagged for
shipment. A process flow diagram is given in Figure 7.
Borates (3, 5)
Production—
All U.S. boron production and about three-fifths of the world
production comes from bedded deposits and lake brines in Califor-
nia. In 1975, U.S. production was recorded as 1,063,000 metric
tons. A list of the principal producers and their geographical
distribution is provided in Appendix A.
Source Composition—
The principal boron minerals (those of commercial value) are
tincal (Na2B£fOy-10H2O) , kernite (Na2Bii07 -4H2O) , colemanite (boro-
calcite, Ca2B6Oii•5H2O), ulexite (boronatrocalcite, CaNaB5Og•8H2O)
priceite (pandermite, 5CaO-6B2O3•9H20), boracite (stassfurite,
6^3 o) ' an<^ sassolite (natural boric acid, £[3603) .
(5) Wang, K. P. Boron. In: Mineral Facts and Problems, 1975
Edition. Preprint from Bureau of Mines Bulletin 667, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 12 pp.
13
-------
ORE
JIG
[DEWATER)
T
BALL MILL
GRINDER
LOG WASHER
ROTARY
BREAKER
AIR
CLASSIFIER
CONVEYOR
OOOO
FLOTATION CELLS
^^m\^u^L
^^Tfr^^^^n
THICKENER T
FILTER
DRYER
STORAGE
SILO
BAGGER
Figure 7. Barite beneficiation (flotation process)
14
-------
Virtually all the domestic reserve of boron minerals is in
California. The primary deposit is at.Boron; other deposits
occur at Searles Lake and in the Furnace Creek district of Inyo
County.
The large Kramer deposit at Boron is a high-grade, predominately
crystalline tincal ore body overlying kernite. The overburden
consists mainly of layers of shale, sandstone, conglomerate, and
tufts of vegetation.
Mining and Beneficiation—
U.S. Borax and Chemical Corp., which accounts for over 75% of
total U..S. borate production, mines its Kramer ore body at Boron
by open pit methods. The pit is 305 m deep, and the ore is
brought up by inclined conveyor. The crushed ore is shipped to a
refining plant near the mine site for dissolving at about the
boiling point of water, thickening, washing to remove impurities,
and vacuum crystallization. A process flowsheet is provided in
Figure 8.
Kerr-McGee employs the evaporative or "trona" process at its Trona
Plant. (This plant was operated by American Potash and Chemical
Corp. before the company was acquired by Kerr-McGee.) It has a
daily boric anhydride (B2O3) capacity of 270 to 360 metric tons,
including 136 metric tons of anhydrous borax and 72 metric tons
of boric acid. It processes 0.63 m3/s of brine pumped from a
series of wells. A process flowsheet is provided in Figure 9 (4).
The Furnace Creek deposits contain both ulexite and colemanite.
Tenneco Oil Co. owns the colemanite-ulexite open pits near Ryan
which supply colemanite ore to a calcining plant near Death
Valley Junction and ulexite to a mill at Dunn. After processing,
the ores contain 26% to 28% B203.
Fluorspar (3, 6-8)
Production—
Domestic production of fluorspar in 1975 amounted to 111,000
metric tons. Most domestic fluorspar comes from Kentucky and
Illinois, where four companies produced 85% of the acid and
ceramic-grade fluorspar output. A list of the principal pro-
ducers and their geographical distribution is presented in
Appendix A.
(6) MacMillan, R. T. Fluorine. In: Mineral Facts and Problems,
1970 Edition. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
D.C., 1973.
(7) Singleton, R. H. Fluorspar in 1975. Mineral Industry
Surveys, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.,
November 17, 1976- 8 pp.
(8) Weisman, W. K. Fluorspar. Mining Engineering, 29(3):59-61,
1977.
15
-------
CRUSHED ORE BIN
6VRATORY
CRUSHER
GYRATORY
CRUSHER
STORAGE SILOS
Figure 8. Borate beneficiation (Boron, California).
16
-------
BORAX
r* WATER
BLEED TO BORAX REFINING
CALCINERS
NATURAL GAS .
BURNER CALCINE HOPPER
REFRACTORY-LINED
FURNACE'
HOT AIR
SLAG CLEAN-OUT
CRUSHER
TRAVELING FEED HOPPER
CALCINE BED
WATER- COOLED JACKETS
ANHYDROUS BORAX FURNACES
MOLDING MACHINE
{
V
ROC
ROD MILL FEED
1 "
*,jf
'11
\ MTI 1 ^
BIN
lib*
UP* .
> *
MAGNETIC
SEPARATOR
r1
REJECT L,
-------
Fluorspar veins vary in width from film thickness to more than
9 m wide.
In the western states, fluorspar occurs under a wide variety of
donditions: as fillings forming more or less well-defined veins,
in fractures and shear zones, and as replacements in the country
rock.
Mining—
Mining is done by shafts, drifts, and open cuts. Mines range in
size from small operations using mostly hand-operated equipment
to large, fully mechanized mines.
B6neficiation—
The two main processes used to beneficiate fluorspar ore are wet
heavy media separation (HMS) and froth flotation.
Heavy media separation—An HMS plant may not only upgrade and
preconcentrate the ore to yield an enriched flotation feed, but
it can also produce metallurgical grade gravel as a finished
product.
The ore is first crushed to proper size, then washed and drained
on vibrating screens to eliminate as much fines as possible.
Oversize material is recycled back to the screen; undersize
matter is sent to a spiral classifier for recovery as flotation
plant feed. Middlings from the screening operation are fed to an
HMS separatory cone which contains a suspension of finely ground
ferro-silicon and/or magnetite in water, maintained at a pre-
determined specific gravity. The light fractions, or tailings,
float and overflow a weir. The heavy particles (which are flota-
tion feed) sink and are removed by an airlift.
The float and sink discharges go to drainage screens where 95% of
the media are drained through the "screens, magnetically separated
from the slimes, and returned to.the circuit.
The float and sink products pass over dewatering screens, and the
water is pumped back to the plant. A flow diagram is provided in
Figure 10. '
Froth flotation—In froth flotation plants, fluorspar and other
valuable minerals—barite, lead sulfide, and zinc sulfide—are
recovered from the gangue material -which is left as mill tailings.
For the average small mill treating up to 90 metric tons of ore a
day, primary crushing is adequate. Fluorspar ores usually require
grinding to 48 mesha or 65 mesh to liberate calcium fluoride from'
the gangue.
3Mesh equivalents are given in standard engineering texts
18
-------
CRUDE ORE
GYRATORY
CRUSHER
*J N/^l
SCREEN
t
FLOTATION
FEED
TO CRUSHING
AND RECYCLE
SPIRAL
CLASSIFIER
WATER FOR
RECYCLE
| Trrrr^T^M |
THICKENER
FLOTATION
FEED
SEPARATORY
CONE
WATER FOR RECYCLE
I
SCREEN
GANQUE MATERIAL
WATER FOR RECYCLE
SCREEN
TO
THICKENER
'MEDIA
RECYCLED
TO CONE
Figure 10. Fluorspar beneficiation (HMS process).
Flotation of fluorspar must be extremely selective, especially
when producing acid grade concentrate. The various grades of
concentrates produced are stored in thickners until filtered.
The barite^. lead sulfide, and zinc sulfide concentrates are sold
in filter cake form. The fluorspar concentrates are dried in
rotary kilns and then shipped. A flowsheet diagram for the froth
flotation process is presented in Figure 11.
Lithium Minerals (9, 10)
Production—
In 1976, lithium chemicals were produced domestically by Foote
(9) Cummings, A. M. Lithium. In: Mineral Facts and Problems,
1970 Edition. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
D.C., 1973.
«• *
(10) Alexander, J. H. Lithium. Mining Engineering, 29(3) :66,
1977.
•19
-------
ORE
FINEOREBIN
B.ALLMILL
GRINDER
-lolololo
CLASSIFIER
FLOTATION cais
lf//*j\\y
THICKENERY
FILTER PRESS
ROTARY
DRYER
STORAGE
SILOS
Figure 11. Fluorspar beneficiation (froth flotation).
Mineral Co., Lithium Corp. of America, and Kerr-McGee Corp. A
list of principal producers and their geographical distribution
is presented in Appendix A.
Mining—
Foote Mineral produces lithium chemicals from spodumene ore mined
at Kings Mountain, North Carolina, and from lithium-containing
brines at Silver Peak, Nevada.
Lithium Corp. of America has concentrated all of its lithium pro-
duction at Bessemer City, North Carolina, where it mines spodu-
mene from the pegmatite dikes.
Kerr-McGee continues to extract small quantities of lithium car-
bonate from the brines at Searles Lake, California.
Beneficiation—
In North Carolina, spodumene is recovered from the pegmatite ore
by crushing, screening, grinding, and flotation. Lithium com-
pounds are recovered from spodumene concentrates by acid or
alkali treatment. See Figure 12 for a process flow diagram.
At the Searles Lake, California site, brine with a 0.033% lithium
chloride (LiCl) content is concentrated in evaportors, causing
several salts to precipitate. Through a combined leach-flotation
process, the lithium compound is recovered as crystals. A
20
-------
/^~\ BALL MILL
Wy) GRINDER
i
1
SLIMES
REMOVAL
SLI
(OVER
ALTERNATE OR
MES-TAILI
FLOW RECY
OPTIONAL
ROTATION
t
CELLS
IOIOIOIOI
1
T
NGS TO Si
CLED TO P
PROCESS
BYPRODUCT
FLOTATION AND
CLASSIFICATKM
* t
TTLING 50LI
ROCESS ) WAST
FILTER
PRESS s
"pUHll — ""CO
1 — X — '
1
1 ROTARY
LDRYER
^Zf-
' MAGNETIC
SEPARATION
i
LOW IRON
PROCESSING
'OOUMENE
NCENTRATE
'RODUCT
SPODUMENE
CONCENTRATE
». PRODUCT
^ BYPRODUCT
CERAMIC GRADE
" SPODUMENE PRODUCT
LOW IRON
SPODUMENE PRODUCT
Figure 12.
Spodumene beneficiation
(flotation process).
process flowsheet is given in Figure 29 (Section 3). At Silver
Peak, Nevada, brines containing 0-244% LiCl are concentrated to a
6% LiCl content by solar evaporation. A process flowsheet is
presented in Figure 13.
LIQUOR
BRINE PRELIMIW
FROM-^- SOLAR
WELLS EVAPORATI
LIME
pv
REACTION
ON POND
btCUNDAKY
SOLAR
EVAPORATION
MAGNESIUM SODIUM CHLORIDE
HYDROXIDE AND
SOLID WASTE POTASSIUM CHLORIDE
SOLIDS TO
STORAGE
LIME SODA ASH
-^ II
4
REACTOR
FILTER FILTER
-3111111111111; jiiiiniiiyi -
MAGNESIUM
HYDROXIDE
SOLID WASTE
Figure 13. Lithium salt recovery (natural
brine, Silver Peak operations).
21
-------
Mineral Pigments (3)
Production—
Mineral pigments might better be called iron oxide pigments,
since they are the only natural pigments currently being mined
and processed. The quantity of natural iron oxide pigments sold
by processors in the United States in 1972 was about 63,500
metric tons. A list of principal producers and their geograph-
ical distribution is presented in Appendix A.
Source Composition—
Hematite and limonite are minerals which consist mostly of iron
oxides. Their occurrence is closely linked to that of iron ore.
Pigment materials and iron ores are often mined in the same
localities, and iron ores are used at times for red and brown
mineral pigments.
Mining—
Iron oxide pigments are mined from open pits using power shovels
or other earth removing equipment. At some locations, pigments
are a minor byproduct of iron ore mining.
Beneficiation—
Two processes are used; the choice of process depends on the
source and purity of the ore. For relatively pure ores, process-
ing consists of crushing, grinding, and air classification. A
drying step may also be included.
On the other hand, less pure ores require a washing step to ^
remove sand and gravel, followed by dewatering and drying. These
processes are presented in Figure 14.
PRODUCT
RECYCLE
Figure 14. Mineral pigment beneficiation,
22
-------
Phosphate Rock (11, 12)
Production—
Production of phosphate rock in 1975 totaled 44,276,000 metric
tons. Based upon U.S. Bureau of Mines figures, production for
the first 10 months of 1976 was at a pace equal to 1975 figures.
Phosphate is distributed in three major producing areas: Florida
and North Carolina; the western states of Idaho, Montana, Utah
and Wyoming; and Tennessee. Florida, by far the largest producer,
provided over three quarters of the domestic production in 1975.
A list of the principal producers and their geographical distri-
bution is presented in Appendix A.
Source Composition—
Phosphate rock does not have an explicit chemical composition.
The major phosphorus minerals of most phosphate rock are in the
apatite group and may be-represented by the formula
Ca5(P04)3(F, Cl, OH). The (F, Cl, OH) radical can be any combina-
tion of the fluoride, chloride, or hydroxyl ions, while the
phosphate (PO^) radical can be partly replaced by the vanadate,
silicate, sulfate, or carbonate ions. Rare earths, chromium,
cadmium, and uranium are otfier regular impurities. Uranium
concentrations, which vary directly with the phosphate concentra-
tion of phosphate rock, usually are 40 to 165 g/metric ton of
rock (13) .
The Bone Vallev For-mai-inn r an alluvial deposit east of Tampa,
"jlorida, has become the most important phosphate resource in ~the_
Unite_d__States^ The Bone Valley material occurs in a matrix coiti^"
posed of clay, pebble phosphate, and sand in proportions of about
one-third each. The matrix, ranging from 0.3 m to 15 m in
thickness, averages about 5 m.
Research and development may convert the phosphate-bearing,
Hawthorne Limestone Formation in Florida to an important phos-
phate reserve. The Hawthorne Limestone Formation is a dolomitic
deposit underlying the land pebble deposits which has been
exposed by present mining. The extent of the formation has not
been fully determined, but it is estimated to contain several
hundred billion metric tons of phosphate rock with an average
grade of about 5% phosphorus pentoxide (P205), compared to the
(11) Emigh, G. D. Phosphate Rock. Mining Engineering,
29(3):6870, 1977.
(12) Stowasser, W. F. Phosphate Rock. In: Mineral Facts and
Problems, 1975 Edition. Preprint from Bureau of Mines
Bulletin 667, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
B.C. 16 pp.
(13) Reconnaissance Study of Radiochemical Pollution from Phos-
phate Rock Mining and Milling. PB 241 242, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Denver, Colorado, December 1973.
106 pp.
23
-------
11% to 14% of P205 ore now mined. The location of Florida phos-
phate deposits is provided in Figure 15 (14).
Mining—
Phosphate rock mining procedures are somewhat different in each
of the major producing areas.
In Florida, the overburden covering the matrix is a quartz sand
and clay averaging about 6 m in thickness. Electric-powered
draglines strip the overburden and mine the matrix. The drag-
lines work in cuts that may be 45 m to 80 m wide and range from
approximately 300 m to 1000 m long. Overburden is stacked on
natural ground level adjacent to the cut. The draglines deposit
the matrix in previously prepared sluice pits. Hydraulic guns
slurry the matrix, and it is pumped to the washing plant.
Mining procedure in North Carolina is similar to that in Florida.
In the western states, all phosphate ore is stripmined except
that obtained from two underground mines in Montana. Ore mined
in the western states is either truck-hauled or moved by rail to
processing plants.
Ore in Tennessee is stripped and mined with small draglines and .
trucked directly to the plants or transferred to railroad cars
for daily movement into the plants.
Beneficiation—
Beneficiation of eastern phosphate ore varies somewhat from plant
to plant as grade, screen analysis, and ratio of pebble concen-
trate in the feed change. The matrix slurry (20% to 50% solids)
is pumped through pipelines to the washing plant. Through a
series of screens in closed circuit with hammer mills and log
washers, the matrix is broken down to permit separation of the
nonphosphate-bearing sand and clay from phosphate-bearing pebbles
and sands. The separation is made at 14 mesh or 16 mesh to
obtain a washed screen oversize pebble or coarse fraction.
The next step is the cyclonic removal of the -150 mesh material
(slimes, colloidal clays, and very fine sands) which are pumped
to settling ponds. The oversize phosphatic material is trans-
ferred to the flotation section, where it undergoes first stage
flotation. The floated material may be stored or conditioned for
a second stage flotation. The phosphate rock product is dried,
sometimes ground, and stored in silos from which it is transfer-
red to railroad hopper cars for transport. A process flowsheet
is presented in Figure 16.
(14) Bromwell, L. G. Dewatering and Stabilization of Waste
Clays, Slimes, and Sludges. Florida Phosphatic Clays
Research Project, Lakeland, Florida, June 1976. 43 pp.
24
-------
10
LEGEND
jNorthern land-pebble district
j Hardrock district
(Central land-pebble district
20 40 60
Scale, miles
Figure 15. Location of Florida phosphate deposits (14)
25
-------
WATER
SECONDARY
FLOTATION CELLS
SCREEN
ALTERNATE ROUTE
SLIMES TO TAILINGS TO
SETTLING DISPOSAL POND
POND
TAILINGS TO
DISPOSAL POND
ROTARY
DRYER
PRODUCT
Figure 16. Phosphate rock benef iciation (eastern process).
Western phosphate ore is transported from the mine to the plant
by truck or rail. When it is benef iciated, it enters the first
stage of benef iciation, which consists of crushing and/or scrub-
bing. Subsequent sizing is obtained by further crushing, grind-
ing, and classification, with the sized feed being directed to
the desliming section for removal of the -325 mesh material. The
slimes are discharged either directly to a tailings pond or
through a thickener. The underflow product from the desliming
step is filtered, and it may be further processed through a
drying and/or calcining step prior to shipment. , A process flow
diagram for western ore is given in Figure 17.
- RECYCLE WATER
°/ROLL
/CRUSHER
MINE
— 1
1
SCRUBBER
FLOTATION CELLS
AND CONDITIONER
-PRODUCT
ALTERNATE ROUTE
r A nv ^/**
ROTARY
DRYER
PRODUCT
SLIMES AND
TAILINGS TO
SETTLING POND
Figure 17. Phosphate rock beneficiation (western process).
26
-------
Potash (3, 15, 16)
Production—
In 1975, domestic production of potash totaled 2,268,000 metric
tons of potassium oxide (K2O). Preliminary estimates for 1976
production are 2,168,000 metric tons of K2O.
The^U.S. potash industry now comprises 10 firms which operate 11
facilities: 7 underground mines in New Mexico, 1 underground
solution mine in Utah, 2 brine treatment plants in Utah, and 1
brine treatment plant in California. A list of the principal
producers and their geographical distribution is presented in
Appendix A.
Source Composition—
Potash is the common term for compounds of the element potassium,
and it is often used to mean the equivalent K20 content of sub-
stances, even though no oxide is actually present. Sylvinite, a
mineralogical mixture of sylvite (KCl) and halite (NaCl), is the
major ore for producing potash. A list of potash minerals is
provided in Table 4 (17).
