See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278030036

COPPER PRODUCTION WITH OUTOKUMPU

FLASH SMELTING: AN UPDATE

Conference Paper · January 2006

CITATIONS READS

10 2,698

2 authors, including:

Ilkka V Kojo
Outotec
27 PUBLICATIONS 188 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Thermodynamic properties of slags View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ilkka V Kojo on 12 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Sohn International Symposium ADVANCED PROCESSING OF METALS AND MATERIALS
VOLUME 8 - INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON SULFIDE SMELTING 2006
Edited by F. Kongoli and R.G. Reddy TMS (The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society), 2006

COPPER PRODUCTION WITH OUTOKUMPU FLASH SMELTING:

AN UPDATE

Ilkka V. Kojo1, Hannes Storch2

1
Outokumpu Technology Oy, P.O. Box 86, FI 02201 Espoo, Finland
2
Outokumpu Technology GmbH, Ludwig-Erhardt-Strasse 21, D 61440 Oberursel, Germany

Keywords: Outokumpu Flash Smelting, Copper, Emissions

Abstract

This paper gives an overview of the primary copper smelting business during the years of flash
Smelting in the light of various projects taking into account the sustainability of copper
production. Also the future challenges of copper smelting are addressed with special emphasis on
the environment.

Flash Smelting connected with either Peirce-Smith converting or Flash Converting offers the
most economical and environmentally friendly alternatives for the smelting of normal and lean
copper concentrates. For rich copper concentrates the feasibility of Outokumpu Direct Blister
Flash smelting is, understandably, beyond compare. When the total investment costs for building
a smelter and acid plant are considered, it is clear that Flash Smelting is the more feasible option
compared to bath smelting. Reduction of equipment and operating cost is further achieved by the
LUREC£-process developed by Outokumpu Technology for operating plants with SO2-contents
up to 25 % by volume.

As an example the Kennecott-Outokumpu Flash Converting Furnace (FCF) has been in operation
at Kennecott Utah Copper for 10 years and has achieved excellent results both environmentally
and production vice. The FCF treats the entire output of the Kennecott Flash Smelting Furnace
and has excess converting capacity. Furnace life, initially projected at two to three years, is now
projected to be more than 5 years. It is likely the life will be essentially the same as a well-
operated Flash Smelting furnace.

Introduction

When Dr Hans Portisch of ASM International, The Materials Information Society presented the
ASM Historical Landmark Award to Outokumpu Flash Smelting Process in 2002 he mentioned,
“ASM appreciate the economic impact of this technology on our materials world. But Flash
Smelting Continues to have an impressive impact on our global environment as well. Of all the
processes associated with metallurgy, Flash Smelting is one of the most green” [1].

However, when Outokumpu engineers more than 50 years ago to think about development of a
new autogeneous process the aim was not to develop a more environmentally safe process but
the motivation came simply from economics. Outokumpu had moved their modern electric
copper smelter from the eastern part of Finland to the western part during the last stages of the
World War II. After the war the price of electric energy in Finland increased sharply which
precluded electric smelting. Outokumpu even considered to change the smelting process to well
225
proven reverberatory melting. This would, however, had lead to a situation, where the copper
smelting would be dependent upon fossil fuel, which had to be imported. Thus the aim of the
process development during the years 1946 – 1949 was to improve the energy efficiency. This
was done by utilizing the heat value of the concentrate in the production of copper matte from
sulfide concentrate. It is interesting that at the same time in Canada metallurgists also developed
a new autogeneous smelting technology based on oxygen enrichment, but the reason for this was
not shortage of energy, but the country’s abundant electrical power made oxygen cheap and
convenient.

The new process in Finland was developed with no thoughts of its more general application or
worldwide use. Only later, in fact, with the rise of environmental and energy concern, did Flash
Smelting become a serious competitor to reverberatory and electric furnace: in addition to the
improvements in the energy efficiency, the sealed process gave an economic incentive to
eliminate the emissions from the smelting process by capturing the dust in a gas cleaning system
and the sulfur dioxide in a sulfuric acid plant [2].

