ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
ASARCO
HAYDEN
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
DENVER, COLORADO
-------
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
INSPECTION OF
ASARCO INCORPORATED
HAYDEN SMELTER
HAYDEN/ ARIZONA
AUGUST 1976
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
Denver
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND
STANDARDS
Durham
REGION IX
San Francisco
-------
ASARCO INCORPORATED
HAYDEN, ARIZONA
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
ASARCO Incorporated operates a custom smelter in Hayden, Arizona.
An inspection to acquire data with which to evaluate the design and
operation of existing particulate matter air pollution control equipment
at the smelter was conducted by EPA personnel on January 29, 1976.
Substantial amounts of process and control equipment information were
requested of, and received from, ASARCO.
The following conclusions are based on the inspection and a review
of the information obtained:
1. The ASARCO smelter is the only Arizona Smelter to use spray
chambers as conditioning units preceding their electrostatic
precipitators (ESP's). The Company reported that the units
preceding the roaster/reverberatory furnace (R/R) and con-
verter ESP's use acid water as the conditioning agent for the
reverberatory furnace and converter exhaust gases. More
definitive design, operation, and maintenance data for both
spray chambers are necessary to more clearly understand their
intended use at ASARCO and to better determine the applicability
and appropriateness of the principle for other smelters.
2. Cyclones are used as additional pretreatment following the
spray chamber, but before the converter ESP. The specific
function of these devices was not provided in the Company
data. Definitive data as to their designed purpose and
collection efficiency is necessary to more clearly understand
the applicability and appropriateness of this principle for
other smelters.
-------
3. The source test data reported are so variable that independent
source tests for the R/R and converter processes are necessary.
The data indicate the Company is not in compliance with the
process weight regulation. However, procedural, methodology,
and process information regarding the Company conducted source
tests is so sketchy one cannot be certain the tests were
performed correctly or that physical and, perhaps even abnormal
operational, characteristics did not unduly influence or bias
the results.
4. Any tests conducted at the R/R sampling station must take into
account the fact that traverses must be done vertically with a
6 m (20 ft) probe, with an inert (e.g., glass or quartz)
liner, to obtain representative results for the roaster and
reverberatory furnace processes. The profile of the duct at
the sampling station approximates a 6 m (20 ft) square.
-------
INSPECTION OF
ASARCO INCORPORATED
HAYDEN SMELTER
Hayden, Arizona
January 29, 1976
602/356-7717
INTRODUCTION
ASARCO Incorporated operates a custom copper smelter at Hayden,
Arizona using pyrometallurgical processes to produce copper anodes from
copper concentrates and precipitates. Average anode copper production
during 1975 was 218 to 310 m. tons (240 to 342 tons)/day.
On December 17, 1976, the manager of ASARCO was requested by letter
to provide process and air pollution control information on the Hayden
Plant and informed of a planned plant inspection [Appendix A]. On
January 29, 1976 the following EPA personnel conducted a process in-
spection: Mr. Larry Bowerman, Region IX; Mr. Reid Iversen, OAQPS; Mr.
Gary D. Young, NEIC; Mr. Jim V. Rouse, NEIC. Mr. Lary G. Cahill,
Manager, participated for the Company.
All the information requested was supplied at the completion of the
inspection or by subsequent letter or telephone call [Appendix B].
The purpose of the inspection was to acquire data with which to
evaluate the design and operation of existing particulate matter air
pollution control equipment. The process equipment, the particulate
matter emission sources, and the air pollution control equipment,
focusing primarily on the smelter, were examined.
-------
The applicable regulation contained in the Arizona State Implementation
Plan (SIP) specific to this inspection was the process weight regulation
[Appendix C], This regulation was promulgated as 40 CFR §52.126 on May
14, 1973, to replace the State's process weight regulation, which was
determined by EPA to be insufficiently stringent. The regulation provides
an allowable emission rate for each process unit based on production
feed rate to the unit.
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Figure 1 is a simplified process flow diagram for the smelter.
Table 1 lists the smelter process equipment and operating data.
Concentrates and precipitates are delivered to the ASARCO smelter
by railroad cars. Silica and limerock flux are delivered by truck. All
materials are discharged to storage bins where they are mixed to the
required metallurgical balance. The mix is then reclaimed and conveyed
by belt conveyor to the feed bins serving each of the twelve multihearth
roasters. The blended materials are fed to the roasters at the top.
The charge is heated to the ignition point of sulfur using natural gas,
as available, or fuel oil to dry the charge and eliminate enough sulfur
to'produce a desired balance between copper, iron, and sulfur. The
roasters revolve at about 2 rpm, while the charge is heated (roasted)
and swept by arms either toward a hole near the center or on the circumference
of the roaster. As the charge passes to the hearth below, it continues
to be roasted and swept toward a hole located opposite of the hole in
the hearth above. After passing six or seven hearths, the resultant hot
material (calcine) is discharged from a roaster to electrified rail cars
and conveyed to one of the two reverberatory furnaces.
Both reverberatory furnaces are of sprung arch construction with
suspended arch uptakes to the waste heat boilers. The No. 2 furnace is
-------
CASTING WHEELS
(2)
ANODE
FURNACES (2)
/
/
^
W
<
O
D
h
CONVERTERS
(5)
h
2
ROASTERS (12)
UJ
UJ
o:
o
U)
AIR
SILICA FLUX
SLAG
CONCENTRATES
PRECIPITATES
LIMEROCK
REVERTS
Figure 7. ASARCO, Hoyden Process Flow.-Diagram
-------
Table 1
SMELTER PROCESS EQUIPMENT AND OPERATING DATA
ASARCO INCORPORATED
Hoyden, Arizona
Parameter Roasters
No. of Units 12
Feed
Constituents Co,P,SF,LF
Feed Rate
(per day) m.tons tons
969- 1 ,067-
1,414 1,558
Total
Size of Unit m ft
(#l-5)diameter 7.3 24
height 7.2 23.75
(#6-8)diameter 5.8 19
height 6.9 22.75
(#9-ll)diameter 6.6 21.6
height 5.6 18.5
(#12)diameter 7.6 25
height 10.6 34.75
Hours of
Operation/month 730
Gas Volume..
Generated
std m3/min 190-614
scfm 6,700-21,700
Exit Gas
Temperature °C °F
132-238 270-46
Reverberatory
Furnaces
2
Ca.SF.CS
m.tons tons
Ca 921-1,344 1,014-1,480
Cs 305-514 336-566
1,226-1,858 1,350-2,046
m ft
(#2)width 10 34 (#1,3,4)
length 35 115
(#4) width 9 30 (#2)
length 34 110
(#5)
730
#2 1,190-1,770
#4 1,150-1,280
#2 42,100-62,500
#4 40,500-45,200
°C °F
#2 266-366 510-690
#4 204-321 400-610
Converters
5
M.SF.AS
m.tons tons
M 639-806 704-888
SF 109-166 120-183
AS 3 3
751-975 827-1,074
m ft
diameter 4 13
length 10 33
diameter 4 13
length 9 30
diameter 4 13
length 11 35
730
821-1,460
29,000-51,700
ec op
404-549 760-1,020
t Concentrates (Co), Precipitates (P), Silica Flux (SF), Limerock Flux (LF),
Calcines (Ca), Converter Slag (CS), Matte (M), Anode Furnace Slag (AS)
tt The gas volumes are ranges for the set of process units per unit and standard
conditions are 760 mm Hg (29.9 in Hg or 14.7 psia) and 21°C (70°F).
-------
10 m (34 ft) wide and 35 m (115 ft) long, while the No. 4 furnace is 9 m
(30 ft) wide and 34 m (110 ft) long. Calcine is fed through Wagstaff
feeders located in the sidewalls of both furnaces. Both furnaces are
normally fired with natural gas, but if natural gas delivery is interrupted,
fuel oil is used.
The calcine, upon melting, produces two products - slag and matte.
Consisting principally of iron, silica, calcium oxide, and alumina, slag
floats on top of the bath. It is skimmed from the furnaces into large
rail mounted ladles and transported to a dump area. The matte, consisting
principally of copper sulfide and iron sulfide, is tapped near the
bottom of the furnaces into steel ladles which are moved into the
converter aisTe.
The matte ladles are picked up by overhead crane and charged to one
of the five Fierce-Smith converters. Converters No. 1, 3 and 4 are 4 x
10 m (13 x 33 ft), Converter No. 2 is 4 x 9 m (13 x 30 ft), and Converter
No. 5 is 4 x 11 m (13 x 35 ft). A typical initial charge to a converter
consists of four ladles of matte. Air is blown into the charge through
tuyeres for about sixty minutes. Slag is skimmed and returned to one of
the reverberatory furnaces. Then four identical cycles take place
consisting of charging two ladles of matte to a converter, blowing for
35 to 60 minutes, skimming slag, and returning slag to a reverberatory
furnace. During each of these "slag blows," silica is added to the
converter to combine with the iron released when sulfur in the iron
sulfide is oxidized to SOg. Following each of the slag blows, the
converter is blown for roughly four hours on the "copper blow."
The final converter product is blister copper which is poured into
ladles and carried by overhead crane to one of the two anode furnaces.
There additional air is blown through tuyeres to remove final traces of
sulfur, and then natural gas is added to the furnace to remove any
residual oxygen. Finished anode copper is cast into anodes on either
-------
of the two casting wheels. The anodes are cooled, inspected, and shipped
to ASARCO's refinery in El Paso, Texas.
EMISSION SOURCES AND RELATED CONTROL EQUIPMENT
The primary participate matter sources at the ASARCO smelter are
the roasters, reverberatory furnaces, and the converters. The majority
of the exhaust gas volumes produced by these sources is treated by
control systems which are discussed below. However, fugitive emissions
from feeding concentrates, skimming converter slag, or returning converter
slag are neither collected, nor treated, but are exhausted directly to
the atmosphere. Exhaust from the matte tap area is collected and is
exhausted untreated in the duct following the roaster/reverberatory
furnace (R/R) electrostatic precipitator (ESP). Converter "smoke" not
collected by the primary hood system is exhausted untreated through the
converter aisle roof vent. The anode furnaces also emit some untreated
particulate matter directly to the atmosphere above the converter aisle;
however, since the gas stream is not collected, the concentrations are
indeterminate.
Figure 2 is a diagram of the ASARCO smelter layout, the air pollution
control system, and the exhaust gas flow. Table 2 summarizes certain de-
sign and operating data for the individual air pollution control systems.
Appendix B contains more specific information on each control system.
Multihearth Roaster Control System
The roaster process gases are discharged to a common flue maintained
under negative pressure. The gases flow through a settling chamber
following which they join the reverberatory furnace exhaust gases as
they enter the R/R ESP. The gas volume generated by ten of the twelve
roasters, considered to be maximum normal operations, could be as high
as 2,720 std m3/min (96,000 scfm) [Appendix D].