Currently 84% of domestic production comes from the bedded
deposits in southeastern New Mexico near Carlsbad. A typical
mineralogical analysis of New Mexico potash ore is presented in
Table 5 (18). Average K20 content of the New Mexico ore is 15%.
Mining—
Mining methods and equipment have been adapted from coal and salt
mining. Shaft depths in New Mexico range from 233 m to 575 m.
Most of the mines in New Mexico use "conventional" mining methods:
a cycle of undercutting, drilling, and blasting with an ammonium
nitrate-fuel oil mixture, and a system of loaders, shuttle cars,
and belt haulage.
(15) Keyes, W. F. Potash. In: Mineral Facts and Problems,
Bureau of Mines, 1975 Edition. Preprint from Bulletin 667,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, B.C. 15 pp.
(16) Rampacek, C. The Impact of R&D on the Utilization of Low-
Grade Resources. Chemical Engineering Progress, 73(2) :57-
68, 1977.
(17) Katari, Va. , I. Gerald, and T. Devitt. Trace Pollutant Emis-
sions from the Processing of Nonmetallic Ores. EPA-650/2-
74-122, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, November 1974. 277 pp.
(18) Klingman, C. L. Salt. In: Mineral Facts and Problems, 1975
Edition. Preprint from Bureau of Mines Bulletin 667, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 12 pp.
27
-------
TABLE 4. POTASH MINERALS (17)
Type of ore
Chlorides
Chloride-sulfates
Sulfates
Nitrates
Silicates
'
Micas
Minerological
name
Sylvite
Carnallite
Kainite
Alunite
Polyhalite
Langbeinite
Leonite
Syngenite
Krugite
Apthitalite
Picromerite
Kalinite
Niter
Leucite
Feldspars :
Orthoclase
Anorthoclase
Muscovite
Biotite
Phogopite
Lepidolite
Zinnwaldite
Roscoelite
Glauconite
Carnotite
Nephelite
Composition
KC1
KCl-MgCl2-6H2O
MgS04'KCl-3H20
K2 [Al(OH) 2 ('6)80414
K2S04 -MgSO4 -2CaSO4 =2H20
K2S04-2MgS04
K2SO4-MgSO4-4H2O
K2SO4 -CaSO4 -H2O
K2S04 «MgSO4 «4CaSO4 '2H20
(K,Na)2SO4
K2S04-MgSOi+-6H2O
K2S04 -A12 (804) 3 =24H20
KNO3
KAl(Si03)2
KA18i3O8
(Na,KJ"AlSi3d8
H2KA13 (SiO4) 3
(H,K) 2 (Mg,Fe) 2A12 (8104) 3
(H,K,Mg,F) 3Mg3Al(SiO4) 3
H,Li(Al,OH,F2)Al(Si03) 3
H2K4Li4Fe3Al8F8Si14042
H8K(Mg,Fe) (A1,V) 4 (SiO3) 12
KFeSi2O6 «nH20
K2O-2U203-V2O5-3H2O
K2Na6Al8Si9034
Equivalent
K2O
content, %
63.1
17.0
18.9
11.4
15.5
22.6
25.5
28.8
10.7
42.5
23.3
9.9
46.5
21.4
16.8
2.4 to 12.0
11.8
6.2 to 10.1
7.8 to 10.3
10.7 to 12.3
10.6
7.6 to 10.3
2.3 to 8.5
10.3 to 11.2
0.8 to 7.1
TABLE 5. TYPICAL MINEROLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF POTASH
ORE OF CARLSBAD, NEW MEXICO (17)
Component
Percentage
(range)
Sylvite
Halite
Langbeinite
Kainite
Leonite
Kieserite
Carnallite
Polyhalite
Anhydrite
Insolubles
23 to 28
71
Trace to 2
0.1 to 0.5
Trace to 0.1
Trace to 1.0
Trace
0.15
Trace
0.5 to 1.5
28
-------
Potash plants treating natural brines collect the brines by .pump-
ing from wells or collecting canals.
Beneficiation—
In New Mexico, the potash ore is usually processed in refineries
adjacent to the mines. Two processes are employed: one for the
recovery of potassium chloride (KC1) from sylvinite and the other
for processing langbeinite ores.
Most of the KC1 is recovered from sylvinite ore by flotation
methods. The first step of this process is to treat the ore with
a hydrophobic material (e.g., an aliphatic amine) which will
selectively coat one of the ore constituents (KC1). Air is then
bubbled through the slurry, and the air bubbles attach themselves
to the coated particles and float them to the surface, while the
uncoated particles sink. A process flowsheet is given in Fig-
ure 18. On a large scale and particularly with high-analysis
ores, the flotation process is much cheaper than one involving
dissolution and crystallization. However, available resources of
the high-grade low-clay ores that have been mined and concen-
trated during the past 40 yr are declining in grade. The ore to
be mined in the future is more difficult to beneficiate because
its increased clay content interferes with flotation.
BRINE
BRINE RECYCLE
—-j
WATER
BALL MILL
GRINDER
FLOTATION
CHEMICALS
DESLIME AND
SEPARATE
1
MOIOIOIO
FLOTATION CELLS
DEWATER
BRINES TO SLIMES
WASTE OR TO WASTE
RECYCLE
ALTERNATE ROUTE
DRYER
SCREEN
TAILINGS
WASTE AND BRINE
PRODUCT
Figure 18. Potassium chloride beneficiation from sylvinite ore.
For several years, industry and government researchers have, been
working to fashion systems involving flotation and leach-
crystallization processes for treatment of the low-grade
resources. One of the sylvinite ore processing plants currently
uses a leach-crystallization process; the remaining plants use
flotation.
29
-------
Langbeinite is a natural potassium magnesium sulfate (K2Mg2[SO^]3)
usually intermixed with sodium chloride. Two facilities at
Carlsbad process langbeinite ore. The ore is mixed, crushed, and
dissolved in water to which KCl is added. Partial evaporation of
the solution produces selective precipitation of potassium
sulfate (K2S04), which is recovered by centrifugation or filtra-
tion from the brine liquor, dried, and sold. A simplified proc-
ess flowsheet is given in Figure 19.
POTASSIUM
WATER CHLORIDE
LANGBEINITE ORE
MAGNESIUM
• CHLORIDE
COPRODUCT
FILTER
POTASSIUM
»- SULFATE
PRODUCT
Figure 19. Langbeinite beneficiation.
i
In Utah, two facilities practice solution mining of sylvinite. A
saturated brine is drawn to the surface and evaporated to dryness
in large surface ponds. The dried material is then harvested
from the ponds and separated by flotation into sodium and potas-
sium chlorides. The sodium chloride tailings are discarded as
waste; the potassium chloride is dried and packaged. A process
flow diagram is provided in Figure 20.
WATER
1
SYLVINITE
DEPOSIT
EVAPORATION
PONDS
WATEf
1
» c^lr^i
* L->|U
?
o
o
FLOTATION
SEPARATION
DRYER
POTASSIUM
•CHLORIDE
PRODUCT
SODIUM CHLORIDE
SOLID WASTE
Figure 20.
Potash recovery by solution mining of sylvinite ore,
30
-------
The processes employed at Searles Lake and at the Great Salt Lake
are similar in that the brine is evaporated in steps to selec-
tively recover sodium chloride, sodium sulfate, and potassium
sulfate. Process flowsheets for mineral recovery from the Great
Salt Lake and Searles Lake are provided in Figure 21 below and in
Figure 29 in Section 3, respectively.
GREAT
SALT
LAKE WASHOUT
BRINE WATER
WATER •
PARTIAL
EVAPORATION
FILTER
LIQUOR TO
LAKE
DRYER
POTASSIUM
SULFATE
PRODUCT
.BITTERN SOLIDS
PRODUCT
SODIUM SULFATE
WASTE WATER TO LAKE
Figure 21. Minerals recovery at Great Salt Lake.
Salt from Brine, Rock Salt, and Evaporated Salt (3, 18)
Production—
Total salt production for the United States in 1976 was
38 million metric tons. Of the U.S. salt production, 55% was
produced as salt in brine, 32% as rock salt, and 13% as evapor-
ated salt. A list of the principal producers, types of operation,
and geographical distribution of salt production is presented in
Appendix A.
Source Composition—
Sodium chloride, or salt, is the chief source of all forms of
sodium. Salt is produced on a large scale by mining bedded and
dome^type underground deposits and by evaporating lake and sea
brines.
Bedded deposits containing hundreds of feet of salt have been
formed from ancient seas. Salt domes, such as those along the
Texas-Louisiana coastline, are formed by geologic pressures which
force bedded salt deposits to be extruded into vertical pipelike
intrusions similar to volcanic necks. Salt domes have been
drilled to a depth of 6,000 m without reaching the bottom of the
salt.
31
-------
Mining—
Over one-half of the U.S. salt output is produced by introducing
water into a cavity in the salt deposits and removing the brine.
Holes are drilled through the overburden into the deposit through
a smaller pipe inside a casing. About 1 yr of pumping fresh
water into a well is required to enlarge the cavity sufficiently
to obtain full production of the saturated brine which forms in
the cavity at the foot of the pipe. The brine is pumped or air-
lifted through the annular space between the pipes.
Rock salt is mined on a large scale in Michigan, Texas, New York,
Louisiana, Ohio, Utah, New Mexico, and Kansas. Room-and-pillar
is the prinicpal mining method. Rock salt mining, like coal
mining, uses conventional techniques such as undercutting, drill-
ing, blasting, loading, transporting, and hoisting.
Beneficiation—
In most cases, the only treatment applied to mined rock salt is
size reduction and classification by screening. One or more of
the three stages of crushing occurs underground with the rest
above ground. A process flowsheet for rock salt is provided in
Figure 22.
- ALTERNATE OR
OPTIONAL PROCESS
• PRODUCT
Figure 22. Rock salt mining and beneficiation,
(19) Klingman, C. L. Soda Ash (Sodium Carbonate), Sodium Sulfate,
and Sodium. In: Mineral Facts and Problems, 1975 Edition.
Preprint from Bureau of Mines Bulletin 667, U.S. Department
of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 13 pp.
32
-------
Sodium Sulfate (3, 19)
Production—
U.S. production of sodium sulfate (Na2SOtt) , or salt cake,
amounted to 1,184,000 metric tons in 1973. A list of the princi-
pal producers and their geographical distribution is presented in
Appendix A.
Mining and Beneficiation—
Sodium sulfate is recovered from Great Salt Lake and Searles Lake
brines by a step-wise evaporation process and from West Texas
brines by a selective crystallization process. Process flow dia-
grams are shown in Figure 23 below and in Figure 29 in Section 3.
STEAM VENT
SODIUM
SULFATE
BRINE WELL
SETTLING
1 1 '
_ COOLING AND H
i
SETTLING ~J
LIC
EVAF
SALT CAVERN
FILTER
DRYER
LIQUOR TO
'ORATION
POND
Figure 23. Sodium sulfate from brine wells.
Sulfur (3, 20, 21)
Production—
In 1975, the U.S. production of sulfur from Frasch mines was
7,325,000 metric tons. Frasch sulfur accounted for 64% of the
domestic production of sulfur in all forms in 1975, as compared
to 69% in 1974. Frasch sulfur was produced at 13 mines in Texas
and Louisiana. A list of principal producers and their geograph-
ical distribution is provided in Appendix A.
Source Composition—
Native sulfur is sulfur that occurs in its elemental form in
nature. Frasch sulfur is native sulfur mined by the Frasch hot-
water process. Minable deposits of native sulfur are of three
types: sulfur combined with anhydrite cap rock lying on salt
domes, sulfur associated with bedded anhydrite, and sulfur at
volcanic origin.
The major domestic sources of sulfur (85% of plant production)
are associated with the Gulf Coast salt domes. The sulfur-
(20) Shelton, J. E. Sulfur in 1975. Mineral Industry Surveys,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., July 10,
1976. 17 pp.
(21) Lewis, R. W. Sulfur. In: Mineral Facts and Problems, 1970
Edition. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.,
1973.
33
-------
bearing cap rock occurs at depths of less than 900 m as shown in
Figure 24 (22). Most of the elemental sulfur is found in the
limestone or carbonate zone of the cap rock, and it may vary from
nearly 0 m to 100 m in thickness, having sulfur content which may
range from traces to more than 40%.
Mining—
Mining of sulfur is accomplished by the Frasch, or hot water
process, illustrated in Figure 25. In this process, sulfur is
melted underground by pumping hot water to the formation. Molten
sulfur is then raised to the surface through the drill pipe and
stored as a liquid in steam-heated tanks. In most installations,
the liquid sulfur is pumped directly into heated and insulated
ships or barges which transport the sulfur in liquid form. Less
than 15% of the total sulfur produced in the United States is
metered and pumped to storage vats for cooling and solidifying
before it is sold in dry form.
In addition to producing wells, "bleed-off" wells must be drilled
in appropriate locations to control dome pressure and allow for
continuous introduction of hot water (see Figure 24). A process
flow diagram is provided in Figure 26.
Trona Ore (19)
Production—
In 1974, U.S. trona ore production was 3,682,000 metric tons.
Most of the world's supply of natural soda ash comes from a small
region in southwest Wyoming called the Green River Basin. A list
of the principal producers and their geographical distribution is
presented in Appendix A.
Source Composition—
The terms soda ash and sodium carbonate are used interchangeably.
The material of commerce—trona—obtained from Wyoming normally
contains more than 99.8% sodium carbonate, and the sodium chlo-
ride content is less than 0.05%. The presently mined deposits
average 93% trona (Na2CC>3 'NaHC03 -2H20) , with small (less than
0.10%) quantities of sodium chloride and sodium sulfate.
Mining—
Underground mining of trona is similar to coal mining. Both
room-and-pillar and longwall methods are used. The material is
undercut, drilled, blasted, crushed, and transported to the
surface by established methods.
Beneficiation—
The refining process for trona ore consists of its conversion to
pure sodium carbonate. The process includes the removal of
(22) Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Second
Edition, Vol. 19. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,
New York, 1967. 839 pp.
34
-------
SULPHUR WELLS 9UCOWATER WELL
Figure 24. Cross section of a typical
sulfur-bearing salt dome.
Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Copyright (c) 1967.
Reprinted by permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Figure 25. The Frasch process.
Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Copyright (c) 1967,
Reprinted by permission of John Wiley S Sons, Inc.
35
-------
TREATMENT
CHEMICALS
RAW WATER
i SLOWDOWN
-i* ^*-
BOILERS
HttPY
EXCHANGERS f
1
HEATER
SULFUR
DEPOSIT
1
«^J
1
•MOLTEN SULFUR
PRODUCT
SLOWDOWN
ANHYDRITE DEPOSITS
CONVENTIONAL SALT DOME OPERATIONS
BLEED WATER
TO TREATMENT
AND DISPOSAL
Figure 26. Sulfur mining and beneficiation.
insoluble impurities through crushing, dissolving and separation;
removal of organic impurities through carbon absorption; and
removal of excess carbon dioxide and water by calcining and
drying to soda ash. Two variations of the process are used: the
"sesquicarbonate" process and the "monohydrate" process. General
process flowsheets for both processes are shown in Figures 27 and
28, respectively.
Searles Lake in California is the only U.S. source of natural
soda ash other than the Green River Basin. The brines are
obtained by drilling wells into the aquifer and installing pumps
and pipelines to transfer the liquid to the processing plant. A
process flowsheet is provided in Figure 29.
36
-------
CO
Figure 27. Trona ore beneficiation
(sodium sesquicarbonate process)
Figure 28. Trona ore beneficiation
(monohydrate process).
-------
u>
00
*- BORAX PRODUCT
POTASSIUM
CHLORIDE PRODUCT
•-LITHIUM SALTS PRODUCT
•-SODA ASH PRODUCT
^^---7$—*-BORAX PRODUCT
DRYER
MELT,
CALCINE
SODIUM SULFATE
PRODUCT
Figure 29. Searles Lake minerals recovery.
-------
SECTION 4
EMISSIONS
SELECTED POLLUTANTS
The major air pollutant of concern emitted from the production of
chemical and fertilizer minerals is respirable (less than 7-ym
geometric mean diameter) particulate matter. This particulate
contains free silica, the crystalline silicon dioxide which is
mostly quartz, tridymite, and cristobalite.
The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH) has suggested a TLV® (threshold limit value) (23) for
respirable particulates as shown in Equation 1:
TLV = % quartz + 2 (for % ^artz ±1%) (4)
where TLV = threshold limit value, mg/m3
% quartz = percent of quartz in respirable dust
Respirable particulates with less than 1% quartz are termed
"inert" and a TLV of 10 mg/m3 is suggested for these (23) . The
criteria document on crystalline silica published by the National
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) states that
occupational exposure shall be controlled so that no worker is
exposed to a time-weighted average concentration of free silica
greater than 50 yg/m3 as determined by a full shift sample for up
to a 10-hr workday, 40-hr workweek (23) . In addition, parti-
culate matter is one of the air quality criteria pollutants and
has a 24-hr primary ambient air quality standard of 260 yg/m3.
Nitrous oxides (NOV) and cajcJjcjijggonQaida-J^^ from
rTTe^epollutants have threshold limit
55 mg/m3, respectively. Both of these are
criteria pollutants with primary air quality standards of 100 g/m3
(0.05 ppm) for the annual arithmetic mean for nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) and 10 mg/m3 (9 ppm) for an 8-hr average concentration for
CO. There is also a 1-hr average concentration standard for CO
(35 ppm) .
(23) Documentation of Threshold Limit Values for Substances in
Workroom Air. American Conference of Governmental Indus-
trial Hygienists, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1972. 97 pp.
39
-------
EMISSION CHARACTERISTICS
Air Emissions
Air emission factors derived from direct sampling data are not
available for most of the mineral producing industries in this
study. In fact, the only direct information available concerns
production of potash and phosphate rock.
Emission factors for respirable and total particulate emissions
from the various mineral operations are presented in Table 6.
The major pollutant of each mineral industry in the study is
respirable particulate matter. Because of this and the relative
production figures, actual sampling was not deemed necessary for
every mineral.
As can be observed from Table 6, phosphate rock alone accounts
for 39% of the chemical and fertilizer mineral tonnage. Because
phosphate rock production is so high in relation to the other
minerals, additional air-sampling studies would have little util-
ity in identifying potential problems of any proportion. Addi-
tional sampling would not be representative of the chemical and
fertilizer mineral industry unless every mineral cited in this
report was sampled.
In the absence of direct sampling data, estimates were determined
by an indirect method (Appendix B).
Phosphate Rock—
Phosphate rock production accounts for an estimated 44% of the
total particulate emission from chemical and fertilizer industry
mining and beneficiation. The high percentage is caused by the
large volume of phosphate rock production and the kinds of opera-
tions necessary to run an industry of its size. For example, the
loading of railroad hopper cars, a major source of particulates,
is an operation used only by industries with large amounts of
material to handle.