The aim of this presentation is to take a short view of the development of Outokumpu Flash
Smelting technology during the years and to have a glance on the environmental influences,
which this technology has had during the years.

Autogeneous Smelting

The term of autogeneous smelting and Outokumpu Flash Smelting are so well known today in
the metallurgical world, that there is no need to present the theoretical calculations here, but the
energy balance of a modern flash smelting unit is shown in Figure 1. In the early technical papers
presented by Outokumpu just after the startup of the Harjavalta Flash Smelting Furnace during
the 50’s the energy balance of the process was always the main issue [3,4,5]. During those days
the energy balance was controlled by preheating the process air and by selecting the matte grade
and only small amount of external fuel was used in the smelting. Today, only few smelters are
using preheating of air, but the energy balance is controlled by using oxygen enrichment and
again, only a small amount of external fuel is used in the furnace, mainly in the settler part of the
furnace in order to compensate the heat losses.

97%

1% 2%
29%

7%

47% 16%
In % of energy Out % of energy
Solid feed 96.7 Matte 16.0
Nat. gas to RS 1.4 Slag 47.4
Nat. gas to settler 1.9 Gas to WHB 29.3
Air/gases 0.0 Heat losses 7.3
Total 100.0 Total 100.0

Figure 1. Heat balance of Flash Smelting.

226
 Milestones of Outokumpu Flash Smelting and environment

In the following text the first process in Harjavalta is shortly described and then the references of
other Flash Smelting references are presented by trying to keep in mind the environmental
impacts. For this purpose an updated reference list of copper Flash Smelting applications is given
in Table I. This paper concentrates on copper smelting, but in order to be precise the reference
list of other Flash Smelting applications is given in Table II.

In Table I Cu smelting means primary smelting of copper concentrate to matte. DB and Copper
Converting mean blister flash smelting processes i.e. Direct-to-Blister Flash Smelting process
and Kennecott-Outokumpu Flash Converting, respectively, in both of which blister copper is
produced in a continuous suspension smelting process.

First Flash Smelting application in Harjavalta

After intensive process calculations Outokumpu built a pilot furnace in Harjavalta in 1947. The
capacity of the furnace was 75 tons of concentrate in 24 hours. Already from the beginning of the
tests it was clear that the process could be operated in autogeneous mode. However, the main
result of the test was that also the metallurgy works.

Figure 2. First Flash Smelting line in Harjavalta. 1) Drying in rotary kiln (l= 20 m * I 1.8 m), 2)
ESP, 3) Concentrate transport, 4) Bins for concentrate and flux, 5) Concentrate burner, 6)
Reaction shaft (I 3.5 m), 7) Radiation chamber and optional mixing chamber for circulated gas,
8) Heat exchanger, 9) Primary fan, 10) Optional gas circulation fan, 11) Gas cleaning, 12) Off
gas fan [3].