-------
\ ABSORBING
N TOWER
CASTING
WHEELS (2)
ANODE FURNACES
(2)
Ul
I
K
O
B.
ESP (8)
CO
2
>
K
> «
? W
* »
5 m
s<
M
ui U.
'-O
i ^v \ 7^:
OxNv f^f-
X^VJ^""
v^*^
SCRUBBING
TOWERS (3
SPRAY CHAMBER
CYCLONES (18)
_^^_ PROCESS PLOW
........ EXHAUST OASES
CATALYST
CHAMBER
CASTERS (19)
Figure 2. ASARCO, Hoyrftn Flanf layout, frocen (Mhawtr Flew, and Air Follufion Cenfrol Syifcm*
-------
Table 2
SMELTER AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT AND OPERATING DATA
ASARCO INCORPORATED
Hoyden, Arizona
Control Manufacturer
Device
Date of
Installation/
Modification
No. of
Units
Gas Flow
Rate
3 3
m /min scfm
Operating
Temperature
°C °F
Pressure
H-0
cm
Drop
in
Collection
Area
mz ft2
Velocity
m/sec ft/sec
Retention
Time
sec
Roasters
ESP (see description under Reverberatory Furnaces)
Reverberatory Furnaces
ESP b 2/75 1 7,790- 275,000- 121- 250- 0.5 0.2 12,766 137,411 5.8 18.9 3.05
8,500 300,000 135 275
Cyclones
ESP
Acid Plant
NRe
Chemiebau
Rust Engineering
NR
10/70
e
Converters
15 NR NR NR
1 2,830 100,000 371 700 7.7 3
1 3,110 110,000 454 850 NR
NAd
NR
NA
NR
NR
flA
NR
NR
NA
a Standard conditions are 760 mm Eg (29.92 in Eg or 14.7 peia) and 21°C (70°P).
b No manufacturer, ASARCO design and construction
* NR = Not reported
d NA = Not applicable
e Underaay during inspection
CO
-------
Reverberatory Furnace Control System
The process gases from each reverberatory furnace pass through
waste heat recovery boilers for steam production. Upon exiting the
waste heat boilers, the gases pass through a spray chamber for scrubbing
and temperature conditioning. The exit gas volume of the two reverberatory
o
furnace gas streams could be as high as 3,030 std m /min (107,700 scfm)
[Appendix D]. The reverberatory furnace gases then join the roaster
gases and enter an ESP. The ESP handles an actual gas flow rate of
o
7,790 to 8,500 std m /min (275,000 to 300,000 scfm); the design gas flow
rate was not reported. The ESP consists of eight banks (parallel units)
of four stages each (units in series) with a total collection area of
12,800 m2 (137,400 ft2). Gas treatment time is estimated as slightly
over 3 seconds with an average gas velocity of nearly 6 m (19 ft)/sec.
The pressure drop across the ESP is less than 0.5 cm (0.2 in) of water.
The exit gas stream is discharged through the 305 m (1,000 ft) stack.
Converter Control System
The principal converter exhaust gases become laden with particulate
matter when air is blown into a converter through tuyeres to oxidize the
iron and copper sulfides. The process gases are collected -n water-
cooled hoods installed over each converter mouth before passing through
settling chambers where the larger, heavier particulate matter settles
out of the gas stream. The gas stream, which could be as high as 4,160
std m /min (146,800 scfm), then passes through high velocity flues to
three cyclones servicing each converter. The exhaust gases then combine
and enter a spray chamber in which the gases are scrubbed and their
temperature is lowered prior to the ESP. The ESP actually handles a
o
reported maximum of 2,830 std m /min (100,000 scfm). The ESP consists
of four parallel units (banks) with each parallel unit consisting of
three sections (stages). The collection area, gas velocity, and retention
-------
10
time were not reported, as they were not requested. The pressure drop
across the unit is 8 cm (3 in) of water, maximum.
Following the ESP, the gas enters a 50% acid spray tower. The gas
stream is then split and enters one of the two gas scrubbing towers,
followed by one of the two gas cooling towers. The gas then enters a
series of two mist ESP's, before the two individual gas streams are
reunited. The clean gas then enters the acid plant where it is dried,
the S02 is converted into SO-j, and the S03 is. absorbed in acid to form
the final strength acid. Although designed to produce 680 m. tons (750
tons)/day, approximately 445 m. tons (490 tons)/day of 93-98% strength
sulfuric acid is the actual production rate. The exit gas from the
final absorption tower passes through a demister before being ducted to
and exhausted from the 305 m (1,000 ft) stack.
EMISSIONS DATA
Four source tests were conducted at the ASARCO smelter during 1975;
all four were performed by the Company at the request of either the EPA
Region IX Enforcement Division or the State of Arizona. The first,
third, and fourth tests were conducted for the roaster and reverberatory
furnace processes and the second for the converter process. Each test
was attempted as a compliance test following the prescribed methods
(Methods 1-5) in the EPA regulation [Appendix C].
The R/R tests were conducted at the sampling station on the nearly
square [6 m (20 ft)] R/R flue downstream from the R/R ESP before the
flue enters the 305 m (1,000 ft) stack. The sampling station is six
duct diameters downstream from and five and one-half duct diameters
upstream of any flow disturbance. Thirty-six traverse points, six for
each of the six vertical ports, were sampled during each test run.
-------
11
The converter tests were conducted at the sampling station on the
3-m (10-ft) diameter acid plant exhaust gas duct. The sampling station
is eight diameters downstream from and two diameters upstream of any
flow disturbance. Twelve traverse points, all located on the vertical
diameter since there is no horizontal port, were sampled.
Individual process weights were determined for the roasters, reverberatory
furnaces, and converters. The roaster process weight was determined by
summing the differences between the start and end weights of the ore bin
and each of the twelve roaster bins. The reverberatory furnace process
weight was determined by multiplying the number of charges and ladles of
converter slag by individually assumed density factors (tons per charge
or ladle) and adding the two products. The converter process weight was
determined by multiplying the number of ladles of matte and scrap by
individually assumed density factors, adding the two products, adding
the tons of silica flux charged, and dividing the entire sum by the
number of hours all converters, which were in operation sometime during
the actual time of the test run, were on charge and not idle. The
allowable rates were then calculated by the formula contained in the
applicable regulation [Appendix C] and the test results compared with
the allowable rates.
Following is a summary of each of the four tests and comments
regarding the methods, procedures, and results of each test.
R/R: June 30-July 5. 1975
Four test runs were conducted at the R/R flue sampling station.
The minimum sampling time (2 hours), minimum sampling volume [1.70 m
(60 ft )], and isokinetic tolerances (90-110%) were all met. For the
first three runs a 6 m (20 ft) Inconel probe was used; for the fourth
run a 3 m (10 ft) glass-lined probe was used.
-------
12
The Company reported the process operations were erratic during the
test period. They also reported that the acid water conditioning preceding
the R/R ESP was not adjusted properly. In addition, since the probe
washes for the first three runs showed higher chrome and nickel concentrations,
in comparison with the probe washes for the fourth run, the Company
concluded the deterioration of the Inconel probe was the cause for the
high particulate values. For all the above reasons, the Company concluded
that this test should not be considered representative of normal operations
or reliable and offered to redo the tests upon acquiring a 6 m (20 ft)
Teflon-lined probe and making the necessary process adjustments to
reflect normal operation. The results of the four runs are presented in
Table 3.
Converters: July 1 and 9, 1975
Three test runs were conducted at the sampling station on the acid
plant exhaust gas duct. The minimum sampling time and volume were met.
The isokinetic rates were within tolerances, except for the first run
where the rate was 88%. Again, only a single diameter was used for the
twelve traverse points. A 3 m (10 ft) glass-lined probe was used for
the test. The results of the test are presented in Table 3.
R/R: September 8-11. 1975
Three test runs were conducted at the R/R flue sampling station.
The minimum sampling time and volume were met. However, isokinetic
rates were 110, 113, and 113%. A 6 m (20 ft) Teflon-lined probe was
used.
The Company reported that production was, to some extent, above
normal; i. e. production exceeded capacity for short periods of time
during some of the test period. The Company also reported that the acid
-------
13
Table 3
PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSIONS TEST RESULTS
ASARCO INCORPORATED
Hoyden, Arizona
Test
Run
R/R-1*
R/R-2°
R/R-3?
R/R-4D
C-ld
** H
C-3d
R/R-lE
R/R-2J
R/R-3 b
R/R-lb
R/R-2b
R/R-3b
Date
1975
6-30
7-3
7-3
7-5
7-1
7-9
7-9
9-8
9-10
9-11
11-3
11-4
11-4
Stack
Temperature
Op
264
255
261
234
143
167
164
267
296
277
241
243
235
°C
129
124
127
112
62
75
73
131
147
136
116
117
113
Gas
Vol ume
scfma
303,948
308,929
307,146
298,318
88,800
90,694
87,936
283,132
292,449
296,619
276,173
279,666
303,349
3. .
m /mm
8,607
8,748
8,697
8,447
2,515
2,568
2,490
8,017
8,281
8,399
7,820
7,919
8,590
Moisture
Content
%
7.
8.
8.
5.
<0.
<0.
<0.
9.
9.
9.
11.
10.
11.
i
7
0
5
8
1
1
1
6
8
5
9
2
6
Actual
Emissions
Ib/hr
124
124
1,155
48
49
23
30
64
91
83
77
112
122
kg/hr
56
56
524
22
22
10
14
29
41
38
35
51
55
Allowable
Emissions
Ib/hr kg/hr
68
67
67
30
29
31
72
76
76
31
30
30
NDC
14
13
14
33
34
34
NRe
NR
NR
a Standard conditions are reported as 29.92 in Hg and 21°C (70°F).
^Sampling took place along the roaster/reverberatory (R/R) furnace flue
downstream from the R/R ESP and upstream of the stack.
*.ND = Not determined
Sampling took place along the duct downstream from the acid plant and
upstream of the stack.
eM? = Not reported
-------
H
water conditioning system was operated manually, as the automatic
neutralization section would not control acid content within the range
desired. The results of the three runs are presented in Table 3.
R/R: November 3-4, 1975
At the request of the State of Arizona, the Company conducted
another test at the R/R flue sampling station. Although the details of
the test were not provided in Reference 1, a summary of the results was,
part of which is presented in Table 3.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Copper Smelter Information Needs, ASARCO Incorporated, Hayden
Plant, Hayden, Arizona. Jan. 29, 1976.
2. Letter from K. D. Loughridge, Vice President, ASARCO Incorporated
to Don R. Goodwin, Director, Emission Standards and Engineering
Division, EPA-RTP, Oct. 9, 1975.