The source of air emission during phosphate rock mining and pro-
cessing are pictured in Figure 30. The emission factor which
corresponds to each source and the following discussion are
summarized in Table 7.
No sampling for the dragline source in Florida has been done.
However, some estimates have been made on fugitive emission from
other source assessment studies on mining. Dust emissions from
surface mining of coal were measured by MRC as 0.085 g/kg of
overburden removed. Battelle indicated that overburden removal
was the largest emission source at strip mines and estimated
0.05 g/kg. Engineering Research and Technology, when providing
input on the air quality aspects of coal.development in northwest
40
-------
TABLE 6. PRODUCTION AND PARTICULATE EMISSION DATA FOR
THE CHEMICAL AND FERTILIZER MINERAL INDUSTRY
Mineral
Barite
Borates
Fluorspar
Lithium minerals
Mineral pigments
Phosphate rock
Potash
Brine salt
Rock salt
Evaporated salt
Sodium sulfate
Sulfur
Trona ore
Total
Respirable Total Total particulate
particulate, particulate, due to production, to
g/metric ton g/metric ton metric tons/yr
17
21
36
10
20
37-
110
9
1.
9
7.
0.
11
Estimated. Assumes 80%
TABLE 7.
AIR
Emission factor/
Control
devices:
170a
203a
350a
iooa
190a
362C 16
1,110° 16
86a 1
2 103
86a
3 73a
02 0.2a
iioa
36
198
216
39
1.2
12
,028
,783
,797
122
425
136
1.5
405
,164
Contributioi
from product:
overall nat:
emission, '
0.001
0.001
0.0002
0.000007
0.0001
0.10
0.10
0.01
0.0007
0.003
0.001
0.000009
0.002
0.2
of current capacity. ""Determined from sampling results.
EMISSION SOURCES OF
Dragline
Stripping Mining
of of the
overburden ore
g/kg 0.025 0.0004
Existing types None None
Effectiveness /
Future
trends
% None None
None None
PHOSPHATE
Drying
0.071
Cyclone and
wet scrubbers
>95
None
a
ion Production
ional Tonnage,
i metric tons
1,167,000
1,063,000
111,000
12,000b
63,500
44,276,000
15,120,000d
20,900,000
12,160,000
4,940,000
1,864,000
7,325,000
3,682,000
112,683,500
Year
1974
1975
1975
1976
1972
1975
1975
1976
1976
1976
1973
1975
1974
Production for underground
Percent
of total
1.04
0.94
0.10
0.01
0.06
39.29
13.42
18.55
10.79
4.38
1.65
6.50
3.27
100
mines only
ROCK MINING AND BENEFICIATION3
Silo
storage
0.105
Scrubbers
>95
None
Loading
0.161
Enclosure
_c
Exhaust fugitive
dust to
control device
Total
0.362
_b
_b
_b
aNumbers were derived from six sample runs made at one site. See Appendix H. "Not applicable.
CNot available.
-------
BENEFICIATION
PLANT
DRAGLINE
BENEFICIATED
PHOSPHATE ROCK ORE
OPEN STORAGE * LOADING OF RAILROAD CARS
Figure 30. Selected phosphate rock sources.
Colorado, proposed an emission factor of 0.024 g/kg of overburden
removal, including a correction for climatic conditions and
control measures (watering) at the mines (24) .
Overburden,
mining is believed to be
rtm'cTTTess overburden material is handled; the average" overBurden
depths in Florida are about 6 m versus up to 60 m for coal mining.
Also, phosphate rock deposits in Florida are generally mined in
areas where the water_jtabjLe is near the surface. Because the
moisture content of thlT over Jour den is nlgri^ TesFs dust is
produced.
An emission factor for the overburden removal of phosphate rock
lies toward the bottom of the range offered by PEDCo — 0.024 g/kg
to 0.05 g/kg of overburden (24). PEDCo estimated particulate
emissions from dragline operations at an open pit copper mine in
Butte, Montana. The emission rate of ore mined was 0.0004 g/kg.
This excavation area was noted to be moist and nondusting.
Although actual measurements were not taken at phosphate rock
mines, an emission factor of this order of magnitude was felt to
be representative for the mining of the ore.
After the overburden is removed, the ore is placed into sluice
pits, broken up by hydraulic monitors, and subsequently pumped to
the beneficiation plant. Each company's benef iciation methods
differ slightly and are dependent on the characteristics of the
(24) Evaluation of Fugitive Dust Emissions from Mining, Task 1,
Report: Identification of Fugitive Dust Sources Associated
with Mining. Contract 68-02-1221, Task 36, U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, April 1976. 78 pp.
42
-------
matrix. In each case, however, the beneficiation is a wet proc-
ess and therefore not a source of air emissions.
The beneficiated rock is transferred to open storage piles. As
this material is often moist, no controls are used or expected in
the future although some emissions do result from the operations.
The moist material is usually conveyed to a rotary dryer. A
particle size distribution of phosphate rock dryer dust from orie
location is presented in Figure 31 (personal communication with
H. Robert Trew, Agrico Chemical Co., Mulberry, Florida,
February 17, 1977). An analysis of the particle emissions from
phosphate rock processing and the results of MRC sampling and
methodology are presented in Appendices G and H.
AFTER CYCLONE
BUT PRIOR TO
SCRUBBER
NO. 1 DRYER STACK
100 150 200
PARTICLE DIAMETER. \im (Log Scale)
Figure 31.
Particle size distribution of
phosphate rock dryer dust.
Emission factors for phosphate mining that are presented in this
report are based on Florida phosphate operations. Western phos-
mining oppT-af-inns arp. recognized as haying greater air emig-
sions
wet/-sluiced to benef icia-
tion and dust may occur in transport from pit to processing plant.
In addition, the overburden removal for western phosphate mining
averages more than 6 m and is drier than the Florida overburden.
For western mines, a more realistic overburden emission factor
would be near the high end of the range or 0.05 g/kg of over-
burden (24) . Thus for western mines, the overall emission factor
could be about 7% greater than the factor for Florida mines.
Potash —
The air emission data for potash refinery activity near Carlsbad,
New Mexico, is presented in Table 8 (15, 25) . The seven
(25) Nicholson, B. R. Air Quality Estimates of the New Mexico
Potash Industry. State of New Mexico Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Santa Fe, New Mexico, August 1976. 59 pp.
43
-------
TABLE 8. NEW MEXICO POTASH PARTICULATE EMISSION DATA
Time basis: 31,536,000 s/yr
Company
A
B
C
D
E
p
G
Annual
emission
rate (25) ,
g/s
22.58
318.66
10.86
62.82
26.8
87.51
91.97
Snission
Ore processed, factor
Average
K2O
content, %
40
8
16
18
14
11
23
1975
production,
kg/yr
1.655 x 109
3.625 x 109
1.932 x 109
1.944 x 109
0.468 x 109
1.653 x 109
2.202 XvlO9
based on
production,
g/kg
0.430
2.772
0.177
1.019
1.806
1.670
1.318
Ore processed.
current
capacity (15) ,
kg/yr
2.121 x 109
4.318 x 109
1.989 x 109
2.778 x 109
1.753 x 109
2.149 x 109
2.273 x 109
Emission
factor
based on
capacity.
gAg
0.336
2.327
0.172
0.713
0.482
1.284
1.334
Comments
Dryer emissions only -
Includes a separate salt
operation .
Uses a leaching operation .
_a
Dryer emissions only .
Cutback due to construction
_a
_a
Not applicable.
companies (A-G), which operate in the vicinity of Carlsbad, New
Mexico, are listed. The two sets of emission factors, based on
production and capacity, are presented to equalize any production
irregulatities (such as E's cutback on production due to construc-
tion) . A comments column is provided to explain the deviation
among the numbers. Except where designated, the emission factors
represent the total particulate emission of the refineries.
These emission factors account for operations such as rock trans-
fer, grinding, screening, drying, bagging, loading, and (in B and
F's case) evaporation.
The major source of emissions is the drying operation, which is
employed at all locations. The emission factors for A and E give
a rough indication of the amount of emission caused by drying.
Another major source of particulate emission appears at the
locations where langbeinite ore is processed by an evaporation
step, using Ozark submerged-combustion evaporators. An Ozark
evaporator consists of a tank to hold the liquid, a burner and
gas distributor that can be lowered into the liquid, and a com-
bustion-control system. Submerged-combustion evaporators often
have a high entrainment loss. Prior particle size measurements
of the particulate matter emitted from a plant's Ozark evaporator
showed 100% of the particles to be less than 7 ym. These would
all remain suspended. A study is currently in progress to assess
the application of Monsanto's BRINK® fine particle eliminators to
the problem.
State and National Emissions Burden—
Emission factors for total particulates were used to calculate
each state's emission rate as the product of its emission factor
and its mineral processing rate. The state emission burden is
thus calculated as the percent contribution of the state's
44
-------
particulate emission rate for chemical and fertilizer mineral
processing to its overall particulate emission rate. Appendix C
displays the state emission burdens.
Water Effluents (3)
Most of the chemical and fertilizer mineral operations use large
amounts of water and generate wastes in the form of overburden,
slimes, and tailings.
Water used in the mineral mining and processing industry can be
characterized as:
• Noncontact cooling water.
• Process water (wash water, transport water, scrubber
water, process- and product-consumed water, and
miscellaneous water).
• Auxiliary process water.
Noncontact cooling water is cooling water which does not come
into direct contact with any raw material or product used in or
resulting from the process.
Process water comes into direct contact with raw materials or
products of the process.
Auxiliary process water is water which is used for process
necessary in the manufacture of a product without contacting the
process materials directly.
The amount of water used by facilities in the chemical and
fertilizer mineral industry ranges from 0 to 726,400 m3/day.
Typically, the plants which utilize very large quantities of
water use it for heavy media separation and flotation processes,
wet scrubbing and noncontact cooling, or as the process medium
in sulfur mining.
The following is a discussion of water uses and effluent charac-
teristics for each mineral in the chemical and fertilizer mineral
industry. Tables of effluent concentrations or mineral categor-
ies which have discharges are given in Appendix F%
Barite—
Mine water discharges—
Water use—Underground mine workings intercept numerous
ground water sources. At one location, the water is directed
from sumps in the mine to an upper level sump. The mine water
is then neutralized with lime (CaO) for pH adjustment during
pumping and sent to a pond for gravity settling prior to
discharge into a nearby creek.
45
-------
Effluent characteristics—The total annual effluent dis-
charge to the creek is estimated to be 760,000 m3/yr.
Wet process—
Water use—The quantity of water consumed, which ranges from
7.3 to 290 md per metric ton of product at different sites,
depends upon the quality of the ore and the type of waste mater-
ial associated with the ore. Process water is recycled in all
the plants; makeup water may be required at some.
Effluent characteristics—Under normal conditions, no
effluent discharges from any of these plants. However, heavy
rainfall, overflow from ponds can occur. The amount of such
intermittent discharges is unknown.
Dry process—No water is used in barite dry grinding plants, nor
is there any pumping of mine water.
Flotation process—
Water use—The plants in this category consume, on the aver-
age about 30-0 m3 per metric ton of product. A large portion of
the process water has been recycled from thickening operations.
Well water and river water are used at some plants as additional
process water.
Effluent characteristics—Barite plants have no or only
intermittent discharges which occur during heavy rainfall or to
maintain a constant pond elevation.
Borates--
Water use—The mined borax ore processing plant in the United
States consumes 2.8 m3/metric ton. An additional 0.8 m3/metric
ton enters with the ore. Most of the cooling water is recycled,
and all the process wastewater is sent to evaporation ponds.
Effluent characteristics—There is no plant effluent.
Fluorspar—
Mine water discharge—Of the seven currently productive mines in .
the United States, six are underground and one is a dry open-pit
mine. In addition, there are three underground mines being
developed and five nonproducing mines which are active for mine
dewatering purposes. At two of the productive mines, up to 40%
and 62% of the mine discharge water is used at the mills. The
remaining effluent is then discharged.
Heavy media separation—
Water use—In these plants, water consumption ranges from
2.7 to 9.6 m^/metric ton of feed.
46
-------
Effluent characteristics—Five of the six plants in this
category have no effluent. The water is recycled back through
closed circuit impoundments.
Froth flotation—
Water use—Ores with different physical characteristics
require different quantities of process water. A maximum 20% of
the process water is recycled from the thickeners, while the rest
discharges into a ponding system. An average process hydraulic
load for these plants is 2,070 m3/day.
Effluent characteristics—Plant wastewater is treated in
settling ponds. At most, 20% of the water from the clarification
pond is recycled and the remainder is discharged. Total recycle
attempts have failed because the numerous reagents used in vari-
ous flotation circuits caused chemical buildups.
Lithium Minerals—
Natural brine (Silver Peak operations)—
Water use—Process water consists of brine from an under-
ground source and fresh water used for wash purposes.
Effluent characteristics—All process water is evaporated.
and there is no discharge.
Flotation process—
Water use—At both plants in this category, the process
water recycle is 90% or greater. Total water usage is in the
range of 13.0 to 28.0 m3/metric ton of ore.
Effluent characteristics—Each plant has one effluent stream.
The discharge consists primarily of settling pond overflow with
minor contributions from mine pumpout and miscellaneous surface
runoff.
Mineral Pigments—
Water use—At one plant, process water use is approximately
28.0 mVmetric ton of product. The water is obtained untreated
from a large settling pond. Approximately 95% of the process
water overflows from the thickener and drains to the settling
pond. The remaining 5% is evaporated on a drum dryer.
Effluent characteristics—The water effluent is sent to a set-
tling pond from which there is no significant discharge.
Phosphate Rock—
Eastern process—
Water use—Nearly all water used in the beneficiation of
phosphate ore is for processing purposes. Only small amounts are
47
-------
used for noncontact cooling and sanitary purposes. A typical
hydraulic load is in the range of 41.0 m3/metric ton of product.
Effluent characteristics—Effluents are periodically or con-
tinuously discharged from one or more settling areas by all of
the beneficiation plants. The volume of effluent is related to:
• Percent recycle • Surface runoff
• Amount of rainfall • Available settling pond acreage
Western process—
Water use—The water used is almost totally for processing
(greater than 95%) with only a small volume for other areas of
the plant. An average water usage is 7.0 m3 per metric ton of
product.
Effluent characteristics—Most of the plants have no
discharge.
Potash—
Water use—The average fresh water use at sylvinite and lang-
beinite ore plants is"4.0 and 7.0 m3 per metric ton of product,
respectively.
Fresh water use at the Utah operations amounts to 10,600 m3/day.
This water is used first on the flotation circuit and then in
solution mining.
Effluent characteristics—There are no effluents from sylvinite
or langbeinite plants. All wastewater streams are fed to evapora-
tion ponds from which there are no discharges.
In Utah, the brine resulting from the operations is evaporated to
recover solids for the flotation unit; there is no wastewater for
discharge.
Salt from Brine, and Rock Salt—
Salt from brine (Great Salt Lake)—
Water use—Most wastewater comes from the washing of
recovered sodium chloride.
Effluent characteristics—There are no effluents; discharged
waste brines are returned to the lake source.
Rock salt—
Water use—In the mining and processing of rock salt, water
consumption varies due to"its miscellaneous uses. Water is rou-
tinely used for cooling, heating, and sanitation, with a small
volume used to dissolve anti-caking reagents. Variable amounts
are also used in dust collection and washdown of waste salt. The
48
-------
volume of intake water per unit of production can range from 0.01
to 1.3 m3 per metric ton of product.
Effluent characteristics—Plant effluents consist primarily
of mine seepage and wastewater from dust collectors and miscellan-
eous washdown of operating areas.
Sodium Sulfate—
Water use—Process water consists entirely of brine, all of which
goes to the process and then to waste with no recycle.
Effluent characteristics—There is no discharge at these loca-
tions; in the arid climate, effluents evaporate.
Sulfur—
Anhydrite deposits—
Water use—Plants located on anhydrite deposits consume
about 8.0 m3 of water per metric ton of product. Approximately
50% of the water is recycled back to the system, and the remain-
der is lost in the sulfur-bearing formation.
Effluent characteristics—There is no process water effluent
from these plants.
Salt dome operations—
Water use—The average amount of process water consumed by
each of the plants is about 30,000 m3/day. These plants are all
designed for a given hot water load. The sulfur-to-water ratio
varies a great deal from formation to formation, and the quantity
of water used by the industry is not determined solely by the
quantity of product.
Effluent characteristics—The major waste from salt dome
mines is the bleedwater from the formation.
Trona Ore—
Water use—Water use at mines with attached refineries is deter-
mined principally by the refining process. The only kinds of
water intrinsically associated with the mines are mine pumpout
water, dust control water, and sanitary water, the latter two
being rather small.
Most plant water intake comes from the Green River (fresh water)
and from mine pumpout (salt water). In some instances, mine
pumpout is used as part of the process water; in others, it is
discharged to the treatment ponds. The average river intake for
three refiners is 8,700 m3/day; average pumpout for all four
trona ore mining facilities is 640 mVday.
There are three major routes of consumption:
49
-------
• Evaporation by drying operations and cooling water
recycling.
• Discharge of wastewater to evaporation ponds.
• Discharge of wastes to waterways.
Effluent characteristics—Only one facility discharges process
wastewater, and plans are under way to eliminate this.
One mining plant discharges its mine water; another plant dis-
charges ground and runoff waters.
DEFINITION OF THE REPRESENTATIVE SOURCE
A Florida phosphate rock-producing facility was chosen as repre-
sentative of the chemical and fertilizer mineral industry because:
• Phosphate rock constitutes 40% of the chemical and
fertilizer mineral output.
• The bulk of the industry is concentrated in a relatively
small area (about 3 1/2% of Florida's land area, and the
plants have large capacities.
• The unit operations used by the phosphate rock industry are
representative of the whole chemical and fertilizer mineral
industry.
The representative source is defined as one with average emission
parameters; i.e., average emission factor and average production
rate. Florida phosphate rock plants have production rates of
from 450,000 metric tons/yr to 4,500,000 metric tons/yr with an
average of 2,000,000 metric tons/yr.
The average emission factor was determined by making six sample
runs at one site (Appendix H). Thus the representative source
has an emission factor of 0.037 g/kg for respirable particulates.
The sampled plant had an average area of 0.51 km2. The repre-
sentative distance to plant boundaries, taken as the radius of a
circle whose area is equal to the area of the plant, was 400 m.
The representative population density was taken as the population
density of Polk County, Florida, the major producing area, and
was determined to be 50 persons/km2.
HAZARD RATIO
Air
The maximum hazard ratio due to respirable particulate emissions
from the representative plants of each mineral category is
50
-------
provided in Table 9. An example of hazard ratio calculations is
provided in Appendix E, together with the equations utilized.
