(MERAF) for the Base Metals Smelting Sector - CCME

Table 68: Technical Options for Emission Reductions from Hudson Bay Mining & Smelting
Technical Option Description Applicability Comment Potential %
Reduction
Capital Cost
(million $)
Improve the dry gas handling
system
Further increase ESP capacity and add,
where appropriate, local baghouse
systems.
The amount of reduction depends
on the characteristics of the
particles now escaping the ESP
system.
10 – 50% of
CEPA-toxics
and PM
(SO 2 is not
affected.)
30 - 60
Modernize the Copper Smelter
and install state-of-the-art gas
cleaning equipment.
Replace roasting and reverberatory
smelting with flash smelting and Peirce-
Smith converting with flash converting.
Well established technology that
has been retrofitted at many
locations (or similar technology).
50 – 90%,
depending on
phasing.
500 – 1,000,
depending on
phasing.
Install an acid plant.
Could be done in phases: i.e. smelting
only; later followed by converting. Acid
plant could also be phased.
Economic scale is 250,000 to
350,000 tpa of copper product.
Would need sufficient supply of
economical concentrate.
Cost of shipping acid is costly and
greatly affects project economics
Also depends
on the
characteristics
of PM and
CEPA toxics.
Could be implemented by 2004,
depending on decision date.
Implement hydrometallurgical
processing of copper
concentrate.*
Several pressure leaching technologies
for copper concentrates are under
development and could be attractive.
Needs to be tested at pilot plant
scale.
Could be implemented by 2008.
> 90% of 500 - 800
CEPA-toxics,
PM and SO 2
Could only be justified economically
if it were feasible to increase
throughput considerably, say
150,000 tpa copper. Would need
sufficient supply of economical
concentrate.
* This technology is currently under development and requires additional effort and pilot-plant scale testing.
172