3. Compilation and Analysis of Design and Operating Parameters of
the ASARCO Incorporated, Hayden Plant, Hayden, Arizona for Emission
Control Studies. Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Santa
Monica, Nov. 1975.
4. Letter from L. G. Cahill, Manager, ASARCO Hayden Plant to R. L.
O'Connell, Director, Enforcement Division, EPA-Region IX, July
17, 1975.
5. Letter from L. G. Cahill, Manager, ASARCO Hayden Plant to R. L.
O'Connell, Director, Enforcement Division, EPA-Region IX, Oct.
7, 1975.
6.- Letter from L. G. Cahill, Manager, ASARCO Hayden Plant to
Thomas P. Gallagher, Director, EPA-NEIC, Denver, Mar. 2, 1976.
-------
APPENDICES
NEIC Information Request
Letter to ASARCO
ASARCO Response to NEIC
Information Request
SIP Regulation Applicable to
ASARCO
Estimates of Gas Flow Rates
-------
Appendix A
NEIC Information Request
Letter to ASARCO
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
NATIONAL FIELD INVESTIGATIONS CENTER- DENVER
BUILDING 53. BOX 25227. DENVER FEDERAL CENTER
DENVER, COLORADO 80225
December 17, 1975
Lary G. Cahill
Manager
Hayden Smelter
ASARCO Incorporated
Hayden, Arizona 85235
Dear Mr. Cahill:
The Environmental Protection Agency has undertaken a program to
evaluate the performance characteristics of particulate control facilities
at the copper smelters in Arizona and Nevada. Representatives of EPA
will observe each smelter's process operations and air pollution control
facilities, review source test data, examine appropriate records, etc.,
during a site inspection of each smelter.
In anticipation of such a site inspection of your smelter, we have
prepared the attached list of detailed information needs which we intend
to use as a discussion outline during our inspection. We would appreciate
it if you could inform the appropriate company personnel about the
attached list and the forthcoming inspection of your facility so that
the necessary information will be readily available and the inspections
can be expedited.
We are conducting these inspections under the authority of Section
114(a)(ii) of the Clean Air Act, which authorizes representatives of EPA
to enter facilities for the purpose of determining whether the facility
is in violation of any requirement of a state implementation plan. At
your facility, we anticipate that EPA or a contractor hired by EPA will
be conducting an emissions source test for particulate matter within the
next few months. Therefore, EPA will make a source test pre-survey,
either separately or in conjunction with our site inspections, prior to
performing such a source test.
If you have any questions concerning the purpose of these site
inspections, please feel free to contact Mr. Gary D. Young of my staff
(303/234-4658) or Mr. Larry Bowerman, EPA Region IX (415/556-6150). Mr.
Young will be in contact with you within the next few weeks concerning a
site inspecton of your smelter during January or early February.
Sincerely,
Thomas P. Gallagher
Attachment Director
cc: Richard O'Connell
Bruce Scott
-------
COPPER SMELTER INFORMATION NEEDS
A. GENERAL
1. Plant location
2. Person to contact regarding plant survey information needs, his
telephone number and address
3. Simple block flow diagram showing smelter process equipment, air
pollution control devices, and stack configuration
B. PROCESS
1. General
a. Detailed description of the process, including flow diagrams,
unique features, and how the process operates
b. Definition of normal operation
c. Actual production rate (Ibs blister copper/hr and percent Cu)
d. Type and quantity of fuel consumed
Oil - i. Heating value (BTU's/gal)
ii. Percent sulfur (by weight)
iii. Percent ash (by weight)
iv. Specific gravity
v. Consumption (gals or bbls/yr)
Gas - i. Type of gas (constituents in percent by weight)
ii. Density (Ibs/SCF)
iii. Heating value (BTU's/SCF)
iv. Percent sulfur (by volume and grains/SCF)
v. Consumption (SCF/yr)
Coal - i. Heating value (BTU's/T)
ii. Percent sulfur (by weight)
iii. Percent ash (by weight)
iv. Consumption (Ibs/unit/hr)
e. Ore composition, including a typical percent and range of
percentages for each chemical constituent
f. Flux composition, including a typical percent and range of
percentages for each chemical constituent
g. Standard conditions - pressure (psi) and temperature (°F)--
used to calculate SCFM
-------
2. Concentrators
a. Design process feed rate (Ibs raw ore/hr)
b. Actual process feed rate (Ibs raw ore/hr), including method
and estimated accuracy of measurement
c. Average number of hours of operation per month
d. Process instrumentation used, including data for a typical
reading and range of readings
e. Description of where and how samples of process material can
be collected
f. Description of typical types of process fluctuations and/or
malfunctions, including frequency of occurrence and anticipated
emission results
g. Expected life of process equipment (years)
h. Plans to modify or expand process production rate
3. Roasters
a. Design process feed rate (Ibs concentrate/hr)
b. Actual process feed rate (Ibs concentrate/hr), including
method and estimated accuracy of measurement
c. Design process gas volumes (SCFM)
d. Actual process gas volumes (SCFM), including method of
determination, calculation, or measurement
e. Actual process temperature (°F)
f. Average number of hours of operation per month
g. Process instrumentation used, including data for a typical
reading and range of readings
h. Description of where and how samples of process material
can be collected
i. Description of typical types of process fluctuations and/or
malfunctions, including frequency of occurrence and anticipated
emission results
-------
j. Expected life of process equipment (years)
k. Plans to modify or expand process production rate
4. Reverberatory furnaces
a. Design process feed rate (Ibs calcine/hr + Ibs flux/hr +
Ibs converter slag/hr)
b. Actual process feed rate (Ibs calcine/hr + Ibs flux/hr +
Ibs converter slag/hr), including method and estimated
accuracy of measurement
c. Design process gas volumes (SCFM)
d. Actual process gas volumes (SCFM), including method of
determination, calculation, or measurement
e. Actual process temperature (°F)
f. Average number of hours of operation per month
g. Process instrumentation used, including data for a typical
reading and range of readings
h. Description of where and how samples of process material can
be collected
i. Description of typical types of process fluctuations and/or
malfunctions, including frequency of occurrence and anticipated
emission results
j. Expected life of process equipment (years)
k. Plans to modify or expand process production rate
5. Converters
a. Design process feed rate (Ibs matte/hr + Ibs slag/hr +
Ibs flux/hr)
b. Actual process feed rate (Ibs matte/hr + Ibs slag/hr +
Ibs flux/hr), including method and estimated accuracy of
measurement
c. Design process gas volumes (SCFM)
d. Actual process gas volumes (SCFM), including method of
determination, calculation, or measurement
e. Actual process temperature (°F)
-------
f. Average number of hours of operation per month
g. Process instrumentation used, including data for a typical
reading and range of readings
h. Description of where and how samples of process material can
be collected
i. Description of typical types of process fluctuations and/or
malfunctions, including frequency of occurrence and anticipated
emission results
j. Expected life of process equipment (years)
k. Plans to modify or expand process production rate
6. Refining Furnaces
a. Design process feed rate (Ibs blister copper/hr)
b. Actual process feed rate (Ibs blister copper/hr), including
method and estimated accuracy of measurement
c. Design process gas volumes (SCFM)
d. Actual process gas volumes (SCFM), including method of
determination, calculation, or measurement
e. Actual process temperature (°F)
f. Average number of hours of operation per month
g. Process instrumentation used, including data for a typical
reading and range of readings
h. Description of where and how samples of process material can
be collected
i. Description of typical types of process fluctuations and/or
malfunctions, including frequency of occurrence and anticipated
emission results
j. Expected life of process equipment (years)
k. Plans to modify or expand process production rate
-------
C. EMISSIONS
1. List of sources of particulate emissions in the plant (including
fugitive emissions)
2. Level of uncontrolled particulate emissions by source (Ibs/hr or
T/yr)
3. Existing source test data employed for particulates by stack,
process unit, or control device, including:
a. Test method
b. Data acquired
c. Operating process weight rate
d. Calculations
e. Test results
4. Particle size and chemical composition of uncontrolled particulate
emissions, including method of determination
5. Level of uncontrolled visible emissions by source (percent opacity)
and method of determination
6. Extent of and reason for variance of particulate emissions with:
a. Process design parameters
b. Process operating parameters
c. Raw material composition or type
d. Product specifications or composition
e. Production rate
f. Season or climate
g. Sulfur dioxide control
D. CONTROL SYSTEMS
1. Detailed description of the particulate and sulfur dioxide emissions
control systems, including:
a. Process treated
-------
b. Type of fuel consumed per unit
c. Quantity of fuel consumed per unit
d. Method of determination of design parameters
e. Engineering drawings or block flow diagrams
f. Expected life of control system
g. Plans to upgrade existing system
2. Electrostatic precipitators
a. Manufacturer, type, model number
b. Manufacturer's guarantees, if any
c. Date of installation or last modification and a detailed
description of the nature and extent of the modification
d. Description of cleaning and maintenance practices, including
frequency and method
e. Design and actual values for the following variables:
i. Current (amperes)
ii. Voltage
iii. Rapping frequency (times/hr)
iv. Number of banks
v. Number of stages
vi. Particulate resistivity (ohm-centimeters)
vii. Quantity of ammonia injected (Ibs/hr)
viii. Water injection flow fate (gals/min)
ix. Gas flow rate (SCFM)
x. Operating temperature (°F)
xi. Inlet particulate concentration (Ibs/hr or grains/SCFM)
xii. Outlet particulate concentration (Ibs/hr or grains/SCFM)
xiii. Pressure drop (inches of water)
3. Fabric filters
a. Manufacturer, type, model number
b. Manufacturer's guarantees, if any
c. Date of installation or last modification and a detailed
description of the nature and extent of the modification
-------
d. Description of cleaning and maintenance practices, including
frequency and method
e. Filter material
f. Filter weave
g. Bag replacement frequency
h. Forced or induced draft
i. Design and actual values for the following variables:
i. Bag area (ft2)
ii. Bag spacing (inches)
iii. Number of bags
iv. Gas flow rate (SCFM)
v. Operating temperature (°F)
vi. Inlet particulate concentration (Ibs/hr or grains/SCF)
vii. Outlet particulate concentration (Ibs/hr or grains/SCF)
viii. Pressure drop (inches of water)
4. Scrubbers
a. Manufacturer, type, model number
b. Manufacturer's guarantees, if any
c. Date of installation of last modification and a detailed
description of the 'nature and extent of the modification
d. Description of cleaning and maintenance practices, including
frequency and method
e. Scrubbing media
f. Design and actual values for the following variables:
i. Scrubbing media flow rate (gals/min)
ii. Pressure of scrubbing media (psi)
iii. Gas flow rate (SCFM)
iv. Operating temperature (°F)
v. Inlet particulate concentration (Ibs/hr or grains/SCF)
vi. Outlet particulate concentration (Ibs/hr or grains/SCF)
vii. Pressure drop (inches of water)
5. Sulfuric acid plants
a. Manufacturer, type, model number
-------
b. Manufacturer's guarantees, if any
c. Date of installation or last modification and a detailed
description of the nature and extent of the modification
d. Description of cleaning and maintenance practices, including
frequency and method
e. Frequency of catalyst screening
f. Type of demister
g. Design and actual values for the following variables:
i. Production (T of acid/day)
ii. Conversion rate (percent)
iii. Acid strength (percent l^SC^)
iv. Number of catalyst beds
v. Gas flow rate (SCFM)
vi. Operating temperature (°'F)
vii. Inlet S02 concentration (ppm)
viii. Outlet S02 concentration (ppm)
ix. Acid mist (Ibs t^SO^/T of acid)
x. Blower pressure (psi)
6. Liquid S02 plants
a. Manufacturer, type, model number
b. Manufacturer's guarantees, if any
c. Date of installation or last modification and a detailed
description of the nature and extent of the modification
d. Description of cleaning and maintenance practices, including
frequency and method
e. Absorbing media
f. Design and actual values for the following variables
1. Production (T of S02/day)
ii. Conversion rate (percent)
iii. Gas flow rate (SCFM)
iv. Operating temperature (°F)
v. Inlet S02 concentration (ppm)
vi. Outlet $62 concentration (ppm)
vii. Acid mist (Ibs H2S04/T of S02)
-------
7. Detailed description of how the particulate and sulfur dioxide
emission control systems operate
8. Description of instrumentation (flow meters, continuous monitors,
opacity meters, etc.) used, including manufacturer and model
number, data for typical and range of readings, and identification
of location by process unit, control system unit, or by stack
9. Description of typical types of control system malfunctions,
including frequency of occurrence and anticipated emission results
E. STACKS
1. Detailed description of stack configuration, including process
and/or control system units exhausted
2. Identification by stack of:
a. Heights (ft above terrain)
b. Elevation of discharge points (ft above sea level)
c. Inside diameters (ft)
d. Exit gas temperatures (°F)
e. Exit gas velocities (ft/sec)
-------
Appendix B
ASARCO Response
to NEIC Information Request
-------
COPPER SMELTER INFORMATION NEEDS
Submitted To
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
NATIONAL FIELD INVESTIGATIONS CENTER - DENVER
ASARCO INCORPORATED
HAYDEN PLANT
HAYDEN, ARIZONA 85235
January 29, 1976
-------
COPPER SMELTER INFORMATION NEEDS
A. GENERAL
1. Plant location
Hayden, Arizona
2. Person to contact regarding plant survey information
needs, his telephone number and address
Mr. Lary G. Cahill, Manager
ASARCO Incorporated
P. 0. Box 98
Hayden, Arizona 85235
(602) 356-7717
3. Simple block flow diagram showing smelter process
equipment, air pollution control devices, and stack
configuration
Drawing 5258-A (Attached)
-------
B. PROCESS
1. General
a. Detailed description of the process, including flow
diagrams, unique features, and how the process
operates
See Attached - PROCESS FLOW SHEETS B, C, D, E, E-l,
F, G, H AND J.