TABLE 9. HAZARD RATIO CALCULATIONS
Mineral
Barite
Borates
Fluorspar
Lithium
Mineral pigments
(Iron oxide pigments)
Phosphate rock
Potash
Brine salt
Rock salt
Evaporated salt
Sodium sulfate
Sulfur
Trona ore
Total
Number of
principal
sites
24
3
11
4
15
23
7C
37
19
11
5
13
3
170
Representative
Emission Representative
rate of distance to Hazard
respirable plant ratio for
plant size, particulate,
metric tons/yr
50,000
800,000
10,000
3,000
4,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
600,000
600,000
450,000
400,000
600,000
1,000,000
g/s
o.osa
0.903
0.02a
0.0028
0.0048
4.0b
12.0b
a
0.30
a
0.04
a
0.20
a
0.20
0.00068
0.60a
boundary ,
m
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
respirable
particulates
0.004
0.07
0.002
0.0002
0.003
0.3
0.9
0.02
0.003
0.02
0.02
0.00005
0.05
Average
population
density
of major
producing
areas ,
persons/km2
10
10
80
120
100
50
3
50
10
20
10
30
1
Affected
population.
O.KSp<1.0
persons
0
0
0
0
0
15
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
Estimated. Determined from sampling results. Includes only New Mexico mines.
Water
The phosphate rock industry was the only one for which complete
information was available concerning river flow rate and concen-
tration. For a representative source discharging into Florida's
Peace River, the hazard ratios of elemental phosphorus, fluoride,
and total suspended solids are 0.061, 0.051, and 0.0025, respect-
ively. Hazard ratio calculations are provided in Appendix E,
together with the equations utilized.
51
-------
SECTION 5
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
STATE OF THE ART — AIR POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
Phosphate rock
Since the stripping of overburden and mining of the Florida
phosphate matrix is carried out under somewhat "wet" conditions,
industry does not consider this a source of air emissions.
Therefore, they have no controls on this operation and do not
expect a future need. Since this condition is naturally differ-
ent for the western operations, controls may be needed.
The beneficiated rock in open storage piles is moist. No con-
trols are used or expected in the (future, although some emissions
do result.
Typically, the moist material is conveyed by an underground belt
operation to a rotary dryer. ^The^dust f rom the_dryers__ is_handled
by eye lon_e-_wet_ ^scrubber c omb i na t i o nsT THne^peraFion us es~li -
rotary dryer which^Ealf"~a eye lone"™ s"cr\ibber followed by twin wet
scrubbers.) In this way, the emission becomes a stack emission.
point, the material may be ground, sometimes under wet conditions;
the procedure varies from plant to plant. One plant which was
visited does not use a grinding operation at all.
The material is trjmsJ:errj2d_jEL^
Control devices ^o^rTo^cTr'tFansferjunctions are typically jscrub-
with -aja—avacage, collection ^efficiency greater than 9JLjLt-
From the storage silos the rock is dropped into railroad hopper
cars for transportation to fertilizer manufacturing centers. In
loading facilities typical of the phosphate industry, loading is
accomplished manually from overhead storage by an operator stand-
ing at the roof level of the railroad car. Usually the drop
areas have flexible rubber couplings which deliver the rock to
within about 0.610 m (2 ft) of the top of the loading door; this
helps direct the rock. However, t he^J^adJng ^probl em_ jJLjiot,
dusting., caused by ..the drop , ^jaJ^jtKe^p i ckujelof<>dus t^n^h£_^di.s-
pT££Qa^£.i-£j^ The industry is workTng^to
control the dust in this operation.
52
-------
Companies have installed extensive ductwork systems to capture
the dust and exhaust it to a scrubber. However, as noted by one
industry representative, operators do not always use the equip-
ment properly. Dust-catching enclosures must be clamped onto the
railcar doors tight enough to capture the dust. One plant uses a
mechanized system in which the ends of eight loading ducts fit
over the tops of the eight railcar doors and exhaust the dis-
placed air to a scrubber. In older facilities, this may not be
possible. At one location, for example, the available headroom
between the bottom of the storage silo and the top of the rail-
cars is limited, and cars are typically not of uniform height or
door configuration. This situation required the design of a
system to load the cars from an outside hopper adjacent to the
silos, allowing for more working space. In either case, it
appears that the future trend is first to contain the fugitive
emission and then to treat it as a stack emission.
Potash
The most obvious form of current control technology is the use of
dry cyclones, not only at drying locations, but at milling,
screening, and bagging points as well. According to the New
Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency, nearly all the existing
potash refineries will need to control their present emissions.
At this point, the agency is investigating different types of
control technology and their costs (25).
STATE OF THE ART—WATER POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (3)
Four significant wastewater problem areas have been found in the
mining and beneficiation of minerals for the chemical and fertil-
izer industries:
• Mine water drainage which contains acid, heavy metals,
fluorides, and phosphates occurs frequently in this
segment of the mineral mining industry.
• Wastewater from the fluorspar industry contains soluble
fluoride in addition to suspended solids.
• Phosphate rock beneficiation produces very large quanti-
ties of slimes that have exceptionally high water retention.
• Sulfur production from onshore salt domes creates quanti-
ties of bleedwater brine containing up to 106 mg/mj of
sulfides. Both the sulfides and brine cause treatment
and/or disposal problems for the sulfur industry.
A detailed discussion of each problem and the control technology
used is presented in Appendix D.
Control practices such as judicious selection of raw materials,
good housekeeping, and minimizing leaks and spills are of limited
53
-------
importance in the chemical and fertilizer mineral industries.
Raw materials are fixed by the composition of the ore; good
housekeeping, leaks, and spills have little impact on waste
loads; and noncontact water is rarely used in these processes.
The areas where control is important include:
• Wastewater containment.
• Separation and control of mine water, process water, and
rain water.
Containment
Most wastewater treatment and control facilities in the chemical
and fertilizer minerals industry use one or more settling ponds.
Often the "pond" is actually a swamp, gully, or other low spot
which will collect water. During periods of heavy rainfall,
these "ponds" are often washed out, and the settled solids may be
swept along as well. In many other cases, the pond may remain
intact during rainfall, but its function as a settling pond is
significantly impaired by the large amount of water flowing
through it. In addition to problems caused by rainfall and
flooding, waste containment in ponds can be troubled with ground
seepage around and beneath the pond, escape through pot holes,
faults and fissures below the water surface, and the physical
failure of pond dams and dikes.
In most cases, satisfactory pond performance can be achieved by
proper design. When this is not possible, alternative treatment
methods—thickeners, clarifiers, tube and lamella separators,
filters, hydrocyclones, and centrifuges—can be utilized.
Separation and Control of Wastewater
In these industries, wastewater may be separated into three cate-
gories; mine water drainage, process water, and rain water runoff.
The relative amounts and compositions and applicable control
techniques of the above wastewater streams differ from one
mineral category to another.
Process water and mine drainage are typically controlled and con-
tained by pumped or gravity flow through pipes, channels, ditches
and ponds. Rain water, though, is often uncontrolled; it may
either contaminate process and mine drainage water, or flow off
the land independently as nonpoint-source discharges. Rain water
runoff increases suspended solid matter in rivers, streams,
creeks or other surface water used for process water supply.
Suspended solids are the principal pollutant in the wastewater
discharges of the chemical and fertilizer mineral industry. The
treatment technology available for removing suspended solids from
54
-------
wastewater are numerous and varied, but only a relatively small
number are used widely. Table 10 shows the approximate breakdown
of usage for the various techniques.
TABLE 10. CONTROL TECHNOLOGY AND ITS USE FOR
REMOVAL OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS (3)
Percent of
facilities
Removal technique using technology
Settling ponds (unlined) 95 to 97
Settling ponds (lined) <1
Chemical flocculation (usually with ponds) 2 to 5
Thickeners and clarifiers 2 to 5
Hydrocyclones <1
Tube and lamella settlers <1
Screens <1
Filters <1
Centrifuges <1
Generally, the current industry experience with settling ponds
shows effluents with TSS concentrations ranging from 14,000 mg/m3
to 703,000 mg/m3. Performance data for some treatment systems
are presented in Table 11.
Chemical and fertilizer mineral operations are typically con-
ducted in relatively isolated regions where there is no access to
publicly owned wastewater treatment plants. In areas where
publicly owned facilities could be used, pretreatment to reduce
the load of suspended solids would be required.
55
-------
TABLE 11. PERFORMANCE OF TREATMENT SYSTEMS (3)
Total suspended
solids, g/m3
Plant
Sulfur:
A
B
C
D
E
F
Fluorspar :
A
B
Phosphate rock:
A
B
C
D
E
F
Lithium minerals :
A
B
Rock salt :
A
B
Salines from lake brines :
A
Influent
120
-
100
148
271
324
8,633
25,356
5,620
329
1,684
2,036
6,500
2,985
17,150
4,720
-
194
1,945
Effluent
65
33
14
290
50
76
235
316
193
50
21
39
17
645
41
14
180
216
703
Percent
reduction
45.83
-
86.0
-
81.55
76.55
97.28
98.75
96.56
84.80
95.45
96.26
99.36
78.39
99,76
99.70
-
-
63.86
Treatment
Flash strip hydrogen
sulf ide , oxidation
with seawater.
None .
Spray aeration to
reduce hydrogen
sulf ide , oxidation
with seawater .
Oxidation, ponds.
Flue gas to strip
hydrogen sulf ide ,
ponds .
Oxidation , ponds .
Pond.
Thickener, ponds.
Pond .
Ponds .
Ponds .
Ponds -
Flocculating agent.
thickener -
Flocculating agent,
pond-
Flocculating agent,
pond .
None .
None .
None .
NOTE.—Dashes indicate data not available.
56
-------
SECTION 6
GROWTH AND NATURE OF THE INDUSTRY
A 1975 study conducted at a number of selected mines (not limited
to the chemical and fertilizer industry) showed the various mine
operating expenses as a percentage of overall expenses (26). In
the period 1966 to 1974, administration costs rose slightly from
16.8% to 17%. Crusher expenses dropped from 15% to 12%, while
drilling and blasting costs fell from 11.2% to 10%. Loading
expenses dropped from 18% to 16%, but haulage costs rose from 39%
to 45%. Many mines are looking at mobile crushers and belt
conveyors to reduce haulage costs.
The chemical and fertilizer mineral industry, being of a diverse
nature, will be considered by mineral.
BARITE
Emerging Technology
New discoveries of barium throughout the world can be expected
due to technological advances in exploration and prospecting.
Improvements in mining and beneficiation will help to maintain
high quality.
Demand and Production Trends
No new large-scale markets for barium are on the horizon; yet in
order to assume a continuing supply, most major barite producers
are conducting extensive exploration and development programs.
The U.S. oil-well-drilling industry is the major consumer of out-
put (90%), and Nevada will continue to be the largest U.S. sup-
plier of barite. For the next 20 yr to 25 yr, imports of barite
should provide one-third of the U.S. supply. A comparison of
past and present domestic barite .production is presented in
Figure 32.
(26) Steidle, E. Evaluating the Role of Draglines and Shovels
in Mining. Mining Congress Journal, 63(4):30-33, 1977.
57
-------
1,200
1,100
•ffi
- 1,000
900
800-
700l_
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
YEAR
Figure 32.
Production trend of barite
in the United States.
BORON
Emerging Technology \
\
The processes used to recover boron compounds from bedded depos-
its or from underground brines or brine lakes are not expected to
change significantly by the year 2000. The solution phase is an
important segment of boron recovery technique, and some improve-
ments in evaporation of the solutions may be expected as the
chemistry of various brine systems becomes better known. It
would appear that additional air pollution control technology
will not be needed in the U.S. Borax and Chemical Corp. plant at*
Boron, California. A 3-yr, $10 million program to cut dust
emissions drastically was successfully concluded in 1972.
Demand and Production Trends
Present markets for boron compounds are relatively secure in
terms of competition with substitutes, and the pattern may not
alter radically in the future. The average annual growth rate
for domestic consumption of borates is expected to be between
3.5% and 5% during the 1975 to 1980 period; this is a decrease
from recent years, predicted as a consequence to the record 1973
consumption. A comparison of past and present domestic boron
production is presented in Figure 33.
58
-------
1,100
1,000
900
1972
Figure 33.
1973
1974
YEAR
1975
1976
Production trend of boron
in the United States.
FLUORSPAR
Emerging Technology
No emerging technology of significant important was found in this
study.
Demand and Production Trends
The demand for fluorspar in 1976 was very sluggish. The drastic
decrease in acid-grade fluorspar- consumption for the past two
years was at least partially caused by the plans of the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission and the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration to ban the use of fluorocarbon propellants F-ll
and F-12 in nonessential items. A further decrease in demand may
occur in 1977.
In the aluminum industry, the demand for fluorspar was not as
great due to pollution control measures which have made it possi-
ble to recover more of the fluorine. Byproduct fluoride recovery
has become an important source. In 1976, the fluorspar equiva-
lent recovered from phosphate rock is estimated at 72,600 metric
tons, equal to 14.5% of the estimated acid-grade consumption. A
comparison of past and present domestic fluorspar production is
provided in Figure 34.
59
-------
300
250
2 '200
o
o
o:
150
100
I
I
1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976
YEAR
Figure 34. Production trend of fluorspar
in the United States.
LITHIUM MINERALS
Emerging Technology
No emerging technology in the mining or beneficiation of these
minerals was noted in this study.
Demand Trends
The aluminum industry is the largest consumer of lithium, which
as lithium carborate increases production/ lowers costs, and
reduces fluoride emissions. Predictions are:
• The use of lithium in the aluminum industry will continue
to expand.
• 1977 will show a 10% growth in demand over 1976.
• There will be little buildup of lithium inventories.
With the return of more favorable worldwide economic conditions,
it may be concluded that the growth rate for lithium chemicals
will increase 10% per year over the next 3-yr to 4-yr period.
PHOSPHATE ROCK
Emerging Technology
New methods to collect dust emissions from beneficiation plants,
particularly in the railcar loading area, are coming into view.
60
-------
The development of hydrometallurgical processes to recover phos-
phorus from matrix or concentrates by direct acidulation may make
it possible to improve recovery rates and reduce waste disposal
problems. New mining and processing techniques may be developed
to utilize the potential resources of the Florida Hawthorn Forma-
tion or the Phosphoria Formation in the Western United States.
Demand and Production Trends
The past 30 yr have seen an average growth of about 6% per year
in phosphate rock production. Although production will probably
increase in the future, growth rates are not likely to be as con-
sistent or as high as in the past; one authority forecasts 4.7%.
Future growth will be influenced by the following emerging fac-
tors that can have serious effects:
• The current buildup of mines and fertilizer plants in
countries whose objective is export.
• The increasing reliance of many western rock-producing
countries on rock and fertilizer exports. Except for the
United States and Australia, the plants are owned or con-
trolled by governments and therefore are not subject to
regular free business restraints.
• Most European fertilizer plants, second only to the
United States in capacity, are subject to prices imposed
by rock exporting countries, and these have been very
high over the past 3 yr.
• Prices received by the farmer for his products may not
be high enough to strengthen his continued increase in
fertilizer use.
Comparisons of past and present phosphate rock demand and produc-
tion are provided in Figures 35 and 36, respectively.
Florida production is expected to peak in the next 5 yr and
decline thereafter. If the demand for phosphate continues to
grow, then a substantial increase in production will come from
the western phosphate fields. Southeastern Idaho contains about
80% of the western field reserves.
POTASH
Emerging Technology
Dust from potash plants in New Mexico may have to be controlled
even more. Vegetation is sometimes affected by the emissions.
Potash mines are relatively safe and clean. Mining bedded veins
is less hazardous than recovery from nonbedded deposits because
of the thickness and uniformity of the potash beds.
61
-------
60,000
50,000
"
40,000
1 30,000
20,000
10,000
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
YEAR
Figure 35,
Demand for phosphate rock
in the United States.
2000
60
50
£
u
40
§ 3°
o
en
20
10
1950
Figure 36,
j_
I960
1970
YEAR
1980
1990
Production trend of phosphate
rock in the United States.
62
-------
Demand and Production Trends
The United States demand for potash in the year 2000 is expected
to be between 9 x 106 and 14 x 106 metric tons equivalent of K2O,
representing average growth rates of 2.2% and 3.8%, respectively.
These growth rates are below those of recent past years. From
1964 to 1973, the average increase in demand was 6.3%. It is
believed that this growth rate cannot be maintained because of
physical limitations on consumption. Restraints on domestic fer-
tilizer use, such as land availability, more efficient fertilizer
application, new fertilizer technology, and a shift by developing
nations away from importing U.S. food, should hold U.S. demand
for potash to a modest growth level.
Consumption of potash by the chemical industry, which amounts to
only 5% of the total, should expand at about the same rate as
agricultural use.
Comparisons of past and present demand and production are pro-
vided in Figures 37 and 38, respectively.
SALT
Emerging Technology
It is likely that future improvements in salt processing will
come in the form of minor changes to reduce costs or improve
quality rather than as major technological breakthroughs.
Demand and Production Trends
In those countries where the industrial base is still developing,
growth in demand for salt is expected to be faster than it is in
the United States. Growth rates are projected to 4.0% per year
for the United States and 6.3% annually for the rest of the
world.
Total salt production in 1976 was up 2% over 1975, and consump-
tion increased 5%. The principal reason for the increased con-
sumption was greater activity in the many areas of the chemical
industry which consume the bulk of the salt production. Compari-
sons of past and present salt demand and production are provided
in Figures 39 and 40, respectively.
SODIUM SULFATE
Emerging Technology
No emerging technology of significant importance was found in
this study.
63
-------
6,000
5,000
° 4,000
a"
z
"? 3,000
2,000 —
1,500
1950
1960
1970
1980
YEAR
Figure 37. Demand trend for potash
in the United States.
3,000
2,500
o
OL
2,0001—
1950
Figure 38,
I960
1970
1980
YEAR
Production trend for potash
in the United States.
64
-------
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
1950
1960
1970
YEAR
1980
1990
Figure 39.
Demand trend for salt
in the United States.
•z.
o
70,000.
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000 -
20,000
1950
I
1960
1970
YEAR
1980
1990
Figure 40
Production trend for salt
in the United States.
65
-------
Demand and Production Trends
Consumption figures for sodium sulfate are not easily obtained,
and those appearing in the literature are often unreliable. No
attempt is usually made to forecast cumulative demand or growth
rate for this commodity. Comparisons of past and present sodium
sulfate demand and production are provided in Figures 41 and 42,
respectively.
SULFUR
Emerging Technology
If the results of preliminary testing are favorable, the use of
sulfur as a substitute for asphalt in road paving could open a
major new volume sulfur market before the end of the decade.
Demand and Production Trends
At the end of 1976, demand for sulfur began to strengthen. These
improved levels of demand should carry into the year 1977.
Voluntary sulfur production (particularly Frasch process produc-
tion in the United States) has been faced with rapidly rising
production costs and prices which are not high enough to attract
the capital necessary for exploration and development of new
sulfur sources.