227
 Table I. Outokumpu Copper Flash Smelting references

Smelter Process Year

Outokumpu Oy, Harjavalta, Finland Cu smelting 1949
Furukawa Co Ltd., Ashio, Japan Cu smelting 1956
Combinatul Chimico Metalurgic, Baia Mare, Romania Cu smelting 1966
The Dowa Mining Co Ltd., Kosaka, Japan Cu smelting 1967
Nippon Mining Co Ltd., Saganoseki, Japan Cu smelting 1970
Sumitomo Metal Mining Co Ltd., Toyo, Japan Cu smelting 1971
Hindustan Copper Ltd., Ghatsila, India Cu smelting 1971
Peko Wallsend Metals Ltd., Mount Morgan, Australia Cu smelting 1972
Hibi Kyodo Smelting Co Ltd., Tamano, Japan Cu smelting 1972
Norddeutsche Affinerie AG, Hamburg, Germany Cu smelting 1972
Nippon Mining Co Ltd., Hitachi, Japan Cu smelting 1972
Karadeniz Bakir Isletmeleri AS, Samsun, Turkey Cu smelting 1973
Peko Wallsend Metals Ltd., Tennant Creek, Australia Cu smelting 1973
Nippon Mining Co Ltd., Saganoseki, Japan Cu smelting 1972
Hindustan Copper Ltd, Khetri, India Cu smelting 1974
Rio Tinto Minera SA, Huelva, Spain Cu smelting 1975
Phelps Dodge Corporation, Playas, USA Cu smelting 1976
Gécamines, Luilu, Zaire Cu smelting / DB
Kombinat Górniczo-Hutniczy Miedz, Glogow, Poland Cu smelting / DB 1978
Korea Mining & Smelting Co Ltd., Onsan, South Korea Cu smelting 1979
Norilsk Mining & Metallurgical Co, Norilsk, Russia Cu smelting 1981
Caraíba Metais SA, Camacari, Brazil Cu smelting 1982
Philippine Associated Smelting & Refining Co., Isabel, the Philippines Cu smelting 1983
Jiangxi Copper Corporation, Guixi, China Cu smelting 1985
Mexicana de Cobre SA, El Tajo, Mexico Cu smelting 1986
MDK G Damianov, Srednogorie, Bulgaria Cu smelting 1987
Codelco, Chuquicamata, Chile Cu smelting 1988
Magma Copper Co., San Manuel, USA Cu smelting 1988
Roxby Management Services Pty Ltd, Olympic Dam, Australia Cu smelting / DB 1988
Compania Minera Disputada de las Condes SA, Chagres, Chile Cu smelting 1995
Kennecott Utah Copper Corp., Salt Lake City, USA Cu smelting 1995
Kennecott Utah Copper Corp., Salt Lake City, USA Cu converting 1995
Jinlong Copper Co Ltd., Tongling, China Cu smelting 1997
Indo-Gulf Fertilisers & Chemical Ltd, Gujarat, India Cu smelting 1998
WMC Resources Ltd, Olympic Dam, Australia Cu smelting / DB 1999
Boliden Mineral AB, Rönnskär, Sweden Cu smelting 2000
Southern Peru Copper Corporation, Ilo, Peru Cu smelting
Southern Peru Copper Corporation, Ilo, Peru Cu converting
National Iranian Copper Industries Co., Khatoon Abad, Iran Cu smelting 2004
Yanggu Xiangguang Copper, Shandong, China Cu smelting 2006
Yanggu Xiangguang Copper, Shandong, China Cu converting 2006
KGHM, Glogow, Poland Cu smelting / DB 2008
Konkola Copper Mines, Zambia Cu smelting / DB 2008
Jiangxi Copper Corporation, Guixi, China Cu smelting 2007

Table II. Other Outokumpu Flash Smelting references

Smelter Process Year

Outokumpu Oy, Harjavalta, Finland Ni smelting/ DON 1959
Outokumpu Oy, Kokkola, Finland Pyrite smelting 1962
Western Mining Corporation, Kalgoorlie, Australia Ni smelting 1972
BCL Limited, Selebi-Phikwe, Botswana Ni smelting 1973
Norilsk Mining & Metallurgical Co, Norilsk, Russia Ni smelting 1981
Jinchuan Non-ferrous Metals Co, Jinchang, China Ni smelting 1992
Mineraçăo Serra da Fortaleza Ltda, Fortaleza, Brazil Ni DON smelting 1998

228
Based on the encouraging results of the pilot testing Outokumpu built in Harjavalta the first full-
scale FSF, which was taken into operation on 20th of April, 1949. The capacity of the process
was aiming to 24 000 tpa Cu, which was the capacity of the previous electric smelting line, too.
The flow sheet of this line is shown in Figure 2. The concentrate was dried in a rotary kiln from
which the warm (150 °C), bone-dry concentrate was fed into bins located above the furnace.
From the bin the concentrate was fed together with silica flux from a separate bin into one
concentrate burner located in the middle of the roof of the reaction shaft, where the hot air was
mixing the feed, which then reacts in the suspension formed in the reaction shaft. The molten
particles were separated in the settler (l= 17m), in which the matte and slag where then
separating by gravity difference. The matte grade at that time varied depending on the heat
balance but it was not unusual to produce 70 % Cu matte, which high matte grade shortened the
blowing time in converters, but also reduced the amount of sulfur going into the converters [3,4].