The Hayden Plant is a custom copper smelter using
pyrometallurgical processes to produce copper
anodes from copper concentrates and precipitates.
Copper concentrates and precipitates are delivered
to the plant by railroad cars. The cars, after
weighing and sampling, are unloaded to one of four
ore bins. Silica and limerock flux, delivered by
truck, is also discharged to these same bins to
provide the required metallurgical balance to flux
the iron and alumina content of the concentrates
and precipitates (PROCESS FLOW SHEET B). The mix
is then reclaimed and conveyed by belt conveyor to
the feed bins serving each of the roasters. The
plant has twelve roasters. Nos. 1-5 are McDougals
24' O.D. by 23'-9" high, 6-hearth; Nos. 6-8 are
McDougals 19' O.D. by 22'-9" high, 7-hearth; Nos.
9-11 are Herreshoff 21'-7" O.D. by 18'-6" high, 7-
hearth; and No. 12 is Bartlett-Snow-Pacific 25'
O.D. by 34'-9" high, 12-hearth.
The mix or charge is heated to the ignition point
of sulfur using natural gas or fuel oil to dry the
charge and eliminate enough of the sulfur to pro-
vide for a balance between the copper, iron and
sulfur to produce the desired matte grade in the
reverberatory furnaces. The resulting material
called calcine is hot, approximately 950°F, and
very fluid to facilitate rapid melting in the
reverberatory furnaces (PROCESS FLOW SHEET C).
The calcines are discharged from each roaster into
calcine hoppers to await removal and transporting
to the reverberatory furnaces. Calcines are con-
veyed to the reverberatory furnaces in 10-ton
electrified rail cars called "Larry cars". The
roaster process gases are discharged to a common
flue maintained under negative pressure to an elec-
trostatic precipitator for dust removal before
being emitted to the atmosphere from a 1,000-foot
stack.
-------
Calcines are charged to the reverberatory furnaces
from the Larry cars 'through charge guns located in
the sidewalls of the furnaces. The revcrberatory
furnaces are natural gas or fuel oil fired to
generate the heat required to melt the calcines and
maintain the bath in the furnaces in a liquid state.
The calcine upon melting produces two products —
slag and matte. The slag consisting principally of
iron, silica, CaO and alumina, and due to its lower
specific gravity, floats on the top of the furnace
bath. Slag is skimmed from the furnaces into rail
track mounted ladles and transported to a dump area
where it is discarded. The matte consisting princi-
pally of copper, iron and sulfur as copper sulphide
and iron sulphide, and due to its higher specific
gravity, settles to the bottom of the furnace. The
matte is tapped out of the bottom of the furnaces
in cast steel ladles where it is transferred to the
copper converters. The plant has two reverberatory
furnaces: No. 2 - 115* long by 34' wide, and No.
4 - 110' long by 30' wide. The process gases from
each furnace are passed through waste heat boilers
for recovery of waste heat and production of steam
used to produce process air and generation of elec-
trical power. The gases upon exiting the waste heat
boilers are conveyed through a spray chamber for
scrubbing and temperature conditioning before being
passed through the electrostatic precipitators for
particulate removal. The gases are then emitted to
the atmosphere from the 1,000' stack (PROCESS FLOW
SHEET D).
The copper matte tapped from the reverberatory
furnaces is transferred by overhead crane to one of
five copper converters. The converters consist of
three 13' by 33'; one 13' by 30'; and one 13' by 35'
furnaces. A typical converter cycle consists of an
initial slag blow of sixty minutes using 4 ladles
of matte, followed by four additional slag blows of
35 to 60 minutes using additions of two ladles of
matte each time. After each blow, slag is skimmed
before the next matte addition. After the five slag
blows, the remaining slag is skimmed from the con-
verter and it is blown for four hours on the copper
blow. The complete cycle takes roughly 10 hours at
the end of which 5 ladles of copper are transferred
to the anode furnace.
During slag blows, silica js added to the converter
to flux the iron released when the sulfur attached
to the iron is oxidized to S02. This forms a slag
called converter slag which is skimmed off at the end
of the slag blow. The converter slag is returned to
-------
the reverberatory I'urnaces. The copper blow com-
mences once the converter is fully charged and the
iron has been fluxed and skimmed off as slag. The
copper blow oxidizes the sulfur in the copper sul-'
phide to S02 gas which is emitted to the converter
flue system. The final converter product is blister
copper which is transferred in steel ladles to one
of two anode furnaces (PROCESS FLOW SHEET E).
The process gases from the converter furnaces are
collected in water-cooled hoods installed over
each converter mouth before passing into settling
chambers where larger and heavier particulate matter
settles out of the gas stream. This particulate
matter is transferred back to the ore bins for re-
cycling through the plant. The process gases are
then conveyed through high velocity flues to three
cyclones servicing each converter before joining
into a spray chamber. The spray chamber is used
to scrub and temperature condition the gases prior
to passing into an electrostatic precipitator. The
particulate collected by the cyclones and spray
chamber is recycled back to the ore bins. The elec-
trostatic precipitator consists of four sections of
three units each. Particulate collected in the
electrostatic precipitator is conveyed to a pugmill
for wetting before loading to rail cars for shipment
to Asarco's El Paso, Texas plant for processing.
The converter gases are conveyed through the flue
system by three hot gas fans. These fans discharge
to either the acid plant or to the 1,000-ft. stack
(PROCESS FLOW SHEET E-l).
The converter gases discharge from the hot gas fans
into the 50% scrubbing tower, two gas scrubbing
towers, two gas cooling towers and wet gas mist
precipitators (PROCESS FLOW SHEET F) before going
on to the acid plant (PROCESS FLOW SHEET H) to con-
vert the S02 into 803 and produce sulfuric acid.
The blister copper produced by the converters is
treated in one of two anode furnaces and cast into
anodes for shipment to the copper refinery. The
treatment consists of blowing the copper with air
to remove final traces of sulfur and poling the
copper with natural gas to remove any residual
amounts of oxygen (PROCESS FLOW SHEET J).
Definition of normal operation
Processing an average of 2,000 TPD copper concen-
trates utilizing approximately 10 roasters, 2 rever-
beratory furnaces, 3 converters and 2 anode furnaces
-------
Actual production rate (Ibs. blister copper /hr
and percent Cu)
Actual production rate is variable. At design
capacity - 39,000. Ibs/hr; calendar year 1975 -
to 28,473 ibs/hr.
d. Type and quantity of fuel consumed
Oil - i. Heating value (BTU's/gal) - 140,000
ii. Percent sulfur (by weight) - 0.35
iii. Percent ash (by weight) - 0.0001
iv. Specific gravity (API) - 32.0
v. Consumption (gals or bbls/yr) -
Variable depending on natural gas
curtailments. (2,572,870 gals, for
1975)
Gas - i. Type of gas (constituents in percent by
weight)
Helium - 0.03
Carbon Dioxide - 0.19
Nitrogen - 2.39
Oxygen - 0.00
Menthane - 88.35
Ethane - 7.23
Propane - 1.52
Iso-Butane - 0.09
N- Butane - 0.18
Iso-Pentane - 0.01
N-Pentane - 0.01
Hexanes - 0.00
ii. Density (Ibs/SCF) - .047
iii. Heating value (BTU's/SCF) - 1,050
iv. Percent sulfur -
(a) by volume - NIL
(b) grains/SCF - 0.0005
v. Consumption (SCF/yr) - For 1975 -
2,891,220 MCF
Coal - NOT APPLICABLE
e. 0a»er composition, including a. typical percent and
range of percentages for each chemical constituent
Oz/Ton
Au Ag
High 0.050 4.78
Low 0.002 2.09
Pb
0.3
0.1
Cu
32.
21.
P
0,
6
e
Si 02
10.5
3.3
r
Fe
29.