In the longer term, demand for sulfur from the rapidly growing
world fertilizer market will continue to increase while the out-
look for additional supplies of sulfur remains uncertain.
Comparisons of past and present consumption and production of
Frasch sulfur in the United States are presented in Figures 43
and 44, respectively.
TRONA ORE (SODA ASH)
Emerging Technology
Solution mining of trona is technically possible, but no success-
ful attempts have been made. A new process or innovation in the
direction of solution mining might reduce the cost of mining
considerably.
Demand and Production Trends
U.S. demand for soda ash is predicted to reach 14.2 million
metric tons/yr by 2000, indicating a growth rate of 3.0% per year.
U.S. production of natural soda ash from trona or alkaline brines
is increasing rapidly. Between 1961 and 1974, average annual
natural soda ash output increased more than 13% per year.
66
-------
1,900
/
1,800
1,700
g 1,600
s
I 1500
E
"2 1,400
o
S 1.300
g
^ 1,200
1,100
1,000
900
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
YEAR
Figure 41. Demand trend for sodium sulfate
in the United States.
1,400
1,300
•s
1,200
o
I—f
E3
1,100
1,000
900
1950
1955
I960
1965
1970
1975
YEAR
Figure 42. Production trend for sodium
sulfate in the United States.
67
-------
5,900
:5,500
!5,000
4,800
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
YEAR
Figure 43.
Consumption trend of Frasch
sulfur in the United States.
.000
7,500
o
o
a:
a.
7,100
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
YEAR
Figure 44.
Production trend for Frasch
sulfur in the United States.
68
-------
Capacity is expected to reach 7.85 million metric tons/yr by
1978. Comparisons of past and present U.S. demand and production
of soda ash (natural and synthetic) are provided in Figures 45
and 46, respectively.
14,000
-g 10,000
•fe
5,000
4,000
1950
1960
Figure 45. Demand for soda ash
in the United States.
7,000
•c 6,000
ft
E
5,000 —
4,500
1950
I960 1970
YEAR
1980
1970 1980 1990 2000
YEAR
Figure 46. Production trend for soda.
ash in the United States.'
aincludes synthetic and natural soda ash from Searles Lake,
California, and trona ore from Wyoming.
69
-------
REFERENCES
1. Fulkerson, F. B. Barium. In: Mineral Facts and Problems,
1975 Edition. Preprint from Bureau of Mines Bulletin 667.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, B.C. 13 pp.
2. Stevens, R. M. Barite. Mining Engineering, 29(3):53-54,
1977.
3. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards of Performance, Mineral Mining and Processing
Industry, Volume II, Minerals for the Chemical and Fertilizer
Industries. Contract 68-01-2633, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Washington, D.C., January 1975. 310 pp.
4. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Second
Edition, Vol. 3. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,
New York, 1967. 927 pp.
5. Wang, K. P. Boron. In: Mineral Facts and Problems, 1975
Edition. Preprint from Bureau of Mines Bulletin 667, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 12 pp.
6. MacMillan, R. T. Fluorine. In: Mineral Facts and Problems,
1970^ Edition. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
D.C., 1973.
7. Singleton, R. H. Fluorspar in 1975. Mineral Industry
Surveys, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.,
November 17, 1976. 8 pp.
8. Weisman, W. K. Fluorspar. Mining Engineering, 29(3):59-61,
1977.
9. Cummings, A. M. Lithium. In: Mineral Facts and Problems,
1970 Edition. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
D.C., 1973.
10. Alexander, J. H. Lithium. Mining Engineering, 29(3) :66,
1977.
11. Emigh, G. D. Phosphate Rock. Mining Engineering, 29(3):68-70,
1977.
70
-------
12. Stowasser, W. F. Phosphate Rock. In: Mineral Facts and
Problems, 1975 Edition. Preprint from Bureau of Mines
Bulletin 667, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
D.C. 16 pp.
13. Reconnaissance Study of Radiochemical Pollution from Phos-
phate Rock Mining and Milling. PB 241 242, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Denver, Colorado, December 1973. 106 pp.
14. Bromwell, L.G. Dewatering and Stabilization of Waste Clays,
Slimes, and Sludges. Florida Phosphatic Clays Research
Project, Lakeland, Florida, June 1976. 43 pp.
15. Keyes, W. F. Potash. In: Mineral Facts and Problems,
Bureau of Mines, 1975 Edition. Preprint from Bulletin 667,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 15 pp.
16. Rampacek, C. The Impact of R&D on the Utilization of Low-
Grade Resources. Chemical Engineering Progress, 73(2):57-68,
1977.
17. Katari, V., I. Gerald, and T. Devitt. Trace Pollutant Emis-
sions from the Processing of Nonmetallic Ores. EPA-650/
2-74-122, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, November 1974. 277 pp.
18. Klingman, C. L. Salt. In: Mineral Facts and Problems,
1975 Edition. Preprint from Bureau of Mines Bulletin 667,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D-C. 12 pp.
19. Klingman, C. L. Soda Ash (Sodium Carbonate), Sodium Sulfate,
and Sodium. In: Mineral Facts and Problems, 1975 Edition.
Preprint from Bureau of Mines Bulletin 667, U.S. Department
of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 13 pp.
20. Shelton, J. E. Sulfur in 1975. Mineral Industry Surveys, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., July 10, 1976.
17 pp.
21. Lewis, R. W. Sulfur. In: Mineral Facts and Problems, 1970
Edition. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.,
1973.
22. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Second
Edition, Vol. 19. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New
York, 1967. 839 pp.
23. Documentation of Threshold Limit Values for Substances in
Workroom Air. American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1972. 97 pp.
71
-------
24. Evaluation of Fugitive Dust Emissions from Mining, Task 1,
Report: Identification of Fugitive Dust Sources Associated
with Mining. Contract 68-02-1221, Task 36, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, April 1976.
78 pp.
25. Nicholson, B. R. Air Quality Estimates of the New Mexico
Potash Industry. State of New Mexico Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Santa Fe, New Mexico, August 1976. 59 pp.
26. Steidle, E. Evaluating the Role of Draglines and Shovels
in Mining. Mining Congress Journal, 63(4):30-33/ 1977.
27. Minerals Yearbook 1973; Volume I: Metals, Minerals, and
Fuels. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.,
1975. 1383 pp.
28. Minerals Yearbook 1973; Volume II: Area Reports: Domestic.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1975.
800 pp.
29. Blackwood, T. R., P. K. Chalekode, and R. A. Wachter.
Source Assessment: Crushed Stone. Contract 68-02-1874,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,
July 1977. 91 pp.
30. Lament, W. E., J. T. McLendon, L. W- Clements, Jr., and I.
I. L. Feld. Characterization Studies of Florida Phosphate
Slimes. ROI 8089, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washing-
ton, D.C., 1975. 24 pp.
31. Blackwood, T. R., and R. A. Wachter. Source Assessment:
Coal Storage Piles. Contract 68-02-1874, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, July 1977. 96 pp.
32. Eimutis, E. C., T. J. Hoogheem, and T. W. Hughes. Briefing
Document: Water Source Severity and Initial Water Priori-
tization Structures. Draft prepared under EPA Contract
68-02-1874 by Monsanto Research Corporation, Dayton, Ohio,
21 September 1976. 12 pp.
33. Specht, R. C. Phosphate Waste Studies. Bulletin Series
No. 32, University of Florida Engineering and Industrial
Experiment Station, Gainesville, Florida, February 1950.
26 pp.
34. Eimutis, E. C., J. L. Delaney, T. J. Hoogheem, S. R. Archer,
J. C. Ochsner, W. R. McCurley, T. W. Hughes, and R. P. Quill.
Source Assessment: Prioritization of Stationary Water Pollu-
tion Sources. EPA-600/2-77-107p, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
December 1977. 132 pp.
72
-------
35. Turner, B. D. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates.
Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-26, U.S. Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, Cincinnati, Ohio,
May 1970. 84 pp.
73
-------
APPENDIX A
PRINCIPAL PRODUCERS AND
THEIR GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION (27, 28)
(27) Minerals Yearbook 1973; Volume I: Metals, Minerals, and
Fuels. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.,
1975. 1383 pp.
(28) Minerals Yearbook 1973; Volume II: Area Reports: Domestic.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1975.
800 pp.
74
-------
TABLE A-l. PRINCIPAL PRODUCERS OF BARITE
Company
Alaska Barite Co.
Dresser Minerals
NL Industries, Inc.
Industrial Minerals Co.
New Riverside Ochre Co.
Paga Mining Co., Div.
Thompson-Weinman & Co.
Pfizer, Inc., Minerals,
Pigments & Metals Div.
Dresser Minerals Division,
Dresser Industries, Inc.
Milchem, Inc.
NL Industries Inc., Baroid Div.
<_n Dresser Minerals Div.
Milchem, Inc.
NL Industries, Inc., Baroid Div.
NL Industries, Inc., Delore Div.
Pfizer s Co.
NL Industries, Inc., Baroid Div.
Dresser Minerals Division,
Dresser Industries, Inc.
FMC Corp.
Milchem, Inc., Mineral Div.
NL Industries, Inc., Baroid Div.
B. C. Wood
Dresser Industries, Inc.
The Milwhite Co., Inc.
National Lead Co.
Type of activity
Open pit
Mine and plant
Mine and plant
Mine and plant
Open pit mine
Open pit mine and grinding mill
Grinding plant
Grinding plant
Grinding plant
Grinding plant
Mine
Mine and mill
Mine and mill
Mill
Mine and mill
Open pit mine
Open pit mine
Open pit mine
Open pit mine
Two open pit mines and plant
Open pit mine and plant
Grinding plant
Grinding plant
Grinding plant
County
Southeastern Alaska
Hot Spring
Hot Spring
Shasta
Bartow
Bar tow
St. Clair
Orleans and
Calcasieu
Orleans
Orleans
Washington
Washington
Washington
St. Louis
Washington
Elko
Lander
Lander
Lander
Monroe
Loudon
Cameron
Harris
Nueces
State
Alaska
Arkansas
Arkansas
California
Georgia
Georgia
Illinois
a
Louisiana,
a
Louisiana
Louisiana
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Nevada
Nevada
Nevada
Nevada
Tennessee
Tennessee
Texasa
Texasa
Texas
Grinds imported ore.
-------
TABLE A-2. PRINCIPAL PRODUCERS OF BORON
Company
Type of activity
County
State
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp.
Tenneco, Inc.
United States Borax &
Chemical Corp.
Dry lake brines
Open pit mine
Open pit mine
San Bernadino
Inyo
Inyo and Kern
California
California
California
Boron minerals and compounds produced.
TABLE A-3. PRINCIPAL PRODUCERS OF FLUORSPAR
Company
Ozark-Mahoning Co.
Type of activity
Underground mine and plant
County
Jackson
State
Colorado
Minerva Company, mining division
of Minerva Oil Co.
Crystal Group
Minerva No. 1
Ozark-Mahoning Co.
Calvert City Chemical Co.
Roberts Mining Co.
J. Irving Crowell, Jr.
D & F Minerals Co.
Spor Bros.
U.S. Energy Corp.
Willden Fluorspar Co.
Underground mines and mill
Underground mines and mill
Underground mines and mill
Underground mine and mill
Mine and plant
Underground mine
Mine
Open pit and underground mines
Open pit mine
Underground mine
Hardin
Hardin
Hardin
Crittenden and
Livingston
Ravalli
Nye
Brewster
Juab
Juab
Juab
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Kentucky
Montana
Nevada
Texas
Utah
Utah
Utah
-------
TABLE A-4. PRINCIPAL PRODUCERS OF LITHIUM MINERALS
Company
Type of activity
County
State
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp.
Foote Mineral Co.
Foote Mineral Co.
Lithium Corp. of America, Inc.
Dry lake brines
Dry lake brines
Open pit mine and plant
Open pit mine and plant
San Bernardino
Esmeralda .
Cleveland
Gaston
California
Nevada
N. Carolina
N. Carolina
TABLE A-5. PRINCIPAL PRODUCERS OF MINERAL PIGMENTS (IRON OXIDE PIGMENTS)
Company
a
Leber Mining Co. .
New Riverside Ochre Co.
Pfizer, Inc., Minerals, Pigments
and Metals Div.a
Prince Manufacturing Co .
George B. Smith Chemical Works
Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co.
Cities Service Co.&
E. I. du Pont de Nemours
& Co . , Inc . "
Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp.9
Lanzendorfer Minerals Co.
Minerals, Pigments & Metals
Div. , Chas. Pfizer & Co. , Inc.
The Prince Manufacturi g Co.
Reichard-Coulston, Inc.
Hoover Color Corp.9
Delta Oil Co.c
Type of activity
Mine
Mine and plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Mine
Plant
Plant
Plant
Pit
Plant
Plant
Plant
Strip mine
Plant
County
Nevada
Bartow
St. Clair
Adams
Kane
Marquette
Mercer and Middlesex
Essex
Allegheny
Cambria
Northampton
Carbon
Northampton
Pulaski
Milwaukee
State
Arkansas
Georgia
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Michigan
New Jersey
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Wisconsin
Iron oxide pigments (crude) produced. Iron oxide pigment materials produced.
Clron oxide pigments (finished) produced. Iron oxide pigments (manufactured) produced.
-------
TABLS A-6. PRINCIPAL PRODUCERS OF PHOSPHATE ROCK
Company
Type of activity
County
State
oo
Agrico Chemical Co.
Borden, Inc.
Brewster Phosphates
Gardinier, Inc.
W. R. Grace & Co.
International Minerals &
Chemical Corp.
Mobil Oil Corp., Chemical Div.
Occidental Petroleum Corp.,
Suwannee River Phosphate Div.
Swift Chemical Co.
U.S.S. Agri-Chemicals, Inc.
Beker Industries
Monsanto Co.
J. R. Simplot Co.
Stauffer Chemical Co.
Stauffer Chemical Co.
Cominco American, Inc.
Stauffer Chemical Co.
Texasgulf, Inc.
Hooker Chemical Corp.
Monsanto Co.
Stauffer Chemical Co.
Tennessee Valley Authority
Stauffer Chemical Co.
Stauffer Chemical Co.
Stauffer Chemical Co. of Wyoming
Three open pit mines
Open pit mine
Open pit mine
Open pit mine
Open pit mine
Three open pit mines
Two open pit mines
Open pit
Two open
Open pit
Mine and
Mine and
Mine
Mine and
Mine
Mine and
Plant
Open pit
Open pit
Open pit
mine
pit mines
mine
plant
plant
plant
plant
mine and plant
mines and plant
mines and plant
Open pit mines and plant
Open pit mines and plant
Open pit-underground mine
Open pit mine and beneficiation
plant
Open pit mine and beneficiation
plant
Polk
Polk
Polk
Polk
Polk
Polk
Polk
Hamilton
Polk
Polk
Caribou
Caribou
Bingham
Caribou
Caribou
Powell
Silver Bow
Beaufort
Hickman and Maury
Giles, Maury,
Williamson
Giles and Maury
Maury and Williamson
Rich
Unitah
Lincoln
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Florida
Idaho
Idaho
Idaho
Idaho
Idaho
Montana
Montana
North Carolina
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Utah
Utah
Wyoming
-------
TABLE A-7. PRINCIPAL POTASH PRODUCERS
Company
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp.3
AMAX Chemical Corp.
Duval Corp. , Potash Division
International Minerals &
Chemical Corp.
Kerr-McGee Corp.
National Potash Co.
Potash Co. of America, a di-
vision of Ideal Basic
Industries , Inc .
Mississippi Co.
Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical
Corp.3
Texas Gulf Sulfur Co.a
Type of activity
Dry lake brines
Underground mine and refinery
Two underground mines and
refinery
Underground mine
Underground mine
Underground mine
Underground mine
Underground mine
Brine treatment
Brine treatment
County
San Bernardino
Eddy
Eddy
Eddy
Lea
Eddy
Eddy
Eddy
Tooele
Grand
State
California
New Mexico
New Mexico
New Mexico
New Mexico
New Mexico
New Mexico
New Mexico
Utah
Utah
Potassium salts produced.
-------
TABLE A-8. PRINCIPAL PRODUCERS OF ROCK SALT, SALT FROM BRINE, AND EVAPORATED SALT
Company
Type of activity
County
State
oo
o
Olin Corp.
Leslie Salt Co.
Metropolitan Water Dist. of
Southern California
Pacific Salt & Chemical Co.
Southwest Salt Co.
Western Salt Co.
Tanaka Hawaiian Salt
American Salt Corp.
Carey Salt Co.
Independent Salt Co.
Morton Salt Co.
Vulcan Materials Co.,
Chemicals Div.
Allied Chemical Corp.,
Industrial Chemicals Div.
Cargill, Inc.
Diamond Crystal Salt Co.,
Jefferson Island Div.
The Dow Chemical Co.
International Salt Co.
Avery Mine & Refinery
Morton Salt Co.
PPG Industries, Inc., Industrial
Chemical Division
Diamond Crystal Salt Co.
Brine wells
Solar evaporation;and open pit
mine
Solar evaporation
Solar evaporation
Solar evaporation
Solar evaporation
Solar evaporation
Wells and underground
Wells and underground
.Underground
Wells
Brine wells
Brine wells
Underground mine
Underground mine
Brine wells
Underground mine
Underground mine
Underground mine
Brine wells and processing
plant: salt
Washington
Alameda, Napa,
San Bernardino,
San Mateo
San Bernardino
San Bernardino
San Bernardino
Kern and San Diego
Oahu
Rice
Reno
Ellsworth
Reno
Sedgwick
Iberville
St. Mary
Iberia
Iberville
Iberia
Iberia
Calcasieu
St. Clair
Alabama
California
California
California
California
California
Hawaii
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Louisiana
Louisiana
Louisiana
Louisiana
Louisiana
Louisiana
Louisiana
Michigan
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-8 (continued)
Company
Type of activity
County
State
The Dow Chemical Co.:
Ludington plant
Midland plant
Hooker Chemical Corp.
International Salt Co., Inc.
Martin Marietta Chemicals,
Refractories Div.
Michigan Chemical Corp.
St. Louis Plant
Morton Chemical Co., div.
Morton-Norwich Products, Inc.
Morton Salt Co., div. of
Morton-Norwich Products, Inc.
Manistee plant
Port Hurton plant
Pennwalt Corp.
Wilkinson Chemical Corp.
BASF Wyandotte Corp.
Brine wells and processing.
plant: bromine, calcium-
magnesium compounds,
magnesium compounds Mason
Brine wells and processing
plant: bromine, calcium-
magnesium compounds, iodine,
magnesium compounds, salt Midland
Brine wells and processing
plant: salt Muskegon
Underground salt mine Wayne
Brine wells and processing
plant: magnesium compounds Manistee
Brine wells and processing
plant: bromine, calcium
magnesium compounds, mag-
nesium compounds, salt Gratiot
Brine wells and processing
plant: bromine, magnesium
compounds Manistee
Brine wells and processing
plant: salt Manistee
Brine wells and processing
plant: salt St. Clair
Brine wells and processing
plant: salt Wayne
Brine wells and processing
plant: calcium-magnesium
compounds Lapeer
Brine wells and processing
plant: salt Wayne
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-8 (continued)
Company
Type of activity
County
State
Huck Salt Co.