The first campaign of the Flash Smelting furnace lasted less than two months, because of heavy
wear of refractory inside the furnace. Because of this phenomenon Harjavalta operated with two
furnaces during the first years of Flash Smelting. But this also intensified development work of
the furnace cooling and in 1959 Outokumpu was able to change the other Flash Smelting furnace
to Nickel smelting as the same capacity of copper could be maintained with only one furnace.
Today the campaign life of a Flash Smelting furnace is generally in the order of 10 years and
even more.

Essential for the autogeneous operation was that the energy contained in high SO2 containing
continuous gas stream could be recovered. The first air preheater in Harjavalta was a metal heat
exchanger, which worked by radiation principle. This preheater was the biggest problem for the
operations and a oil fired recuperator was built to support the air preheating. Later this first
recuperator was demolished and replaced with a new type of heat exchanger. Already at that time
it was noticed, that it was very important, that no molten particles were entering the heat
exchanger and in order to reach this the gas had to be cooled down to 900 °C before entering the
heat exchanger [3,4]. The second-generation heat exchanger worked much better, but as the
history has shown, heat recovery form the process gas remained as one of the biggest issues,
which has then later been solved by utilizing waste heat boilers equipped with dust sulfatation
systems.

The cooled and cleaned gas contained about 12-15 % of SO2 and was treated in a sulfuric acid
plant producing about 250 tons of sulfuric acid per day [3]. This made a remarkable difference
on the copper production in Harjavalta. After the war, when the electric furnace was moved to
Harjavalta, the main concern was to produce copper and this was more urgent than the starting of
sulfuric acid plant. During the first years operated with electric furnace and converters without
acid plant gave Harjavalta a sinister reputation for years. The treeless terrain around the plant.
stayed as reminder of these days for a long time [2].

Furukawa Ashio

The Ashio mine discovered already in 1610 produced copper ore and later concentrate to the
Japanese market. Furukawa purchased Ashio mine in 1875 and a smelter was built close to the
mine in 1884. At the beginning of the 1950’s the smelter was operating shaft furnaces to produce
copper and the long lasting operation of mine and smelter had an catastrophic influence on the
nature close to the mine-smelter complex, not only because of sulfur emissions but also because
the Ashio ore contained arsenic, tin, lead and bismuth, which were emitted to the atmosphere
along with sulfur dioxide. This was called Japan’s first industrial environmental catastrophe [2].

229
Furukawa, the first user of Outokumpu Flash Smelting Technology after Outokumpu, found the
technology, when their engineers read the first issue of Radex Rundschau, which lead them to
contact Outokumpu at the beginning of the 1950’s. After visiting the Harjavalta smelter
Furukawa understood, that this would be the way they could reduce their emissions without
loosing their competitive edge i.e. the sulfur recovery from high strength SO2 containing
continuous gas stream was far more easy and thus more feasible [2].

The Furukawa Flash Smelting Furnace was started on 17th March 1956 and the acid plant was
started up one month later. The furnace design was similar to the Harjavalta furnace at that time.
The copper concentrate capacity was only 8 tph corresponding to about 12 320 tpa blister copper.
The original dimensions of the reaction shaft were h=8.7 m * I = 2.8 m. During the first years
several changes were made to the dimensions of the shaft, first the height was increased to 10.6
m and the diameter to 3.14 m in 1961-62 rebuild. Later Furukawa made several other changes to
the furnace construction as well as to the processing. The original acid plant capacity was 61 870
tpa. Heavy metal containing dust was treated in a separate department producing arsenic trioxide,
tin and lead alloy, and bismuth [5]. Oxygen plant was built in 1978.