20.
c
i
3
6
e
CaO
0.9
0.2
n
Zn
1.
0.
a
3
t
s
37
28
.8
.3
A12O3
3.1
1.0
-------
f. Flux composition, including a typical percent and
range of percentages for each chemical constituent
Oz/Ton P e r c e n
Au
High
Low
0
0
.005
.004
fig
0.
0.
42
33
Cu
0.
0.
20
12
Si 02
78.7
76.3
Fe
3.7
2.3
CaO
2.0
0.7
S
1.5
0.3
A12O3
7.6
4.1
g. Standard conditions - pressure (psi) and temperature
(°F) - used to calculate SCFM
Pressure - 14.7 psi
Temperature - 70°F
2. Concentrators
NOT APPLICABLE.
3. Roasters
a. Design process feed rate (Ibs. concentrate/hr)
167,000 Ibs. concentrates/hr.
b. Actual process feed rate (Ibs. concentrate/hr),
including method and estimated accuracy of
measurement
Variable
1975 - 129,817 to 88,957 Ibs/hr.
c. Design process gas volumes (SCFM)
Not available.
d. Actual process gas volumes (SCFiM), including method
of determination, calculation, or measurement*
e. Actual process temperature (°F) *
Measurements taken with 45°pitot tubes.
* SEE ATTACHED.
-------
R.3;
. and e.
Roaster
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
12
ACFM
to 27
SCFM
DATA SHEET No. 1
IIAYDEN ROASTERS
Measurements taken
% H20 determined by
(d)
Date ACFM (wet)
10/1/70 13,000
10/1/70 15,970
10/1/70 12,300
10/1/70 13,560
10/1/70 12,200
10/1/70
10/1/70 11,750
10/1/70
10/1/70
10/1/70 11,780
10/1/70 38,000
10/1/70 22,700
10/17/73- 22,400
10/19/73
with 45°
dry /wet
Oe)
Temp. °F
400
400
400
270
400
—
400
—
—
400
400
350
460
pitot tubes
bulb method.
SCFM (wet)
7,420,
9,120
7,020
9,120
6,970
—
6,710
—
—
6,730
21,700
13,760
12,100
volumes based on air density of ,0807n/Ft3, then
.7" Hg and measured temperature.
is 70°Fr 29.9" Ilg calculated by:
530
27.7
% H20
13.8
corrected
Temp. +460 x 29.9
-------
f. Average number of hours of operation per month
730 hrs/month
g. Process instrumentation used, including data for a
typical reading and range of readings
The only instrumentation used are timers on each of
the roaster feed belts. They measure the time that
feed is being provided the roaster.
ji. Description of where and how samples of process
material can be collected
Process material samples may be taken at the feed
bins, feed hoppers, from any of the roaster hearths
or from the Larry cars that transport the calcine
to the furnace.
i. Description of typical types of process fluctuations
and/or malfunctions, including frequency of occurrence
and anticipated emission results
Process fluctuations include curtailment of smelting
operations as ordered by the Joint Control Center
which would cause the stopping of a roaster.
Malfunctions include breaking of shear pins on the
drive, loss of rabble blades and plows, broken arms,
brick falling out of hearths, loss of feed on belts,
belts burning, and loss of draft.
j. Expected life of process equipment (years)
20 Years
k. Plans to modify or expand process production rate
None.
4. Reverberatory furnaces
a. Design process feed rate (Ibs. calcine/hr +
Ibs. converter slag/hr)
204,000 Ibs. calcine/hr + 90,000 Ibs. converter
slag/hr.
-------
b. Actual process fcy.-d rate (Ibs. calclne/hr +
Ibs. converter' sl;'g/hr), including method and
estimated accuracy of measurement
Variable
1975: 123,326-84,509 Ibs. calcine/hr.
47,153-28,022 Ibs. converter slag/hr.
c. Design process gas volumes (SCFM)
No. 2 furnace - 333,000 SCFM
No. 4 furnace - 177,000 SCFM
d. Actual process gas volumes (SCFM), including method
of determination, calculation, or measurement
SEE ATTACHMENT.
e. Actual process temperature (°F)
SEE ATTACHMENT.
f. Average number of hours of operation per month
730 hours/month.
g. Process instrumentation used, including data for a
typical reading and range of readings
Type
Integrators
n
n
•i
Chart Recorders
Measurement
Fuel: Oil
Gas
Combustion Air
Atomizing Air
Furnace Draft
Combustion Air Temp.
Arch Temp.
Air/Fuel Ratio
Oil Flow
Gas flow
Atomizing Air Flow
Combustion Air Flow
Exit Gas Temp.
Preheater Gas Flow
Typical
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
.005-, 01
900°F
2S50°F
0.55
26,000 gal./day/fee
150,000 MCF/day/fce
900 MCF/hr
80°F
20-35 MCF/hr
Rant
0-52,000 gals/day
0-375,000 MCF/day
280-1,860 MCF/hr
0± 0.15
0-1200°F
2400-2750°F
0-1
280-1,860 MCF/hr
0-120°F
-------
•B.4.
•d. and e,
i
DATA SHEET No. 2
IIAYDEN
REVERES
Measurements taken with a 45° pi tot tube
in the spray chamber bypass flue.
Date
9/13/68
9/13/63
11/27/68
11/26/68
Reverb
No. ACFM
2 98,500
4 98,600
2 123,500
4 71,000
(d)
SCFM (v;et)-
42,100
45,200
62,500
40,500
(e)
Temp.
op
690
610
510
400
Static
Press
In H20
5.2
5.3
5.8
—
Rev.
Firing rate
CFH Hat. Gas
139,000
111,000
121,000
75,000
ACFM volumes based on gas density of .0807#/Ft3, then corrected
to 27.7" Hg and operating temperature.
SCFM calculated from ACFM by multiplying:
ACFM x
530
27.7
Temp
. + 460 X 29.9
-------
h. Description of whore and how samples of process
material can be collected
.Process samples may be obtained of slag from the
slag launder as the furnace is being skimmed and
matte from the matte launder as the furnace is
being tapped.
i. Description of typical types of process fluctuations
and/or malfunctions, including frequency of occur-
rence and anticipated emission results
Process fluctuations include dropping of calcine
charges which require a cut in firing rate and
skimming of furnace which does not allow charge to
be dropped.
Malfunctions include loss of'fuel, combustion air,
process control (draft, drop firing rate, combus-
tion air/fuel ratio), or electrical power.
j. Expected life of process equipment (years)
20 Years.
k. Plans to modify or expand process production rate
None.
5. Converters
a. Design process feed rate (Ibs. matte/hr + Ibs.
slag/hr + Ibs. flux/hr + precipitates Ibs/hr)
127,200 Ibs. matte/hr
250 Ibs. anode slag/hr
31,400 Ibs. flux/hr
3,400 Ibs. precipitates/hr.
b. Actual process feed rate (Ibs. matte/hr + Ibs
slag/hr + Ibs. flux/hr), including method and
. estimated accuracy of measurement
1975: 74,020 - 58,660 Ibs. matte/hr.
250 Ibs. anode slag/hr. (est.)
15,250 - 10,000 Ibs. flux/hr.
Variable
-------
c. Design process gas volumes (SCFM)
40,000 SCFM.
d. Actual process gas volumes (SCFM), including
method of determination, calculation, or
measurement
SEE ATTACHMENT.
e. Actual process temperature (°F)
SEE ATTACHMENT.
f. Average number of hours of operation per month
730 hrs/month.
g. Process instrumentation used, including data for a
typical reading and range of readings *
Blast Air Flow: The pressure drop is taken across
a calibrated orifice plate located in the blast
air line. This pressure drop is sensed by a
differential pressure transmitter which sends
a signal to a 3-15 psi receiver gage which is
calibrated to print out on a chart reading
0-35,000 SCFM. This chart is located in the
converter office.
Blast Air Pressure: The blast air pressure is
measured through a port in the blast air line
by a bellows-type pressure sensing transmitter
which sends a signal to a 3-15 psi receiver
gage in the converter office which is calibra-
ted to print out on a chart reading 0-20 psi.
h. Description of where and how samples of process
material can be collected
Samples of slag and copper are taken through the
mouth of the converter with the converter out of
the stack. The samples are taken with a small
spoon or on an iron bar.
*Volumetric and pressure instrumentation on blast air.
10
-------
B.5.
d. and e.
_ <
i
i »
yilS) j^ -tot
*\.Bv£i DATA SIIEET NO< 3
^ ^ IIAYDEU CONVERTERS
it'
•y r Volumes taken with 45° pitot tube
in the high velocity flues.
-------
i. Description of typical types of process fluctuations
and/or malfunctions, including frequency of occurrence
and anticipated emission results
Cyclone damper malfunction (once every 3 months)
results in no draft on the converter. Converter
hood door failure (once/month) diminishes the draft
on the converter. These two items are repaired as
they occur.
j. Expected life of process equipment (years)
20 Years.
k. Plans to modify or expand process production rate
None.
6. Refining Furnaces
a. Design process feed rate (Ibs. blister copper/hr)
39,000 Ibs. blister copper/hr.
b. Actual process feed rate (Ibs. blister copper/hr),
including method and estimated accuracy of measure-
ment
Variable
1975: 28,473 - 20,005 Ibs. blister copper/hr.
c. Design process gas volumes (SCFM)
Unknown.
d. Actual process gas volumes (SCFM), including method
of determination, calculation, or measurement
Unknown.
e. Actual process temperature (°F)
2200 - 2100°F.
f. Average number of hours of operation per month
730 hrs/month.
11
-------
Process instrumentation used, including data for
a typical reading and range of readings
Leeds & Northrup Temp-Tip Recorder
Speedomax W - Type S
Range - 2000 - 2200°F
Typical - 2150°F
h. Description of where and how samples of process
material can be collected
Furnace mouth or pouring spout with hand ladle.
i. Description of typical types of process fluctuations
and/or malfunctions, including frequency of occurrence
and anticipated emission results
Low temp blister @ 1/wk.
Additional firing time - no emissions.
j. Expected life of process equipment (years)
20 Years.
k. Plans to modify or expand process production rate
None.
12
-------
C. EMISSIONS
1. List of sources of particulate emissions in the plant
(including fugitive emissions)
Roasters
Reverberatory Furnaces
Converters
2. Level of uncontrolled particulate emissions by source
(Ibs/hr or T/yr)
NONE
3. Existing source test data employed for particulates by
stack, process unit, or control device, including:
(a) Test method; (b) Data acquired; (c) Operating
process weight rate; (d) Calculations; (e) Test results,
Hayden Absorbing Tower
Samples taken above mist eliminator.
Sample train: Two Buchner medium porosity
•funnels heated to approximately 240°pt two
80% isopropyl alcohol wash bottles, Dryrite,
gas meter, and accessories.