Teledyne Potash Co.
Morton Salt Co.
Watkins Salt Co., Inc.
Cargill, Inc.
International Salt Co.
Industrial Chemicals Div.,
Allied Chemical Corp.
Hardy Salt Co.
Diamond Shamrock Chemical Co.,
unit of Diamond Shamrock Corp.
PPG Industries, Inc.
Diamond Crystal Salt Co.
oo Excelsior Salt Works, Inc.
Morton Salt Co., a division of
Morton International, Inc.
International Salt Co.
Morton Salt Co., a division of
Morton International, Inc.
Blackmon Salt Co.
Western Salt Co.
Diamond Shamrock Corp.
The Dow Chemical Co.
Montex Chemical Co.
Morton Salt Co.
PPG Industries
Phillips Petroleum Co.
Texas Brine Corp.
United Salt Corp.
Vulcan Materials Co.
Solar evaporation
Solar evaporation and rock
salt
Well
Well
Underground
Underground
Well
Well and plant
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Underground
Underground
Solar evaporation
Solar evaporation
Brine wells
Brine wells
Brine wells
Underground mine and brine wells
Brine wells
Brine wells
Brine wells
Underground mine and brine wells
Brine wells
Churchill
Eddy
Wyoming
SchuyJLer
Tompkins
Livingston
Onondaga
Williams
Lake
Summit
Summit
Meigs
Wayne
Cuyahoga
Lake
Woods
Harman
Chambers
Brazoria
Ward
Van Zandt
Duval
Hutchinson
Harris, Jefferson,
Matagorda
Fort Bend and Harris
Yoakum
Nevada
New Mexico
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-8 (continued)
00
Company
American Salt Co.
Great Salt Lake Minerals &
Chemicals Corp .
Morton Salt Co., a division of
Morton International , Inc .
Industrial Chemicals Div. Allied
Chemical Corp.
Inorganic Chemical Div.
FMC Corp.
PPG Industries, Inc., Chemical
Div.
Type of activity
Lake brine processing plant
Solar evaporation
Lake brine processing plant
Plant
Mine
Plant
County
Tooele
Weber
Salt Lake
Marshall
Tyler
Marshall
State
Utah
Utah
Utah
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
TABLE A- 9.
PRINCIPAL PRODUCERS OF
SODIUM SULFATE
Company
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp.
Stauffer Chemical Co.
United States Borax &
Chemical Corp.
Ozark-Mahoning Co.
Great Salt Lake Minerals
& Chemicals Corp.
Type of activity
Dry lake brines
Dry lake brines
Open pit mine
Open pit mine
Salt lake brine
County
San Bernardino
San Bernardino
Kern
Gaines and Terry
Weber
State
California
California
California
Texas
Utah
-------
TABLE A-10. PRINCIPAL PRODUCERS OF SULFUR
oo
Company
Freeport Minerals Co.
Texas Gulf, Inc.
Atlantic Richfield Co.
Duval Corp,
Texasgulf, Inc.
Type of activity
Prasch process
Frasch process
Frasch process
Frasch process
Frasch process
County
Jefferson,
Plaquemines ,
Terrebonne <
Lafourche
Pecos
Culberson
Jefferson, Liberty
Wharton
State
Louisiana
Louisiana
Texas
Texas
Texas
TABLE A-ll. PRINCIPAL PRODUCERS OF TRONA ORE
Company
Type of activity
County
State
Allied Chemical Corp . , Industrial
Chemicals Division
FMC Corp. , Inorganic Chemicals
Division
Stauffer Chemical Co.
of Wyoming
Underground mine and refinery
Underground mine and refinery
Underground mine and refinery
Sweetwater
Sweetwater
Sweetwater
Wyoming
Wyoming
Wyoming
-------
APPENDIX B
EMISSION FACTOR ESTIMATES FOR
MINING AND BENEFICIATING OPERATION
An emission factor estimate for the mineral of interest is
obtained by coupling the process information presented in the
source description section with actual emission factors for
related industries.
A list of typical mining and beneficiation operations and their
corresponding emission factors is presented in Table B-l (24, 25,
29). Following the table, specific emission factors for each
mineral have been totaled; the results are shown in Tables 6-^2
through B-12.
The method helps to relate emission potentials for the minerals;
it does not give the definitive answers which can be obtained
only by actual sampling.
(29) Blackwood, T. R., P. K. Chalekode, and R. A. Wachter.
Source Assessment: Crushed Stone. Contract 68-02-1874,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,
July 1977. 91 pp.
85
-------
TABLE B-l.
LIST OF UNIT OPERATIONS AND
CORRESPONDING EMISSION FACTORS
Unit operation
Blasting
Drilling (wet)
Quarrying
Primary crushing
and unloading
Secondary crushing
and screening
Tertiary crushing
and screening
Fines crushing and
screening
Conveying
Loading trucks
Unloading trucks
Transport (wet)
Dragline (overburden
removal)
Dragline (ore
removal)
Bagging
Drying
Silo storage
Railcar loading
Respirable
particulates,
g/kg
0.0000088
0.000016
0.0011
0.0013
0.00034
0.000067
0.000015
0.000011
0.000045
0.000054
0.00020
a
0.0085
a
0.00004
0.00023
0.0071a
0.0113
0.016a
Total
particulates ,
g/kg
0.000052
0.00016
0.011
0.013
0.00062
0.00036
0.000092
0.0017
0.00017
0.00013
0.0012
0.085
0.0004
0.002
0.071
0.105
0.161
Type of
industry
Crushed stone
Crushed stone
Crushed stone
Crushed stone
Crushed stone
Crushed stone
Crushed stone
Crushed stone
Crushed stone
Crushed stone
Crushed stone
Coal
Coal
Potash
Phosphate rock
Phosphate rock
Phosphate rock
Reference
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
24
25
b
"b
"b
Assuming respirable particulates = total particulates x 0.1.
Values as reported in Section 4, Table 7.
86
-------
TABLE B-2. BARITE
Unit operation
typical to
the industry
Respirable
participates,
g/kg
Total
particulates,
g/kg
Quarrying
Loading trucks
Unloading trucks
Conveying
Primary crushing
and unloading
Fines crushing
and screening
Drying
Bagging
Total :
g/kg
g/metric ton
0.0011
0.000045
0.000054
0.00011
0.0013
0.000015
0.014a
0.0002
0.017
17
0.011
0.00017
0.00013
0.0017
0.013
0.000092
0.140
0.002
0.17
170
Assuming respirable particulates = total particu-
lates x 0.1.
TABLE B-3. BORATES
Unit operation
typical to
the 'industry
Respirable
particulates,
g/kg
Total
particulates,
g/kg
Quarrying
Conveying
Primary crushing
and unloading
Secondary crushing
and screening
Drying
Storage silo
Drilling (wet)
Blasting
Total :
g/kg
g/metric ton
0.0011
0.000011
0.0013
0.00034
0.0071a
0.0113
0.000016
0.0000088
0.021
21
0.011
0.0017
0.013
0.00062
0.071
0.105
0.00016
0.000052
0.203
203
a.
Assuming respirable particulates = total particu-
lates x 0.1.
87
-------
TABLE B-4. FLUORSPAR
Unit operation
typical to
the industry
Primary crushing
and unloading
Secondary crushing
and screening
Tertiary crushing
and screening
Fines crushing
and screening
Conveying
Drying
Silo storage
Railcar loading
Total :
g/kg
g/metric ton
Respirable
particulates ,
g/kg
0.0013
0.00034
0.000067
0.000015
0.000011
0.00719
O.Olia
0.016
0.036
36
Total
particulates,
g/kg
0-013
0.00062
0.00036
0.000092
0.0017
0.071
0.105
0.161
0.35
350
Assuming respirable particulates = total particu-
lates x 0.1.
TABLE B-5. LITHIUM MINERALS
Unit operation
typical to
the industry
Respirable
particulates,
g/kg
Total
particulates,
g/kg
Quarrying
Loading trucks
Unloading trucks
Primary crushing
and unloading
Conveying
Drying
Bagging
Total :
g/kg
g/metric ton
0.0011
0.000045
0.000054
0.0013
0.000011
0.0071!*
0.0002
0.010
10
0-011
0.00017
0-00013
0.013
0.0017
0.071
0.002
0.10
100
Assuming respirable particulates = total particu-
lates x 0.1.
88
-------
TABLE B-6. MINERAL PIGMENTS
Unit operation Respirable Total
typical to particulates, particulates,
the industry g/kg g/kg
Loading trucks
Unloading trucks
Primary crushing
and unloading
Conveying
Drying
Silo storage
Bagging
Total:
g/kg
g/metric ton
0.000045
0.000054
0.0013
0.000011
0.00713
0-011
0.0002
0.020
20
0.00017
0.00013
0.013
0.0017
0.071
0.105
0.002
0.19
190
Assuming respirable particulates = total particu-
lates x 0.1.
TABLE B-7. BRINE SALT
Unit operation Respirable Total
typical to particulates, particulates,
the industry g/kg
Drilling (wet)
Drying
Primary crushing
and unloading
Bagging
Total :
g/kg
g/metric ton
0.000016
0-00713
0-0013,
0.0002
0.009
9
0.00016
0.071
0.013
0.002
0.086
86
Assuming respirable particulates = total particu-
lates x 0.1.
89
-------
TABLE B-8. ROCK SALT
Unit operation
typical to
the industry
Respirable
particulates,
g/kg
Total
particulates,
g/kg
Underground
drilling (wet) 0.000016
Underground blasting 0.0000088
Underground con-
veying 0.000011
Underground primary
crushing and
* unloading 0.0013
0.00016
0.000052
0.0017
0.013
Total (underground)
0.5 x Total
(underground)
Surface secondary
crushing and
screening
Surface bagging
Total :
g/kg
g/metric ton
0.00134
0.00067
0.00034
0.0002a
0.0012
1.2
0.0149
0.0075
0.00062
0.002
0.010
10
Assuming respirable particulates = total particu-
lates x 0.1.
TABLE B-9. SOLAR EVAPORATED SALT
Unit operation
typical to
the industry
Drying
Primary crushing
and unloading
Bagging
Total :
g/kg
g/metric ton
Respirable
particulates ,
g/kg
0.00713
0.0013
0.0002d
0-009
9
Total
particulates ,
g/kg
0.071
0.013
0.002
0.086
86
Assuming respirable particulates = total particu-
lates x 0.1.
90
-------
TABLE B-10. SODIUM SULFATE
Unit operation
typical to
the industry
Respirable
particulates,
g/kg
Total
particulates,
g/kg
Drying
Bagging
Total:
g/kg
g/metric ton
0.0071'
0.0002'
0.0073
7.3
0.071
0.002
0.073
73
Assuming respirable particulates = total particu-
lates x 0.1.
TABLE B-ll. SULFUR
Unit operation
typical to
the industry
Respirable
particulates,
g/kg
Total
particulates,
g/kg
Drilling (wet)
Total:
g/kg
g/metric ton
0.000016
0.000016
0.016
0.00016
0.00016
0.16
TABLE B-12. TRONA ORE
Unit operation
typical to
the industry
Respirable
particulates,
g/kg
Total
particulates,
g/kg
Drilling (wet)
Blasting
Primary crushing
and unloading
Conveying
0.000016
0.0000088
0.0013
0.000011'
Total (underground) 0.0013
0.5 x Total
underground) 0.0007
Secondary crushing
and screening 0.00034
Drying 0.0071a
Total:
g/kg 0.011
g/metric ton 11
0-00016
0.000052
0.013
0.0017
0.015
0.008
0.00062
0.071
0.110
110
a
Assuming respirable particulates = total particu-
lates x 0.1.
91
-------
APPENDIX C
STATE PARTICULATE EMISSION BURDENS FROM
THE PRODUCTION OF SPECIFIC MATERIALS
TABLE C-l.
STATE PARTICULATE EMISSION BURDENS FROM
THE PRODUCTION OF SPECIFIC MATERIALS
Material produced
Barite
Borates
b
Fluorspar
Phosphate rock
Potash
Brine saltb
Rock salt
Solar evaporated salt
Sodium sulfate
Sulfur
Trona ore
State
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Missouri
Nevada
Tennessee
California
Utah
Florida
Idaho
Montana
North Carolina
Tennessee
Utah
Wyoming
New Mexico
Kansas
Louisiana
Michigan
New York
Ohio
Texas
Utah
Kansas
Louisiana
Michigan
New York
Ohio
California
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Utah
California
Texas
Utah
Louisiana
Texas
Wyoming
Overall
particulate
emissions,
10 3 metric
tons/yr
13.9
138
1,010
1,150
305
410
1,010
71.7
226.5
55.5
872
481
410
71.7
75.4
103
348
380380
706
160
1,770
549
71.7
348
380
706
160
1,770
1,010
103
93.6
71.7
1,010
549
71.7
380
549
75.4
Particulate
emissions
due to
production ,
metric
tons/yr
20.7
25.8
1.7
30.3
84.6
3.2
203
1.5
16,030
480
480
801
801
480
480
16,783
54
293
347
243
259
808
37
12.7
79.5
3.4
18.9
121
118
6
0.4
19
81
27
27
0.48
0.60
405
Contribution
from
production
to overall
state
emission, %
0.15
0.02
_c
-
0.03
-
0.02
-
7.1
0.87
0.06
0.17
0.20
0.67
0.64
16
0.02
0.08
0.05
1.15
0.01
0.15
0.05
_
0.02
-
0.01
-
0.01
_
_
0.03
_
-
-
_
-
0.54
Total particulate emissions = (total metric tons of emission/metric tons of pro-
duction) [metric tons of production (per state)/year].
Production data for all producing states are not available.
GDashes indicate negligible emission, <0.01%.
92
-------
APPENDIX D
MAJOR WASTEWATER PROBLEM AREAS
MINE WATER DRAINAGE (3)
Most chemical and fertilizer mineral mining operations have small
amounts of drainage which need little or no treatment. The
exceptions are described below:
• When the ore in phosphate rock mines lies below the
water table, the water table may be lowered by massive
pumping to drain the mine and surrounding area. An
alternate method is to mine below the water level.
• Salt mines frequently have seepage and drainage problems
which may be handled by pumping the water to the surface
for subsequent treatment and disposal, or pumping the
drainage directly to a nearby aquifer.
• Fluorspar mine drainage varies to a great extent. The
quality of the water in terms of suspended solids and
dissolved fluoride is better than the quality of waste-
water from associated processing plants.
• Barite mines normally have small amounts of mine drain-
age, but at least one plant has a large drainage flow
of acidic water which contains dissolved heavy metal
salts.
FLUORSPAR WASTEWATER (3)
Process wastewater from fluorspar operations has a high content
of suspended solids and fluoride. Fluorides are currently being
discharged without treatment.
PHOSPHATE ROCK SLIMES
Disposal problems associated with the slime from Florida land-
pebble water plants are by far the most serious environmental
problems facing the Florida phosphate rock industry. The slimes
problem, in fact, may well be the most significant of all fertil-
izer production problems.
93
-------
Phosphate slime, which constitutes about one-third of the total
matrix mined, has been a disposal problem to the phosphate indus-
try ever since mining began in Polk County, Florida, about 1890.
The disposal problem increased significantly in the late 1920"s
with the introduction of the flotation process. This is because
the matrix mined for flotation has a higher clay content than ore
mined before the use of flotation.
The treatment of slimes consists of gravity settling through an
extensive use of ponds. At 3% to 5% solids, the slimes either
flow by gravity through open ditches with necessary lift stations
or are pumped directly to the settling ponds.
After an initial settling and clarification period, some of the
water containing the slimes is reclaimed and can be recycled to
the plant. However, subsequent settling of the slimes to release
more water is very slow. The slow settling characteristic, or
inability to dewater, is a common property of Florida phosphate
slimes. At present, over 202.5 x 106 m2 of active and inactive
settling areas exist, surrounded by more than 480 km of earth
dams. About 16.2 x 106 m2 of new settling areas are being con-
structed each year. The magnitude of the disposal problem is
readily appreciated when it is realized that the industry pro-
duces some 36 million metric tons of these waste clays (dry
basis) annually. A chemical analysis of slimes solids is pre-
sented in Table D-l (30).
Current dewatering concepts are briefly presented in Figure D-l.
Other processes which have been proposed include freeze-thawing,
electro-osmosis, chemical coagulation, spherical agglomeration,
and drainage systems.
These potential solutions to the problem are being evaluated, and
the likelihood of finding feasible alternatives to above-ground
impoundments appears very good.
SULFUR PRODUCTION (3)
Salt dome sulfur producers have to treat and dispose of large
amounts of bleedwater. Two problems are presented; the removal
of sulfides and the disposal of the remaining brine. Currently,
there is no economical way to desalt brine. Waste brine must be
disposed of immediately in brackish or salt water, or held to be
discharged intermittently at specified times.
The industry has two types of bleedwater treatment plants for the
removal of sulfides prior to discharge. Examples of each are
presented in Figures D-2 and D-3.
(30) Lamont, W. E., J. T. McLendon, L. W. Clements, Jr., and
I. L. Feld. Characterization Studies of Florida Phosphate
Slimes. ROI 8089, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washing-
ton, D.C., 1975. 24 pp.
94
-------
TABLE D-l.