Mr. Osamu Fujii, one of the pioneers of the Flash Smelting in Japan, participated in the 9th
International Flash Smelting Conference in 1999, where 50 years of Flash Smelting was also
celebrated. He had also participated in the start-up of the Ashio Flash Smelting furnace. In his
speech he told several details about the startup time, which can be summarized by his sentence:
“The operation at Ashio in the early days was nothing but troubles”. However, by trial and error
the problems were solved and the new technology helped Furukawa to end a decades-long
environmental nightmare and to continue copper production on the site [2,6]. The original Ashio
Mine was closed in 1973, but the smelter continued with imported concentrates, but the plant
also treated a large amount of gold and silver containing residues as circuit boards, waste sludge,
waste oil and even waste wood and waste tires. During the last years of operation the plant was
more a waste material treatment station than a primary smelter, but still the emissions were on
permitted levels. Ashio Smelter was finally closed down in 1988 [6].

Other Japanese Smelters

The incubation time for other companies to adopt the new technology was quite long. Already in
1952 Mitsubishi was visiting Harjavalta with Furukawa. As it is well known they decided to
continue with reverberatory furnace operation. Also many other companies showed interest to
the new process. In 1963 Dowa Mining’s high lead and zinc containing concentrate was tested in
Ashio. They installed a Flash Smelting process to their Kosaka Smelter, which was started up in
1967, of course with an acid plant. Because of the complexity of the concentrate they had to
develop unique dust treatment and wastewater treatment facilities. Today Kosaka is actually the
only Flash Smelter in Japan to treat complex concentrates [6].

The Baia Mare Smelter in Romania was started just before the Kosaka Smelter in 1966. There
the scope was copper Flash Smelter including converting, fire refining and acid plant to replace
the earlier shaft furnace. The design capacity was 185 000 tpa concentrate corresponding to
about 20 000 tpa blister and 180 000 tpa acid. Also there the concentrates were of complex type
containing arsenic, lead and zinc. The sulfur recovery of the plant was a special concern, because
at least at the beginning the most important product was sulfuric acid to be used in fertilizer
plant. In some test runs in 1969 the Outokumpu engineers reported the sulfur recovery of the
smelter being about 89 %, which was a relatively high number at that time.

After the startup of the Kosaka smelter the boom of Flash Smelting startups in Japan was to take
place: Saganoseki #1 (Nippon Mining Co Ltd. ’70), Toyo (Sumitomo Metal Mining Co Ltd.
230
’71), Tamano (Hibi Kyodo Smelting Co Ltd.’72), Hitachi (Nippon Mining Co Ltd ’72) and
Saganoseki #2 (Nippon Mining Co Ltd. ’73). The background for the boom may be compared
with the situation currently in China, where in extreme cases, a number of facilities have been or
are in danger to be closed down due to their inability to conform to the existing regulations [6]:
the growing economy needed more and more copper and the old installations were not able to
produce the amount needed competitively and without causing enormous amount of sulfur
dioxide emission, which was restricted already at that time by the Japanese authorities. Also the
domestic concentrate capacity was starting to be exhausted thus leading to custom smelting,
which by the earning logic differs from a situation where the operator of the smelter gets the
main part of the feed from its own mines. Thus the solution for the Japanese smelters was to
select a much more environmentally friendly, economically competitive technology, which later
also offered the possibility to utilize the economy of scale. This boom actually laid basis for the
TC/RC system still used in the concentrate trade.

All these smelters have been operated with very high sulfur dioxide recovery and minimum
emissions. Today, the existing smelters still are operating according to the sustainability
principle and especially the Toyo Smelter is one of the cleanest smelters in the world.

Other Flash Smelters in 70’s and 80’s

Other copper producers in the world quickly followed the Flash Smelting boom started by the
Japanese companies: there were ten (Gécamines Luilu Direct-to-Blister Copper Flash Smelting
Furnace in Zaire was never started up) other Flash Smelting startups in the ‘70s and nine during
the ‘80s. With the exceptions of Tennant Creek and Mount Morgan in Australia, in all of these
smelters at least the Flash Smelting line was connected to the acid plant, without which, of
course the effective sulfur recovery is impossible.