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
Date
3/3/75
3/4/75
3/4/75
3/5/75
3/5/75
S03
As SO3
3.29 x 10~7
10.2 x 10~7
5.51 x 10-7
5.51 x 10~7
4.74 x 10~7
Vol. Outlet*
SCFM
68,220
59,930
66,060
52,800
70,650
0/SCF
As H2SO4
4.03 x 10-7 g.
12.5 x 10~7 5.
6.75 x 10~7 8.
6.75 x 10~7 7.
5.81 x 10~7 6-
No. of % SO<2
Converters Feed
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.6
H2SO4
ti/SCF
63 x 10~6
66 x 10-6
01 x 10~6
71 x 10~6
16 x 10"6
3.5 .
5.2
3.8
3.8
5.5
Total H2SO4
8/SCF
10.0 x 10-6
6.91x '10~6
8.69x 10-6
8.33x 10~6
6.74 x 10~6
*Volume determined from acid plant blower recording and adjusted
for the conversion of SO2 and 02 to acid and its removal in the
absorbing tower.
13
-------
HAYDEN COTTRELL OUTLET
Samples were taken in the flue with medium porosity alundum
thimbles. Three impingers preceded the gas meter, first '
H20, second blank, third Dryrite. Samples were taken on
outlet of hot cottrell.
Date
9/21/74
9/21/74
9/21/74
Cottrell
Temo. °F
370
350
355
HAYDEN
H20
4.8
6.6
7.6
R&R SAMPLE
Grain
ti/SCF Dry
0.
0.
0.
STATION
Loading
(32°F &
043
045
033
SL)
I//)
Modified Method 5 - 20% H202 substitu
for water in first two im'pingers. Other
Methods 1 and 2 were followed.
Run
NO.
1
2
3
Run
No.
1
2
3
Run
No.
1
2
3
% % Vol. Based on Dry Gas
Date H2O
11/3/75 11.
11/4/75 10.
11/4/75 11.
Volume
SCFM Dm
276,173
279,666
303,349
P A R T I C
fi/SCF Dry
4.66 x 10~6
6.66 x 10-6
6.70 x 10~6
CO2
9 3.8
2 2.7
6 2.7
Volume
ACFM
444,636
441,414
483,085
U L A T E
Gr/SCF 8/Hr
0.0325 77.
0.0465 111.
0.0468 122.
O2 N2+CO
16.3 79.9
16.2 81.7
16.2 81.7
Flue S
Cott.
In
270
282
300
5 Total
Temp. °F Roasters
241
243
235
S02
ff/SCF
2 13.35 x 10~4
8 14.78 x 10~4
0 15.36 x 10~4
93.5
86.9
80.5
ff/Hr.
22,138
24,800
27,957
Temp. F
Out
255
258
275
Capacity
Reverbs
64.0
97.2
76.9
Acid
Content
Cot.
Dust %
2.6
2.4
2.4
4, Particulate size and chemical composition of uncontrolled
particulate emissions, including method of determination
Not applicable
14
-------
5. Level of uncontrolled visible emissions by source
(percent opacity) and method of determination
Unknown
6. Extent of and reason for variance of particulate
omissions with:
a. Process design parameters
Wrong design or malfunction of equipment.
b. Process operating parameters
Temperature control, process,gas conditioning
and power input.
c. Raw material composition or type
Depends on quantity of volatile metals present,
particle size and moisture content.
d. Product specifications or composition
No effect, as product is uniform.
e. Production rate
Production rate increases will increase particulate
emissions.
f. Season or climate
Humidity.
g. Sulfur dioxide control
Controls not operating or malfunctioning will
increase particulate emissions.
-------
'D. CONTROL SYSTEMS
1. Detailed description of the particulate and sulfur
dioxide emissions control systems, including:
a. Process treated
Roaster and reverberatory furnace process gases are
treated for particulate control with electrostatic
precipitators. Converter process gases are treated
for particulate control with electrostatic preci-
pitators and scrubbers.
Roaster and reverberatory furnace process gases are
not treated for sulfur dioxide control. Converter
process gases are treated for sulfur dioxide control
by a single absorption contact acid plant.
b. Type of fuel consumed per unit
The electrostatic precipitators do not consume fuel.
Instead, large quantities of electrical power are
required amounting to an average of 105,000 KWH per
month for the R.& R. Cottrell and 390,000 KWH per
month for the Converter Cottrell. The acid plant
uses a natural gas fired preheater for heating
plant up to process temperature and to hold process
temperature during periods of low gas grades, i.e.,
less than 4.0% S02-
Quantity of fuel consumed per unit
The acid plant has consumed natural gas on a monthly
average of 1,471 MCF in 1972; 3,911 MCF in 1973;
6,625 MCF in 1974; and 6,732 MCF in the first 11
months of 1975. In addition to fuel, the acid plant
consumed 32,585,903 KWH in 1972; 26,844,246 KWH in
1973; 25,593,689 KWH in 1974; and 21,964,066 KWH in
the first 11 months of 1975. This is an average of
47.6% of the total Hayden Plant electrical power
requirements.
d. Method of determination of design parameters
SEE ATTACHED.
e. Engineering drawings or block flow diagrams
SEE ATTACHED PROCESS FLOW SHEETS C, D, E-l and H
16
-------
D. i.d.
DATA SHEET No. 9
IIAYDEN - DESIGN PARAMETERS OF ASARCO COTTRELLS
D. Control Systems
d. jMethod of determination of design parameters
I am not familiar with the method Chemibau used in
selecting the size of the acid plant hot gas filter, so I will
limit my explanation on "method of determination of design
parameters" to our own cottrells.
The formula we used for developing the curve of Fig. 1
was based on the formula
n OC 1 -
This is valuable in predicting what the dust recoveries would
be in an existing cottrell if all other factors are kept con-
stant, but the time in the electrical field is varied.
As an example of the application of this formula, I
have selected a cottrell operating at 90% efficiency and three
seconds retention time in the electrical field. This is shown
on Fig. 1 where at 90% efficiency the curve intersects the 98th
line of the graph. This is equal to 32.67 line per second.
If \7e wish to increase the efficiency of this cottrell
to 98% at the same volume, then the curve intersects the 98%
efficiency on line 166 from the origin of the curve. This
would indicate that a retention time of 5.08 seconds is neces-
sary to achieve 98% efficiency. This increase in efficiency
is equal to an increase of cottrell capacity of some 69.3%
over the original installation. We use the same method for
determining cottrell size and efficiency whether we are en-
larging an existing cottrell or building a new cottrell for a
similar gas stream.
-------
-------
i> . isu.
20 Years
g. Plans to upgrade existing system
NONE
2. Electrostatic precipitators - Reverb and Roaster
a. Manufacturer, type, model number
ASARCO design
b. Manufacturer's guarantees, if any
NONE
c. Date of installation or -last modification and a
detailed description of the nature and extent of
the modification
Pla'tes and wires were repaired or replaced on all
units. Work was completed February 14, 1975.
All existing transformers and automatic controls
were replaced with larger units to achieve approx-
imately double the previous power input.
Work on this phase for increasing the precipitator
efficiency was completed by November 15, 1974.
d. Description of cleaning and maintenance practices,
including frequency and method
Each bank is automatically isolated each hour by
means of inlet and outlet dampers, the power cut
off, and air vibrators clean both the hot and
cold frames. After a null period, the dampers are
opened and the cleaning cycle proceeds to the next
bank.
Normal maintenance includes replacing broken elec-
trodes and cleaning insulator boxes with air. Fresh
hydrated lime is added to react with free acid on
insulator blocks supporting the hot frame.
e. Design and actual values for the following variables
17
-------
i. Current (amperes)
ii. Voltage
iii. Rapping frequency (tdmes/hr)
iv. Number of banks
v. Number of stages
vi. Particulate resistivity
(ohm-centimeters) Unknown
vii. Quantity of ammonia injected
(Ibs/hr) None
viii. Water injection flow rate
(gals/min)
ix. Gas flow rate (ltOOO SCFM)
x. Operating temperature (°F)
xi. Inlet particulate concentration
(lbs/100,000 SCFM)
xii. Outlet particulate concentration
(grains/SCFM)
xiii. Pressure drop (inches of water)
Design
1
,000
35
1
8
4
Actual
820-850
31-33
1
8
4
Unknown
None
Approx. 75
275-300
250-275
35-40
0.0325-0.0468
0.06-0.15
2. Electrostatic precipitators - Converter
a. Manufacturer, type, model number
Chemiebau
b. Manufacturer's guarantees, if any
97% (indicated only)
Date of installation or last modification and a
detailed description of the nature and extent
of the modification.
Limited operation of the precipitator was started
on October 16, 1970, with one converter. Since
this date there have been no major repairs on the
unit.
d. Description of cleaning and maintenance practices,
including frequency and method
Cleaning is effected by drop hammers fixed to a
rotating shaft which strike each row of plates and
electrodes. Cleaning frequency and operating time
is adjustable and is accomplished during operation
with no interruption in gas flow.
-------
e. Design and actual values for the followj
Design
i. Current (amperes) (MA DC) Unknown
ii. Voltage (Volts AC) Unknown
iii. Rapping frequency (times/hr) Variable
iv. Number of banks 4
v. Number of stages 3
vi. Particulate Resistivity Not Known
vii. Quantity of ammonia injected None
viii. Water injection flow rate (gpm) None
ix. Gas flow rate (SCFM) 200,000
x. Operating temperature (°F) 650-700
xi. Inlet particulate concentra-
tion Unknown
xii. Outlet particulate concentra-
tion (grains/'SCFM) Unknown
xii'i. Pressure drop (inches of water) Unknown
ng variables:
Actual
120-500
370-390
Variable
4
3
Not Known
None
10-60
40,000-100,000
200-700
Unknown
.033-.045
0-3
3. Fabric filters
Not applicable.
4. Scrubbers
a. Manufacturer, type, model number
Manufactured by Rust Engineering Company; process
designed by Chemiebau.
b. Manufacturer's guarantees, if any
None.
c. Date of installation of last modification and a
detailed description of the nature and extent of
the modification.
The Plant was shut down on January 11, 1975 for
replacement of the tops of gas cooling towers and
to tie in the APV heat exchangers. At this time
modification to the settling tanks and tie-in were
made. Work was completed on February 21, 1975.
-------
d. Description of cleaning and maintenance practices,
including frequency and method
The cleaning and maintenance practices are done on
a continuous basis. The scrubbing system is con-
tinually blown down to rid the system of solids.
The solids are settled out in tanks and later
shipped with the cottrell dust.
e. Scrubbing media
Water.
f. Design and actual values for the following variables
i. Scrubbing media flow rate (GPM)
50% Scrubber
North Scrubber
South Scrubber
Cooling Towers
ii.
Hi.
iv.
v.
vi.