Ul
CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF AS-RECEIVED SLIMES SOLIDS (30)
(percent)
Chemical analyses
Calcium oxide
Phosphorus pentoxide
Equivalent BPL3
Calcium oxide
Phorphorus pentoxide
Magnesium oxide
Aluminum oxide
iron (III) oxide
Silicon dioxide
Sodium monoxide
Potassium monoxide
Fluorine
Carbon
Carbon dioxide
Sulfur
1
8.3
5.1
11.1
1£-i
6.7
10.3
4.6
47.6
0.3
0.5
.1
1.1
2.2
0.22
2
12.8
8.2
17.9
ICfL
2.3
13.7
4.3
46.1
0.3
1.4
. 2
0.8
1.3
0.17
3
18.5
13.7
29.9
1-3C
4.0
12.2
2.5
30.4
0.2
0.6
.3
1.7
5.0
0.21
4
18.6
15.7
29.9
I-ac
1.5
13.5
1.9
33.4
0.3
0.8
1.0
1.5
0.31
5
18.4
16.2
35.4
1 Id
0.8
16.8
1.7
28.2
0.1
0.6
0.5
1.0
0.11
6
26.9
19.7
43.0
1-37
2.0
10.4
1.6
23.1
0.2
0.6
1.5
3.4
0.36
7
21.6
17.3
37.8
IOC
1.4
12.9
3.2
27.5
0.3
0.8
0.5
1.3
0.12
8
16.4
11.6
25.3
1 41
3.2
12.6
2.3
33.5
0.2
0.2
1.9
4.6
0.22
9
9.1
5.9
12.9
1 54
3.6
12.5
5.5
45.8
0.3
1.3
1.0
2.9
0.10
Sample
10
18.7
13.5
29.5
1-3Q
2.7
10.7
5.4
34.5
0.2
0.5
0.6
1.2
0.14
11
18.7
11.0
24.0
1 -jn
6.2
7.6
2.1
34.0
0.3
0.5
1.8
5.3
0.18
12
9.6
8.3
18.1
1 i ft
1.6
12.5
3.3
49.1
0.3
1.5
0.4
0.7
0.12
13
24.6
17.2
37. 6
1 A1
3.0
8.2
1.6
28.6
0.5
0.4
1.0
2.2
0.31
14
11.2
8.7
19.0
1OQ
2.2
13.0
8.3
39.5
0.4
1.1
0.6
1.1
0.21
15
10.1
9.7
21.2
'
1.6
12.1
2.8
46.6
1.2
0.8
0.7
1.0
0.17
Average
16.2
12.0
26.2
1-ae
2.9
11.9
3.4
36.5
0.3
0.8
.5
1.0
2.3
0.20
High
26.9
19.7
43.0
6.7
16.8
8.3
49.1
1.2
1.5
2.3
1.9
5.3
0.36
LOW
8.3
5.1
11.1
In A
0.8
7.6
1.6
23.1
0.1
0.2
0.7
0.4
0.7
0.10
BPL = Bone phosphate of lime (% BPL • 0.4576 = %
-------
SAND SPRAY
TAILS. Sx,
CLAY
/ y / •/. /• y / .
^FLOCCULATED CLAY AND,
FLOCCULATED CLAY AND TAILINGS \ /.TAILINGS MIX'/
-DILUTE =—S-S
CLAY A TAILINGS
DEWATERED TAILINGS
PRETHICKENED CLAY/SAND MIX
CLAY/SAND MIX.
CLAY SANDWICH
V / / y / .CLAY / / / //
\: •.• -• _•.'••-••.: SAND ;.- •.•••VT7
\ ' / / CLAY / / //
V. .•..'..•: SAND J•••.•. /
Figure D-l. Current dewatering concepts (13)
SULFUROUS FLUE GAS
ACID - TO STACK
I DEPOSITION A
INHIBITOR T
FLUE GAS
TO STACK
AIR LIFTED fc SETT
BLEEDWATER ^ BAS
LING f T ^
IN MIXER PIPE
RAW WATER — »
BOILER
FLUE *
PACKED __
TOWERS
1
PACKED
TOWERS
I
ECONOMIZER
GAS 1
» AERATORS • SETTLING
» AC.IXAIUKO. • BASINS
WASTE WER
DISCHARGE
TO PROCESS
FOR MINE WATER
Figure D-2. Bleedwater treating plant type 1 (3).
96
-------
WATER
BLEEDWSTER-
SLU06E
TANK
SETTLING
BASINS
WASTE WATER
DISCHARGE
Figure D-3. Bleedwater treating plant type 2 (3).
At one offshore salt dome facility, bleedwater is discharged
without treatment due to space restrictions. Concentrations of
effluents from bleedwater plants are given in Appendix F in
Table F-6.
97
-------
APPENDIX E
HAZARD RATIO CALCULATIONS
AIR
This appendix provides an example of the procedure used to calcu-
late the hazard ratio of maximum time-averaged downwind ground
level concentration to an ambient air quality standard and the
affected population for respirable particulates. The effect of
growth factor and control technology on air emissions is also
briefly described. In addition it discusses the hazard'ratio of
an effluent discharge to water quality criteria.
For ground level sources, the hazard ratio for respirable partic-
ulates is given as (31):
= 4,020 Q (E_1}
P Dl .81(4
where Sp = hazard ratio for respirable particulates
Q = representative mass emission rate, g/s
D = representative distance from the source, m
For phosphate rock operations, the emission factor for respirable
particulates is 37 g/metric ton. The emission rate from a repre-
sentative plant of 2 x 106 metric tons/yr is the product of the
emission factor and the production rate. Assuming that one
operating year equals 260 operating days with each day 20 hr long:
(385 metric tons/hr)(37 g/metric ton) = 14,230 g/hr =4.0 g/s
At the representative distance of 400 m, the hazard ratio is cal-
culated from Equation E-l as 0.30.
The distance at which the hazard ratio equals 0.1 for respirable
particulates is computed from Equation E-l, rearranged to:
(E 2)
(31) Blackwood, T. R., and R. A. Wachter. Source Assessment:
Coal Storage Piles. Contract 68-02-1874, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, July 1977. 96 pp.
98
-------
D - r(4'°2°) (4.o)iii-8^
Dsp=o.i - L - on — J = 74° m
The area affected within the boundary of 400 m to 740 m is com-
puted by subtracting the area of a circle with a 400 m diameter
from the area of a circle with a 736 m diameter — 0.30 km2. The
population affected is the product of the area affected and the
population density of 50 persons/km2 or 15 persons. *
The growth factor is the ratio of the calculated 1980 emissions
levels to the 1974 levels. Production for 1980 is calculated
assuming a 4.7% annual increase (Section 6) from 1974 to 1980.
The 1980 production level is thus 54.58 x 106 metric tons. The
1980 emissions are calculated by applying the efficiency of the
best available control technology to the emission factor for the
loading of railroad hopper cars, since this is the major area in
the phosphate rock industry where additional control technology
is being developed. Assuming that new systems will be able to
attain efficiencies of 90% (by weight) , the respirable particu-
lates emission factor for railcar loading will be reduced from
161 g/metric ton (Section 6) to 16 g/metric ton.
The new emission factor for total particulates , after applying
the best control technology available, is 217 g/metric ton. This
represents a 60% reduction from the 362 g/metric ton 1974 level.
Multiplying the 1980 production level of 54.58 x 106 metric tons
by this factor yields emissions of 11,848 metric tons/yr of total
particulates in 1980. The ratio of 1980 to 1974 emissions is
thus 0.74.
WATER
The concept of a hazard ratio applied to air emissions was con-
sidered an excess relative dose or relative environmental burden.
The same concept holds true for water discharges (32) .
The hazard ratio is defined as:
VDC
3W= (VR + VD)F
S,, = ,„ PT ^ (E-3)
1
where S = hazard ratio for water effluent
V = volumetric flow rate of the discharge
(32) Eimutis, E. C. , T. J. Hoogheem, and T. W. Hughes. Briefing
Document: Water Source Severity and Initial Water Priori-
tization Structures. Draft prepared under EPA Contract 68-
02-1874 by Monsanto Research Corporation, Dayton, Ohio, 21
September 1976. 12 pp.
99
-------
C = concentration of the discharge
V = volumetric flow rate of the river
Xx
F = hazard factor
Table F-4 gives the discharge concentrations at 24 sites (person-
al communication with John C. Barnett, State of Florida, Depart-
ment of Environmental Regulation, January 26, 1977). From the
table, the following average discharge concentrations were deter-
mined for a representative phosphate rock plant: phosphorus as P,
1.08 x 103 mg/m3; fluoride, 1.72 x 103 mg/m3; TSS, 11.14 x 103
mg/m3.
An average discharge flow rate was determined to be 0.147 m3/s; a
case of direct discharge into the Peace River in central Florida
was assumed. The average flow rate of the Peace River is
25.8 m3/s (33). The hazard factors are developed in Reference 34
from EPA water quality criteria or similar data. The hazard
factors for phosphorus, fluoride, and TSS are 0.1 g/m3, 0.19 g/m3,
and 25 g/m3, respectively (34). Using Equation E-3, the hazard
ratios are 0.061 for phosphorus, 0.051 for fluoride, and 0.0025
for TSS.
(33) Specht, R. C. Phosphate Waste Studies. Bulletin Series
No. 32, University of Florida Engineering and Industrial
Experiment Station, Gainesville, Florida, February 1950.
26 pp.
(34) Eimutis, E. C., J. L. Delaney, T. J. Hoogheem, S. R. Archer,
J. C. Ochsner, W. R. McCurley, T. W. Hughes, and R. P. Quill.
Source Assessment: Prioritization of Stationary Water Pollu-
tion Sources. EPA-600/2-77-107p, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
December 1977. 132 pp.
100
-------
TABLE F-l.
EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION OF POLLUTANTS
FROM BARITE PROCESSING (3)
Daily average {maximum} , g/ra3
Effluent source Site
Underground mine 1
Dry process
Wet process 1
Flotation process:
Tailings pond 1
Clear water pond 1
Effluent
flow
760,000*
0
c
°f
(0.760)
°f
(0.380)
IDS
2,950
(6,900)
6.0 d
(8.0)
800
(1,271)
1,000
(1,815)
TSS
50
(100)
15
(32)
3
5
3
(6)
Ammonia
0.30
(1.0)
0.1
(0.5)
<0.1
I[<0.1)
5
(35)
Cadmium
0.01
(0.02)
0.004
(0.008)
_b
Chromium
_b
0.200
(0.400)
0.100
(0.120)
Iron,
total
0.10
(0.02)
0.04
(0.09)
0.030
(0.060)
0.030
(0.070)
Lead,
total
0.01
(0.02)
0.03
(0.10)
0.020
(0.080)
0.040
(0.090)
Manganese
0.02
(0.10)
0.002
(0.008)
0.004
(0.008)
Nickel,
total
0.02
(0.04)
0.030
(0.070)
0.030
(0.070)
Zinc,
total
0.01
(0.02)
0.005
(0.010)
0.030
(0.090)
"m'/yr.
applicable. CMot available. pH. ETotal barium. m3/min.
TABLE F-2.
EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION OF POLLUTANTS
FROM FLUORSPAR PROCESSING (3)
Effluent source
Mine water discharge
Average
Range
Heavy media separation
Froth flotation
Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1
2
Effluent
flow,
JlVday
273
490
54
303
4,769
1,892
1,892
54
(4,769)
a
1,212^
2,608°
PH
7.5
7.0
(8.0)
7.8
7.2
8.2
Fluoride Sulfide
2.0 0.37
1.1 0.37
(3.2) 0.37
3.0
5.1
9.8
Daily average (maximum) , g/m3
Iron,
TDS TSS Cadmium Copper total
900 35 0.03 0.01 0.27
353 10 0.03 0.01 0.05
(2,998) (300) 0.03 0.01 (0.90)
10.0
500
1,800
Lead> Nickel, zinc,
total Manganese total total
0.08 0.12 0.20 0.31
Trace 0.10 0.29 0.02
(0.20) (0.15) 0.29 (1.00)
0.015 0.09
G
td
S 3
H i-3
M O
& °
IT" O
cn M
w pd
H
O
G
cn
M
a
H
X
Not available. Assumes 80% of process waste as discharge.
-------
TABLE F-3. EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION OF POLLUTANTS
FROM LITHIUM MINERALS PROCESSING (3)
Effluent
flow,
Daily average (maximum), g/m3
Phosphorus, Sulfate,
Site m3/day BOD TDS TSS as P Chloride as S Aluminum Iron Manganese Silicon Sodium Potassium Fluoride Lithium pa
1 830 6 - -
2 7,900 1.6 515 14
0.05
0.32
a
28
_a
63
4.2
a
1.7
14.6
2929
6.0
a
2.2
_a
6.3
7.0
(7.5)
Not available.
TABLE F-4. EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION OF POLLUTANTS
FROM PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING (3)
Effluent source: Florida operations
Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
7.
8b
9b
10°
11
12b
13b
14°
15b
16°
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Effluent flow,
10~3 m3/min
Mean
15,872
9,259
12,893
2,267
12,450
11,606
10,043
12,867
5,841
a
47542
18,927
16,277
42,381
7,942
16,190
14,014
25,101
382
1,719
2,786
3,066
3,115
3,172
Max
56,781
41,640
49,210
13,461
46,791
42,828
35,303
43,381
32,831
_a
~a
~a
~a
7527672
63,216
126,702
89,506
70,216
2,146
_a
~a
~a
~a
~a
Daily average (maximum) , cf/m3
Mean pH
range '
6.2(7.9)
6.2(8.1)
6.8(7.9)
6.3(7.8)
6.4(8.3)
6.8(7.9)
6.0(7.5)
5.4(7.3)
6.4(7.7)
6.6(7.2)
6.9(7.5)
6.7(7.4)
6.0(7.4)
6.5(8.4)
6.3(9.3)
4.6(9.3)
6.0(8.0)
7.0(8.5)
7.1(8.1)
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
Fluoride
1.67
2.31
1.90
1.66
1.24
1.19
1.97
5.35
7.75
5.22
2.21
2.14
2.97
2.26
1.54
1.14
2.42
2.22
1.65
1.45
1.30
Phosphorus
0.69
0.39
0.78
1.71
2.24
2.54
1.42
5.57
9.83
6.76
1.07
0.86
21.73
18.44
1.71
10.08
1.41
1.02
0.36
1.94
1.07
0.96
1.22
0.38
TSS
7.46
6.01
3.67
5.21
11.20
4.93
9.21
10-83
8.23
6.86
3.14
2.32
8.34
26.44
18.28
34.00
7.86
21.65
19.01
1.24
13.10
0.18
0.35
16.96
Not available.
3This data cannot be considered representative of slime pond/
settling area mine effluent due to mixing with gypsum stack/process
water; therefore, it was not included in averaging calculations.
102
-------
TABLE F-5.
EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION OF POLLUTANTS
FROM ROCK SALT PROCESSING (3)
Site
1
2
3
4
5a
5b
Effluent
flow,
10~3 mVmin
2,839
105
347
53
213
363
Daily average (maximum) , g/m3
TDS
4,660
30,900
a
30,200
53,000
(112,000)
319,000
(323,000)
Na
1,840
7,200
a
11,900
a
a
Cl
2,820
15,700
18,000
18,500
32,000
(69,000)
182,000
(190,000)
TSS
Trace
72
150
Trace
470
(4,050)
1,870
SOi,
Trace
1,400
370
a
208
260
PH
a
7.5
6.5
a
8.5
(9.0)
7.6
Not available.
TABLE F-6.
EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION OF POLLUTANTS
FROM SULFUR PROCESSING (3)
Effluent source: Treated bleedwater effluents
Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Effluent
flow.
mVday
4,600
27,000
19,000
38,000
17,000
23,000
11,500
4,600
27,000
19,000
38,000
17,000
23,000
11,500
4,600
27,000
19,000
38,000
17,000
23,000
11,500
4,600
27,000
19,000
38,000
17,000
23,000
11,500
Alkalinity Ammonia
149
145
104
130
50
110
76
Nitrogen-
Kjeldahl
0.95
0.84
5.64
1.3
0.9
0.8
2.0
Color
point
CO units
18
55
83
22
16
45
15
Manganese
0.014
0.011
0.095
0.300
0.600
0.700
0.120
g/n.3
BOD Chloride COD Fluoride Bromide Hardness
0.34 32 14,580 202 1.09
0,0 3.2 13,725 46 1.22
<0.2 89.5 5,895 292 0.23
0.5 5 25,000 42 0.5
0.4 2.1 15,500 32 0.4
0.4 350 13,732 490 0.5
0.35 6.4 18,250 70 0.2
Oil and
Total
grease pH phosphorus
1.2 7
0.9 7
2.4 7
4.0 7
2.0 7
11.0 6
2.0 8
Specific
conductance
pmhos
36,774
32,365
16,209
61,600
50,000
33,000
53,000
Mercury
0.0005
0.0003
0.0004
<0.001
<0.001
O.OOl
-------
TABLE F-7. EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION OF POLLUTANTS
FROM TRONA ORE PROCESSING (3)
Effluent source: Process wastewater
Effluent
flow, TS TDS TSS
Site m3/day ~~ g/m3
1 23 9,000 8,300 700
Plans.are underway to eliminate this
discharge, which is the only one in
the industry.
104
-------
APPENDIX G
SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY
SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL OBJECTIVES
A phosphate rock processing facility was sampled and analyzed for
the following:
• Ground level concentration.
• Meteorological data such as wind speed, direction, and
atmospheric stability class.
• Distance from sampler to source.
• Composition of emissions (emphasis on heavy metals) .
• Fraction of respirable particulate (less than 7 ym) .
Dispersion equations were applied to reduce this data to the
following:
• Mass emissions for selected site.
• Respirable emissions (less than 7 ym) for source type.
• Emission factors for U.S. average conditions.
• Composition of emissions.
• Effects of wind speed on emissions.
ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION MODELING
For the arrangement shown in Figure G-l, let the origin be
defined at the source and all remaining points in the usual
Cartesian coordinate system. Let 0 be the angle of mean wind
speed. Then to find the value of any point yi perpendicular to
the wind direction centerline, the following is computed:
m! = tan 9 (G-l)
and for point S^ with coordinates x.^, y^^
iT (G-2)
xi
The angle a is found from
105
-------
AZIMUTH
METEOROLOGICAL STATION
Figure G-l. Sampling arrangement.
m2 - mi
a = arctan
1 + [(mi) (ro2)J
The lateral distance Y. is
Y. = (sin a)
and the downward distance X. is
X. = (cos a)
(G-3)
(G-4)
(G-5)
Estimates of stability class were determined using the procedure
described in Figure G-2. The dispersion coefficients Oy and az
can be found in Figures 3-2 and 3-3 of Turner's "Workbook of
Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates" (35) . The source strength Q
will be calculated as an average of the N sampler readings from
the following:
(35) Turner, B. D. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates.
Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-26, U.S. Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, Cincinnati, Ohio,
May 1970. 84 pp.
106
-------
O
-J
,
TIME OF DAY
NOONTIME
LATE AM, EARLY PM
MID AM. MID PM
EARLY AM, LATE PM
INSOLATION
CLASS
4
3
2
1
IFINDEX<1
USE1
•*-(!
1
WIND
SPEED
CALM
(0 to 2 MPH)
LIGHT
(2 to 5 MPH)
MODERATE
(5 to 10 MPH)
STRONG
O10MPH)
NET RADIATION INDEX
4
A
A
B
C
3
A
B
B
C
2
B
C
C
D
1
C
D
D
D
0
D
D
D
D
-1
F
E
D
D
-2
F
F
E
D
STABILITY CATEGORIES
Figure G-2. Flow chart of atmospheric stability class determination.
-------
n
Q- £
X • ira
Ai y
a u
z
i=l N exp -
(G-6)
where u = average wind speed
This process was computerized for efficient reduction of experi-
mental data.