Design
723
309
309
1,739
Pressure of scrubbing media (THD) 95'
Gas flow rate (SCFM)
Operating temperature (°F)
Inlet particulate concentration
(ti/SCF)
Outlet particulate concentra-
tion (it/SCF)
vii. Pressure drop (inches of water)
0-110f000
600-700
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Actual
1,100
640
640
Not Available
Variable
0-110,000
200-650
.040
Unknown
7
5. Sulfuric acid plants
a. Manufacturer, type, model number
Manufactured and engineered by Rust Engineering
Company; designed by Chemiebau. Single absorption
contact plant.
b. Manufacturer's guarantees, if any
Process Guarantees
750 tons per 100% monohyclrate as 93.5%
per twenty-four hours.
20
-------
Conversion efficiency SC>2 to S03 of 95.5%
Absorption of SOa to form sulfuric acid - 99.
Maximum 803 content in stack gases: 0.0042
gr/cu. ft.
Drying of process gases: 0.0028
gr/cu. ft.
These guarantees are based on supply by Asarco of
a minimum of 98,000 SCFM average hourly grade of
4.12% S02 gas.
SEE ATTACHMENT - Letter dated December 15, 1971,
HAYDEN ACID PLANT PROCESS GUARANTEE TESTS.
c. Date of installation or last modification and a
detailed description of the nature and extent of
the modification
Originally installed November 1971. Modification
presently underway - January thru March, 1976.
d. Description of cleaning and maintenance practices,
including frequency and method
Done as required.
e. Frequency of catalyst screening
Catalyst screening is required annually.
f. Type of demister
York Type S - Teflon.
g. Design and actual values for the following
variables:
-------
Salt Lake City, Utah
December 15, 1971
,r. E. H. Haug
alt Lake City Office
IIAYDEN ACID PLANT
PROCESS GUARANTEE TESTS
During the period from November 2 through December 8, 1971
csts were made at the Hayden acid plant to determine if the plant
met the following process guarantees:
1. Conversion efficiency of S02 to 803 of 95.5%.
2. 99.91 absorption of 803 to form sulfuric acid.
3. Maximum 803 content in stack gases of 0.0042 grams/cu.ft.
4. Moisture content of dried gases of 0.0028 grams/cu.ft.
1. The conversion efficiency was calculated from data obtained
iy makinq simultaneous determinations of SO2 in the feed gas and in
he stack gas. The acid plant S02 recorder was used to determine the
S02 in the feed gas during the test period. S02 was determined in the
':ail gas with the Reich method using 0.01 normal iodine solution.
Eight conversion efficiency tests were made and are tabulated
rn the following table.
1.
CONVERSION EFFICIENCY
GUARANTEE: 95.55 CONVERSION WITH 4.125, FEED GAS
)ATE
11/8/71
1 1/8/71
1/8/71
,.1/22/71
11/22/71
.1/30/71
.,2/2/71
12/3/71
VOLUME
(SCFM)
57,500
84,500
84,800
98,300
98,300
87,000
77,900
88,900
% S02 FEED
GAS
5.2
4.6
4.5
7.5
4.625
6.42
6.44
5.12
% S02 TAIL
GAS
0.0965
0.119
0.162
0.320
0.325
0.257
0.180
0.276
% CONVERSION
98.3
97.7
96.7
96.2
93.4*
96.4
97.5
95. C**
*There is reason to believe that the feed gas analysis for
this test is wrong, thus giving the low conversion efficiency, because
luring this test work was being done at the SO2 recorder.
**Aftcr this test v/ater was found in the sample line left, from
i previous test, so these results could have been affected.
The chart on the next page shows the plot of the points obtained
when the percent conversion is plotted against the SO2 content of the feed
jas. The solid line is the variation expected by Chemiebau with a
variation in grade of feed gas. Only the two tests that arc suspect gave
conversions lower than expected, and the conversion efficiency meets the
guarantee.
-------
Mr. H. II. Hauq
"nyden Acid Plant
December 15, 1971
•>. The absorption efficiency was calculated from data obtained
ncn tests were made to determine the 803 content of the stack gas.
_.i making the determination for 503 in the stack gas, the SO3 as such
is determined separately from the II2SO/J mint. For the SOo content of
tack gas, both components are considered; however, for calculating the
asorption efficiency only the 803 component is considered. In making
this calculation, it is assumed that 96% of the SC>2 entering is con-
arted to S03.
The following table shows the absorption efficiency for the
ive tests that were made.
2.
ABSORPTION OF £03 TO FORM H2SO4
GUARANTEE: 99.9?, ABSORPTION
ATE
11/2/71
1/10/71
1/11/71
11/21/71
2/2/71
% S02 IN
FEED GAS
5.0
6.0
5.0
5.4
5.37
VOLUME FEED
GAS (SCFM)
65,500
79,400
79,400
90,700
90,000
% ABSORPTION
99.98
99.97
99.96
99.97
99.99
The absorption efficiency is veil above the guarantee.
The stack gases were sampled at the top of the absorbing
^ov;er above the two spray catchers to determine the 803 contained in
them. The arrangement of the sampling equipment with a heated filter
s such that the two SO^ bearing components, namely the H2S04 mist and
03 as such, are determined separately, then the total 803 content of
the stack gas calculated. The H2S04 mist was captured in the probe and the
eated filter, and the S03 was captured in 805 Isopropyl alcohol. Each of
he components v/as collected separately and boiled to remove SO2, and the
803 sample v/as boiled until, all the alcohol was driven off. The samples
ere then titrated with a standard solution of caustic. The following
able shows the results of five tests to determine the 803 in the stack
gases.
3.
803 CONTENT IN STACK GAS
GUARANTEE: LESS THAN 0.0042 GRAMS/CU. FT.
SO2 IN
ATE FEED GAS
11/2/71
'1/10/71
1/11/71
11/21/71
•V2/2/71
5.0
6.0
5.0
5.4
5.37
VOLUME FEED
GAS (SCFM)
65,500
79,400
79,400
90,700
90,000
H2SO/i MIST
IN STACK GAS.
GRAMS/SCF
0.000615
0.00104
0.00117
0.00122.
0.000398
S03 IN TOTAL 803 IN
STACK GAS STACK GAS
GRAMS/SCF GRAMS/SCF
0.000583
0.00189
0.00191
0.00145
0.000532
O.OC108
0.00273
0.00236
0.00245
0.000857
i'hese tests all meet the guarantee.
-------
- 4 -
Mr.' E. H. iiaug
Ilayden Acid Plant
December 15, 1971
4. To determine moisture content of the dried gas, a sample of
qas was drawn through a moisture collector. For thc.sc tcr.ts, cither
P205 or Anhydronc was u.c;od, and the gain in weight dcterminod by woiqh-
inq the collector before and after each test. This was found to be a
very difficult test to make, mainly because of weighing difficulties.
The difficulty in weighing came about because the equipment necessary
to hold the rcaqent through which the gas sample is drawn is relatively
large compared to the change in weight nroduced with the collected
rr.oisture. Also, it was found that the balance at the acid plant gave
erratic readings because the table on which it was mounted was subject
to vibrations and could be thrown out of level with the slightest shift
of weight on the table. After the conclusion was reached that it was
necessary to lengthen the sampling time and that weighing should be done
in the plant's laboratory, good results were obtained.
The following table shows the results obtained from eleven
tests. Some of the results are above the guarantee, but when the test
period was extended to periods lasting overnight, the results were con-
sistently well below the guarantee.
4.
MOISTURE CONTENT OF DRIED GAS
GUARANTEE: LESS THAN 0.0028 GRAMS/CU. FT.
DATE
VOLUME OF GAS
SAMPLED (SCF)
MOISTURE CONTENT
GRAMS/SCF
11/4/71
11/5/71
11/7/71
11/8/71
11/20/71
12/2/71
12/3/71
12/5/71
12/6/71
12/7/71
12/8/71
9.95
18.40
6.09
"12.95
7.95
17.65
14.78
10.17
40.6
64.3
48.4
0.0032
0.0025
0.0021
0.00265
0.0038
Negative
0.00288
0.000585*
0.000555 - 0.000585*
0.000601
0.000430
*These results are calculated using weights from those bulbs
in the train which show a gain in weight.
5. A number of attempts were made to check the SO2 recorder
using the Reich method for analyzing the gas for S02- At first the
•results were unsatisfactory because there were wide variations recorded
>n the chart from minute to minute, and it v/as difficult to pinpoint the
recorded value -that should correspond to the value determined iodo-
metrically.
To avoid this problem, a large quantity of 0.IN 12 solution
was used so that the time required to make the Reich determination v/as
jxtended to a period which varied from 15 minutes to 40 minutes and
-------
•Mr. -E. H. Hauci
ayden Acid Plant
December 15, 1971
uring this period the S02 analyzer-recorder was read every thirty
econds. The readings taken during the exact corresponding time period
were then averaged for comparison with the results of the Reich deter-
"ination.
The tabulation below shows the results of seven such tests.
proin the averages it was determined that the S02 analyzer-recorder
as reading high and that a correction of -0.2 should be applied to
_he chart reading to get the S02 content of the feed gas.
5.
CALIBRATION OF SO2 ANALYZER-RECORDER
DATE
ANALYZER
READING
REICH
DETERMINATION
11/25/71
11/25/71
11/28/71
11/30/71
11/30/71
11/30/71
11/30/71
4.20
4.51
6.24
6.62
6.27
6.34
5.24
39.42
Average 5.63
3.71
4.43
6.38
6.82
5.84
6.07
5.00
38.25
5.46
Correction to be applied to recorder reading -0.2.
Early in the start-up period the question arose whether the
low meter reading gas flow to the acid plant blowers was recording
.the flow as standard CFM. A number of volume determinations were made
".sing a Dwyer standard pitot tube plus two determinations with an
SARCO 45? tube, and each was compared with the flow meter reading.
The location in the duct where the measurements wore made
•as a good one, being long and straight; however, this location was
igh up in the air, and with the platform arrangement, measurements
could be made along only one diameter. Also, the duct was six feet in
liameter, and the pitot tube was only five feet long so an allowance
iad to be made for being able to reach only part way across the duct.
These less than ideal conditions probably contributed to the
•eadings being erratic as shown in the tabulation; however, except for
chose tests made on November 9 and November 30 where the instrument
'lid agree fairly closely with the measurements in SCFM, the readings
iveraged 812 of the flow meter reading. It is the feeling that this
_s the factor by which the chart was reading wrong.
With the plant operating at rated volume, 98,000 SCFM, the
:low meter would then read approximately 120,000 which is very near
the upper end of the range of the chart. It is desirable to have the
-------
H. Haug
Acid Plant
December 15, 1971
flow meter read more nearly the SCFM actually flov;inq, so the fluid
\ this flow meter is to be changed to a more dense fluid in order
> achieve thin. The instrument supplier recommended ethylcnc glycol,
After the fluid is changed, the flow meter should be recalibrated so
"iat the factor for the meter reading will be known.