FIELD SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY
A Gaussian plume equation was used to estimate the fugitive dust
source strength from ground level ambient air samplers. Since
the Gaussian plume equation gives a time-averaged description of
the concentration field, a number of receptors were used as shown
in Figure G-3. The following rationale applies: 1) the position
of the sampler determines ambient dust levels and 2) wind direc-
tion and velocity were not constant and affect time-averaging
results. The positioning of samplers eliminated the need to
correct for concentration which varied with time.
V-/
ANGLE OF WIND/A /
SOURCE
RESULTANT WIND
DIRECTION
Figure G-3. Sampler positions
108
-------
Sampler 1 is the primary source strength estimator and was
located as close to the source as possible. This sampler was
placed from one to three obstruction heights from the source,
depending upon stability class. Sampler 3 is required for corre-
lations with downwind power law decay. Samplers 2 and 4 are
required for correlations with lateral dispersion estimates and
for estimating proximity to the plume centerline. Sampler 0 was
used as a blank to compensate for other dust sources upwind of
the site under investigation.
A portable mechanical meteorological station gave the remaining
parameter, wind speed. The azimuth was monitored throughout the
sampling period. Figure G-4 is a pictoral overview of the inte-
grated sampling and analytical scheme. The filter from Sampler 1
was analyzed by x-ray fluorescence techniques and compared to
source materials for composition. A particle count was also made
via optical microscopy to check for fibers and to give a differ-
ent perspective to particle size distribution.
, \ RECORD L
\ WEIGHT / "
\ RECORD /
«•— \ TIME A*—
\ FLOWj
\ RECORD /
— \ TIME A"—
\ ROW /
\ RECORD L
^~\ WEIGHT y~
EQUILIBRATE
FILTER
1
WEIGH FILTER
LOAD FILTER
AND START
SAMPLER
1
TERMINATE
SAMPLING
AND UNLOAD
1
EQUILIBRATE
FILTER
i
.WEIGH FIITER
CALCULATE
AND DOCUMENT
/ SPECIFIED \
\ CONDITIONS /
„ / BALANCE \
"^"SPECIFICATIONS/
/ SAMPLER AND ^
•*-{ OPERATING
SPECIFICATIONS/
/ SPECIFIED \
"*\ CONDITIONS /
TO OTHER
ANALYSES
OR STORE
REPORT
RESULTS _
^^_
Figure G-4.
Functional analysis of high-volume
suspended particulate sampling.
109
-------
APPENDIX H
SAMPLING MECHANICS AND INDIVIDUAL FIELD TEST DATA
The sampling procedure for fugitive dust may be broken into three
segments: 1) sampling preparations, 2) onsite sampling, and
3) data reduction.
SAMPLING PREPARATIONS
These preparations included a check of all equipment used for
onsite sampling. The portable electric generators were test run
and adjusted to avoid onsite equipment failures. All high-volume
air samplers were test run and calibrated, and the weather
station was set up and checked for proper operation.
In addition to the equipment check, the filters to be used in the
samplers were preweighed (tared) and coded to facilitate data
collection. This same weighing and coding was also performed for
spare filters which were used to replace others damaged during
the trip to and through handling at the site.
Finally, maps and/or aerial photographs were loaned from plant
personnel at each sample site. The photographs were used to help
plan a sampling strategy, to indicate possible obstructions, and
to acquaint the sampling team with the site.
ONSITE PROCEDURE
Sampling was done by a two-man crew with a van containing high-
volume samplers and a trailer containing gasoline-engine powered
electrical generators, gasoline, weather station, and various
lengths of extension cords.
The crew checked with the U.S. Weather Bureau to determine the
forecasted cloud cover and the wind direction and velocity. Once
onsite, actual wind direction was compared to that forecasted,
and then the hi-volume samplers were placed to include the
expected wind direction in the sampler matrix. On the first day
at a sampling location, the filters were placed in the filter
holders while the samplers were still in the van. On subsequent
days, the new filters were placed in the samplers immediately
after the used ones were removed.
3Nonmetric units are used in this appendix since they correspond
to those units utilized during sampling.
110
-------
With the samplers ready to use, the two-man crew placed the hi-
vol sampler with the synchronous motor and flow rate readout in a
location on the upwind side of the fugitive emission source to
gather the background data needed for the experiment. The back-
ground sampler was put into operation as soon as the small elec-
trical generator was started since the concentration of dust on
the filter was usually small. A longer run time allowed the
filter to collect more dust and made weighing the filter more
accurate.
Once the background sampler, So, was operating properly, the crew
placed the next sampler, S]_, immediately downwind of the source.
The distance from the source to the location of S± depended on
atmospheric stability. Sampler 83 was placed on a straight line
with SQ and Si (along the wind direction). Samplers 82 and 84 were
'were placed to the left and right of 83, spaced far enough apart
to include expected wind fluctuations between 82 and 84.
While the last four samplers were being positioned, the weather
station was assembled. The 10-ft telescopic pole used to support
the instruments needed to record the wind speed and direction was
anchored downwind of 83. The sensors were placed on top of the
pole and electrically connected to gauges which give the wind
speed in mph, the wind direction in degrees, the ambient tempera-
ture, and the barometric pressure. The wind indicator was set
with 0° in the direction from which the wind was blowing. Any
plus or minus deviation meant that the wind was shifting. Next
the large electrical generator was placed downwind from 83 so
that emissions from the generator could not affect the particu-
late loadings in the hi-vols. The system, S^/ 82, 83, 84 and
the weather station, were started, the time was recorded, and the
first wind speed and direction were taken. Each sampler was
checked for proper operation; the filters were checked to make
sure they were completely sealed; and the initial flowrate
through the filter was recorded.
Weather data was recorded every 15 min, and high-volume sampler
flowrates were recorded every hour. When the gasoline-powered
electrical generators needed fuel, the system was turned off and
refueling time was indicated on the data sheets.
Once everything was running properly, the crew measured the dis-
tances A, B, C, D, E, F, and G (see Figure G-l) and diagrammed
the sampling area. Any obvious source of emissions or any obsta-
cle that may have interfered with the testing was noted on the
diagram.
After running for at least 4 hr, the equipment was shut down,
loaded, and readied for the next set of sampling.
Ill
-------
DATA REDUCTION
The fugitive dust-sampling worksheet, Figure H-l, was completed
at the beginning of each sample run. It shows the positions of
all samplers relative to the source, the atmospheric stability,
and which filters were used with which samplers. A fugitive dust
sampler and meteorological data log, Figure H-2, was completed
during the sample runs at 15-min intervals. It shows the condi-
tions under which sampling was conducted.
Figure H-3 is the worksheet used at the laboratory to determine
the ambient concentration of dust at each of the sampler posi-
tions during the sample run. The input data for these calcula-
tions were taken from Figure H-l, Figure H-2, and the filter
weights determined prior to sampling. The concentrations from'
the worksheet, the meteorological data, and the sampler position-
ing measurements were entered on a third table, Figure H-4.
Figure H-4 shows the collected data in a simplified form, includ-
ing the results of the particle size analysis (see Table H-l)
performed at the laboratory. The data from Figure H-4 was then
input to the dispersion equation to calculate source strengths
and emission rates for each sample run.
Finally, the particles collected during each sample run were ana-
lyzed. The chemical compositions were used to determine the
toxicity of the emissions and were compared with samples of
process materials. These analyses and comparisons are presented
in Table H-3.
The concentration of fluoride compounds in the particulates,
reported as fluorine, averages about 5%. The composition of a
sample of the rock being mined is not significantly different.
INDIVIDUAL FIELD TEST DATA
This section shows the field data and analytical results for the
plant sampled. Table H-2 shows the meteorological conditions,
fugitive dust concentrations, and sampler positions (as related
to Figure H-l) for each test run. Table H-3 gives the analytical
results for each sample run.
Six sample runs were made at one site from April 8 through 15,
1974. The data collected during one of the tests was discarded
because of excessive change in the wind direction (66°). The
reference point for the sampler setups was the storage and load-
ing area; however, because the sampler positions changed consider-
ably from one sample run to the next, emissions from different
parts of the process would dominate the results of different
sample runs. This is shown in the wide range of calculated emis-
sion rates (56 Ib/hr to 250 Ib/hr).
112
-------
Run No.
DATE
actual barometric
pressure
_!lHg
dry bulb
wet bulb
_op
Op
op
Op
ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY DETERMINATION
reference
line
sampler
centerllne
A
B
C
D
E
.-?
G
ft. (measured)
ft. "
ft. "
ft. "
ft. "
ft. (estimated)
ft. "
TIME
it
it
it
Stability Clt.gorleo
STABILITY
COMMENTS:
Sampler
S
0
Filter No.
Sampler No.
obtain sample of source before signing sheet
Sampling
crew
Figure H-l. Fugitive dust sampling worksheet,
113
-------
Date
Run
Page
Time
(24 hr.
clock)
Totals
Average
Total el
Wind
Speed Direction
mph
avg.
apsed
range
Compass
degrees
avg.
range
time
Sl
Roto
cfm
Act
cfm
S2
Roto
cfm
Act
cfm
S3
Roto
cfm
Act
cfm
S4
Roto
cfm
Act
cfm
Other comments
r
Sampling crew
Figure H-2. Fugitive dust sampler and meteorological data log.
-------
DATE
SOURCE
RUN NO..
Calculate
a - b =
d x e =
35310 x c _
f
a
b
c
Q
e
f
Q
^\^
Filter No.
FinalWt.
(mg)
Tare
(mg)
Net Wt.
(mg)
Flow Rate
(avg CFM)
Sample Time
(Minutes)
Total Volume
(Cubic Feet)
Concentration
(Mg/m3 )
So
s,
S2
S3
S4
-
tn
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
Calculations By.
Figure H-3. Fugitive dust calculation worksheet,
-------
Run No.
Wind Speed
Wind Direction
Wind Direction range
Atm. Stability
Distance A
" B
" C
" D
" E
" p
" Q
Wet Bulb
Dry Bulb
Barometric Pressure
Concentration at SQ
Sl
s2
rr c
S3
tt q
S4
% Dust > 7u
Figure H-4.
Summary of meteorological data, sampler
positions, and ambient concentrations.
116
-------
TABLE H-l. PHOSPHATE ROCK
Sample 5
Loose particles
Size range,
0
2.3
4.6
9.2
18.4
36.8
73.6
l-i
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
Number of Weight,
Size
particles %
2.3
4.6
9.2
18.4
36.8
73.6
147
63
89
54
36
17
7
0
0.
0.
1.
5.
21.
71.
0
02
21
08
73
65
31
0
1.2
2.4
4.8
9.6
Filter
range ,
y
to
to
to
to
to
Fibers
0
2.3
4.6
9.2
18.4
36.8
73.6
147
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
2.3
4.6
9.2
18.4
36.8
73.6
147
294
51
77
54
43
10
8
4
0
0
0.
0.
1.
2.
19.
76.
0
Sample
04
25
60
98
07
06
6
0
1.2
2.4
4.8
9.6
19.2
to
to
to
to
to
to
1.2
2.4
4.8
9.6
19.2
: 0
1.2
2.4
4.8
9.6
19.2
38.4
particles
Number of
particles
84
103
49
8
0
104
81
33
7
2
0
Weight,
%
1.
10.
38.
50.
0
0.
4.
14.
24.
55.
0
41
08
38
13
97
41
39
42
81
Fibers: 1
117
-------
TABLE H-2. FIELD SAMPLING DATA FROM PHOSPHORUS ROCK PROCESSING
Wind speed, mph
Wind direction, °
Wind direction, range, °
Atmospheric stability
Distance, ft:
A
B
C
D
E,
Fa
G
Wet bulb, °F
Dry bulb, °F
b
Barometric pressure
Concentration, pg/m^:
S.
S?
s
s
s.
4 c
Source strength, Q
Elevation
Run No. 1
6.6
21.3
51.6
A
42
198
126
54
135
800
2,200
65
79
30.35
35.7
221
- 393
290
238
169.3 ± 67.6
30
Run No. 2
6.4
-57.7
65.7
A
0
159
144
-14
147
600
2,500
63
74
30.22
37
357
146
257
347
_d
30
Run No. 3
7.7
-3.0
35.8
B
-210
150
237
-210
228
579
4,500
62
80
30.42
85
1,407
668
1,028
690
82.16 ± 40.82
30
Run No. 4
14.0
-11.3
30.7
C
48
225
213
72
294
2,300
3,500
66
84
30.46
105
223
107
241
320
250.2 ± 166.6
30
Run No. 5
8.9
-7.9
42.0
C
108
90
129
129
267
500
2,000
73
88
30.35
63
1,276
1,052
1,009
870
55.63 ± 5.35
30
Run No. 6
6.25
15.1
42.5
A
72
223
135
90
144
350
2,500
75
88
30.29
70
1,623
1,834
1,433
829
126.6 ± 86.1
30
;j D
Estimated within 10% from transit. Barometer pressure is for use in comparing different runs.
c d
Q is from computer. No good.
-------
TABLE H-3. PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING
Material
Sample
sample, %
Run 3, Run 5, Run 6,
Aluminum
Calcium
Chlorine
Chromium
Fluorine
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Phosphorus
Potassium
Silicon
Sodium
Sulfur
Titanium
2.11
41.4
a
~a
3.82
2.47
0.09
0.11
32.6
0.14
5.45
0.40
_a
1.10
2.5
60.0
_a
_a
578
1.6
0.2
_a
2575
0.08
4.1
a
"a
0.16
2.93
49.8
_a
_a
57l
1.46
0.73
_a
2576
0.07
13.9
a
~a
0715
3.19
59.5
a
~a
674
2.13
0.75
_a
2274
0.11
5.3
a
"a
0721
Run
number
Minutes
run
Total
particulate
emission rate,
Ib/hr
Standard
deviation,
Ib/hr
Confidence
limits
1
2
3
4
5
6
232
265
350
320
245
239
169.3
_b
82.16
250.2
55.6
126.6
±67.6
b
±40.82
±166.6
±5.35
±86-1
±124.4
_b
±75.0
±306.1
±9.83
±158.2
Run
number
Particle
size
distribution
Emission
factor,
Ib/ton
Comments on run
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
10.11% <7 y 0
0
0
.- — i
.434
b
.210
.639
.142
.322
Excessive
Storage.
Total.
Drying.
c
wind change .
_c
aNone detected. No good. Not applicable.
NOTE.—Compositions were calculated after drying.
119
-------
GLOSSARY
alluival: Clay, silt, gravel, sand, or similar material deposited
by running water.
apatite: Any of a group of calcium phosphate minerals of the
approximate general formula Ca5(F, Cl, OH, %CO3)(PO^)3.
azimuth: Horizontal direction expressed as the angular distance
between the direction of a fixed point (as the observer's
heading) and the direction of the object.
bleedwater brine: Water from bleedwater wells which are drilled
by the sulfur industry to control dome pressure and allow
for continuous introduction of hot water to the sulfur
formation.
confidence level: Range over which the true mean of a population
is expected to lie at a specific level of confidence.
criteria pollutant: Pollutant for which ambient air quality
standards have been established.
dragline: Type of excavating equipment which casts a rope-hung
bucket a considerable distance, collects the dug material
by pulling the bucket toward itself on the ground with a
second rope, elevates the bucket, and dumps the material
on a spoil bank, in a hopper, or on a pile.
dolomite: Mineral consisting of a calcium magnesium carbonate
(CaMg[CO3]2) found in crystals and in extensive beds as a
compact limestone.
emission burden: Ratio of the total annual emissions of a
pollutant from a specific source to the total annual state
or national emissions of that pollutant.
fibrosis: Abnormal increase in the amount of fibrous connective
tissue in an organ or tissue.
free silica: Crystalline silica defined as silicon dioxide
(SiO2) arranged in a fixed pattern (as opposed to an
amorphous arrangement).
120
-------
froth flotation: Process used to treat ore which produces one or
more concentrates of valuable minerals and a tailings com-
posed of waste or less valuable minerals.
fugitive emission: Either gaseous or particulate emissions from
industry-related operations that escape to the atmosphere
without passing through a primary exhaust system.
gangue: Waste material.
hazard factor: Measure of the toxicity of prolonged exposure to
a pollutant.
hazard ratio: Hazard potential of a representative source
defined as the ratio of a concentration to the hazard factor.
jig: Mechanical device used for separating materials of differ-
ent specific gravities by the pulsation of a stream of
liquid flowing through a bed of materials.
noncriteria pollutant: Pollutant for which ambient air quality
standards have not been established.
quarrying: Activity in an open or surface mine.
representative source: Source that has the average emission
parameters.
respirable particulates: Those particles with a geometric mean'
diameter less than or equal to 7 ym.
screen: Mesh used to separate stone into various sizes.
silicosis: Chronic disease of the lungs caused by the continued
inhalation of silica dust.
slimes: Fine clay slurry of about 3% to 5% solids content.
sluice pit: Trough into which the phosphate matrix is slurried.
submerged-combustion evaporator: Evaporation unit which consists
of a tank to hold the liquid, a burner and gas distributor
that can be lowered into the liquid, and a combustion-
control system.
sump: Lowest part of a mine shaft into which water drains.
threshold limit value: Concentration of an airborne contaminant
to which workers may be exposed repeatedly, day after day,
without adverse affect.
Trommel circuit: Circuit of cylindrical or conical revolving
screens used for sizing of rock.
121
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instruction* on the revene before completing)
. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-78-004p
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Source Assessment: Chemical and Fertilizer Mineral
Industry, State of the Art
6. REPORT DATE
June 1978 issuing date
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
J. C. Ochsner and T. R. Blackwood
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
MRC-DA-773
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Monsanto Research Corporation
1515 Nicholas Road
Dayton, Ohio 45407
1O. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB-610
li.CbNTHACf/GRANT NO.
68-02-1874
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Lab,, CINN, OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final 10/76 to 8/77
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
lERL-Ci task leader for this report is S. Jackson Hubbard, 513-684-4417
16. ABSTRACT
This report describes a study of air and water pollutants emitted by the chemical
and fertilizes- mineral industry. The potential environmental effect of the source was
evaluated using a hazard ratio (defined as the ratio of the maximum time-averaged
ground level concentration to an ambient air quality standard for air and the ratio of
discharge rate to a water quality criteria for water).
Air and water pollutants are generated during the conversion of naturally occurring
minerals into suitable forms for use in chemical and fertilizer production. These
minerals are barite, borates, fluorspar, lithium minerals, mineral pigments, phosphate
rock, potash, salt, sodium sulfate, sulfur, and trona ore.
The four significant wastewater problem areas in the mining and beneficiation of
minerals in the chemical and fertilizer industry are mine water drainage, wastewater
from the fluorspar industry, phosphate rock slimes, and sulfur bleedwater brines.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Beneficiation
Fertilizers
Mining Engineering
Emission
Air Pollution
Water Pollution
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Chemicals
Phosphate
Brine Minerals
COSATI Field/Group
68D
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to the Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (Thh Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
138
20 SECURITY CLASS (This pagt)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 222O-1 l»-73)
122
BnweiFreiimiieomcE 1971-757-140/1360
------- |