FLOW METER COMPARED TO PITOT MEASUREMENTS
FLOW METER
READING
PITOT TUBE
MEASUREMENT (SCFM)
% OF
MTR. RDG,
11/10/71
L/10/71
L/22/71
11/23/71
L/29/71
L/29/71
11/29/71
"1/29/71
L/30/71
j.1/30/71
U/30/71
L/30/71
.2/1/71
12/3/71
V3/71
V3/71
12/5/71
2/5/71
2/7/71
12/7/71
44,000
109,000
104,000
118,000
90,000
87,500
51,000
90,000
100,000
104,000
106,100
113,500
114,360
60,500
101,500
101,500
102,900
111', 870
115,000
99,000
108,500
'45,700
89,500
84,700
90,100
84,600
63,200
40,600
74,400
82,000
94,600
103,500
110,500
114,700
53,200
79,800*
81,300
84,000
87,700
91,300
82,800
87,800
100.4
82.2
81.0
76.3
94.0
72.2
79.6
82.6
82.0
91.0
97.5
97.4
100.1
88.0
78.6
80
81
78
79
83
79.3
Made with 45° pitot tube immediately prior to following test.
The results of these acceptance tests bear out that the plant
> conservative in design.
~ ids. -Worksheets
3C:bm
cc: K.D.Loucyhridge
L.C.Travis
A.J.Kroha
M.J.Winkel
W.T.Sweat
T.Jordan
C. R. COUNTS
W.R.Mahoney
J.J.Donoso^ w/encls.
E.S.Godsey
-------
©
©
O
O
/A'
\\c 7/fat-
dJOi Ticrsa L.
7.0
-------
Design Actual
i. Production (T/operating day) 750 492
ii. Conversion rate (percent) 95.5 97.2
Hi. Acid strength (percent l^SOq) 93-98 93-98
iv. Number of catalyst beds 3 3
v. Gas flow rate (SCFM) 0-98,000 0-110,000
vi. Operating temperature (°F) 850 850
vii. Inlet S02 concentration (ppm) 41,200 51,600
viii. Outlet SO2 concentration (ppm) Unknown 2,700
ix. Acid Mist (grain/SCF) .0042 .052
x. Blower pressure (inches water) 150 140
6. Liquid SC>2 plants
Not applicable.
22
-------
E. STACKS
1. Detailed description of stack configuration, including
process and/or control system units exhausted
For stack configuration see Drawing 5079. The stack
is of reinforced concrete construction and hand]es
waste gas products from the roaster-reverb operations
and excess gases from the converter operations, both
of which have first passed thru electrostatic preci-
pitators.
2. Identification by stack of:
a. Heights (ft. above terrain)
1,000 feet.
b. Elevation of discharge points (ft. above sea level)
3,182 feet.
c. Inside diameters (ft. )
Top 17'-0" I.E.
Bottom 45'-2" I.E.
d. Exit gas temperatures (°F)
270-300°F
e. Exit gas velocities (ft/sec)
38-43 fpm
23
-------
D.I.a.
BEPPIUi
i. CAKS
CONCENTRATE £3 PRECIPITATES
I
(T) 3 RE-rEIYIN'G BINS
3 BELT FEEDERS
(5) EAST TRlPPiR. CoMVuYQIt
zr
e.
wc
-------
1
rt_OJ
12 EJEur rcKPsi
7r
-------
(2)c>\S/oiU BURNERS I
2 fc
MATTE LADLES
f T
RETURN TO
17) TLI^WT
13; njC, M'L-1- j j VENT S-r
SILICA SL
[9)2I.C>
] I
,i'0 /OOO
-------
B.I.a.
t?!Llc:A^!
5—
FLOW
-N
E
LET
I
IfQl A D LL--KAC HtU iOFTLR-OVOr TE)|
S
B
(D© 5 ^
„ f=V)/?T--7fJl^.- &f?&C/WT*-r;7= &ff~'S\
& L 1
E
II
. 1
r-«i-«5/vr->7/X?
*
o M v t. £jr t ^ ^
\.^
i
• IADL L? (bn5iLR
FURNlACE
j P
8
B
!
TO
.. J.kJO.Tk-.. .
.IDL-UTt
t-'.V JU C-CJOiP.
cJ'-.Q'rr awes
(|) (7) CONVERTER. FLUE
,
© [
T
-------
HVCH VE_\.OC1T
®To P|
-------
B.I. a.
C\ men -a.•.•f*nrnfc*i>" **^*-
/ fS,CS.r.~fJ t?~fiV
~.--^
-------
B.I.a.
T
s
S^ T T L \ KM
*
s
1
AC ID PLANT
50% ACID SYSTEM
PROCESS FLONN
G» -d
Jw
F (T)
1 p*
i _ '••'
»
*-
Cl
1
MO » t_ *
OM CQU\r>V.tM
STHECT U.-jr-i
&--2&-70
rcr i2 • 25 -7
-------
B.I.a.
PY,/\K\T
TO V.P,D.SULPHV)FU
PROCESS FLOW SHEE
:nj cotvi
-.1.
-A- A-
AOD
A
t
f
! i
c c
c c
I I
ii
t
COOV.CP.
TCF-g.
C *~~~"" C
MOTE,
OSi f
LIST
AS
-------
B.I.a.
t-
:U-
7"0 oc^/-'^'.'."':.. V'T'V.T
MOTE:
CYfTT.
^.y\= A~=.
::i3Liif,''',nJT Li-ii- L;H -.-•:» a
Gi- C.VV "'•'•
-------
-------
• * jc^-.t •x t cc.
ii ij
ft/Cat..
'v"l
%.?-
f4/ Cot S^.- •.•?•« raff
<=:=•
1 V
'&
tfj o
!•..••--^t - — —..—..—. —^ *--
K-—-A-/"-7"' -i —
fl
3
x/c/r:
~?e-to er
AMERICAN SMFLTING & REFINING COMPANY
HAVOCN ARIZONA
.» --cs ~i v»
z
-------
;^^p£€K
^,rz?*~-^~*je <*^ .: •:
A-.-;- i- y^-
-------
Hayden Plant
Lary G. Cahill
Manager
Melvin A. Sharp
General Superintendent
Robert A. Moon
Accounting Manager
March 2, 1976
Mr. Thomas P. Gallagher, Director
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Enforcement
National Field Investigations Center-Denver
Building 53, Box 25227, Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
Dear Mr. Gallagher:
This letter is to confirm the information given to Mr.
Reed Iversen, EPA - Durham, SC, by phone on February 26,
1976, pertaining to Asarco Hayden's roaster and reverbera-
tory cottrell.
The information given to Mr. Iversen was - -
(1) Collection area = 137,410.56 sq. ft.
(2) Gas velocity = 18.9 ft/sec.
(3) ' Treatment time = 3.05 sec.
Very truly yours,
LGC:cch
-------
Appendix C
SIP Regulation Applicable to ASARCO
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Subpart D—Arizona
§52.124 [Revoked]
1. Section 52 124 is revoked.
2. Section 52.12G is amended by add-
ing paragraph (b) as follows:
§52.126 Control strategy and regula-
tions : Inarticulate mailer.
4 • • • »
(b) Replacement regulation for Regu-
lation 1-1-3 S of the Arizona Rules and
Regulations for Air Pollution Control.
Rule 31 (E) of Regulation III of the Man-
copa County Air Pollution Control Rules
and Regulations, and Rule 2(O) of Reg-
ulation II of the Rules and Regulations
of Pima County Air Pollution Control
District I Phoenix-Tucson Intrastate Re-
gion) .—(1) No owner or operator of any
stationary process source in the Phoenix-
Tucson Intrastate Region (§ 813G of this
chapter) shall discharge or cause the
discharge of participate matter into the
atmosphere in excess of the hourly rate
shown in the following table for the proc-
ess weight rate identified for such
source:
Process Emission Process Emission
Wright rate rale weight rate rate
(pounds dwuncls (pounds (pound's
per hour) per hour) per hour) per hour)
BO
100
BOO
1,000
5,000
10,000 . , .
20,000
0 36
0 55
1.51
2.2*
634
9 73
14.09
so. ono
80,0(10
170,000
ico. cm
200.000
400.000
1,000,000
79 GO
31.19
3328
31 »
35 11
4036
4072
(i) Interpolation of the data In the ta-
ble for process weight rates IIP to 60.000
Ibs/hr shall be accomplished by use of
the equation:
E=3 53 P*« P£ 30 lons/h
and interpolation and extrapolation of
the -data for process weight rates in ex-
cess of 60.000 Ibs/hr shall be accom-
plished by use of the equation :
P>30tons/h
-------
Appendix D
Estimates of Gas Flow Rates
-------
Flowrate Estimates*
Roasters
Given: (1) Nos. 1-5 same size
(2) Nos. 6-8 same size
(3) Nos. 9-11 same size
(4) No measured gas volumes generated for Nos. 6, 8, or 9
Assume: Generated gas volumes for Roasters 6, 8, and 9 are the
average of the measured gas volumes for the same size
roasters within the tolerances of the measured gas volumes
for Roasters 1-5.
or 7930 + 1000 or 7930 + 13%
1:7420 therefore -510
2:9120 therefore +1190
3:7020 therefore - 910
4:9120 therefore +1190
5:6970 therefore -960
Avg = 7930 scfm
7:6710 scfm therefore Nos. 6 and 8 = 6710 + 13% or 6710 + 870
10:6730
11:21700 therefore No. 9 = 14215 + 13% or 14215 + 1845
Avg = 14215 scfm
* Reference 1
-------
Therefore,
1:7420
2:9120
3:7020
4:9120
5:6970
6:5840-7580
7:6710
8:5840-7580
9:12,370-16,060
10:6730
11:21,700
12:12,100-13,760
110,940-119,770 scfm
Avg 115,000 scfm with all 12 roasters operating
Normal operation = 10 roasters = yj x 115,000 = 96,000 scfm
Reverberatory Furnace
No. 2: 42,100
62,500
Avg: 52,300 scfm
No. 4: 40,500
45.200
Avg: 42,850 scfm
Min: 82,600
Max: 107,700
Avg: 95,150 scfm
Converters
No. 1
27,500
27,600
29,000
36,400
29,900
26,300
31,400
31.500
Avg: 30,000 scfm
Normal operation = 3 converters
Min = #1, 2, 3 = 121,100 scfm
Max = #3, 4, 5 = 146,800 scfm
No. 2 51,700
43,900
41.000
Avg: 45,500
No. 3 45,600 scfm
No. 4 51,200 scfm
Assume No. 5 = 50,000 scfm
Avg = • (1,2,3,4,5) = 133,400 scfm
------- |