Of these smelters the Phelps Dodge Corporations Playas (Hidalgo), USA, smelter was originally
designed to capture the sulfur in elemental form by utilizing the sulfur reduction technology
designed and utilized by Outokumpu in their pyrite smelter in Kokkola, Finland. However,
during the implementation time the oil price increased sharply and the economy of elemental
sulfur recovery decreased and, thus, the plant was finally equipped with a sulfuric acid plant.

During that period two smelters started to produce copper by Direct-to-Blister Flash Smelting i.e.
KGHM Glogow 2 Smelter in Poland (’78) and WMC’s Olympic Dam #1 smelter in Australia
(’88). Later in the 1999 expansion Olympic Dam Furnace #1 was replaced by an other Direct-to-
Blister Flash Smelting furnace. In these smelters practically all the sulfur is oxidized in one
smelting step and directed to sulfuric acid plant. The elimination of non-continuous converting
step in blister production thus allows easier and much more effective control for the emissions.
The Blister Flash Smelting technology (Direct-to-Blister Flash Smelting and Kennecott-
Outokumpu Flash Converting Technology) is described in an other paper presentation in this
conference in more details [8].

One more important technological improvement for Flash Smelting during the ‘70s was the
utilization of oxygen enrichment of process air (see Figure 3). This improvement allowed the
smelters to produce off gases with very high sulfur dioxide contents, which allowed to mix the
converter gases more easily, still keeping a high enough sulfur dioxide content in the acid plant,
so that the sulfuric acid production was effective and efficient. It also makes it possible to
produce both liquid SO2 and sulfuric acid from the smelter gases, as is carried out for example in
Harjavalta. Maybe, however, for the smelter operator, the most important benefit was the ability
to increase the smelter throughput (limited very often by the gas line capacity) by increasing the
oxygen enrichment. For example both of the Saganoseki Flash Smelting Furnaces were designed
231
originally to about 120 000 t Cu annual production. Later one of these furnaces was demolished
and production continued just in one furnace, which today is producing more than 400 000 t Cu
annually. An-other example worth mentioning is that the cumulative original primary copper
design production capacity of the smelters in Table I is about 5.2 Mt Cu/a, but although even
some of the large smelters have been closed down, it is estimated that in this year the production
of the remaining smelters will be about 6 million tons of Cu and in 2010 the estimated primary
copper production by Flash Smelting will be more than 7 million tons of Cu.

Figure 3. Technology development steps of Outokumpu Flash Smelting Technology.

New Flash Smelting applications during the 90’s

During the ‘90s seven new Flash Furnaces were started up. In each of these projects the
environmental issues were one of the main concerns.

Disputada’s Chagres smelter is located in the fertile Aconcagua valley about 100 km north of
Santiago, where copper concentrates have been smelted since the beginning of the century.
Disputada has responded to the environmental challenges making Chagres the cleanest copper
smelter operation in Chile. This driving force combined with the company’s decision to become
a highly competitive copper producer opened the way to develop an expansion project in the late
‘80s and the old reverberatory furnace was replaced with Flash Smelting in 1994.

In Kennecott Utah Copper the old smelter could not conform to sulfur fixation requirements
imposed by the State of Utah Department of Air Quality to meet increasingly stringent ambient
air standards. After evaluation of a number of smelting options the final selection was the
Outokumpu Flash Smelting process, coupled with the new Kennecott-Outokumpu Flash
Converting technology. The facilities were designed and installed to treat 1.1 million tons per
year of copper concentrate and the new smelter was commissioned in 1995. The Kennecott-
Outokumpu Flash Converting Furnace (FCF) has been in operation for more than 10 years and
has achieved excellent results. The FCF treats the entire output of the Flash Smelting Furnace
232
and has excess converting capacity. Furnace campaign life, initially projected at two to three
years, is now projected to be more than 5 years. It is likely the campaign life will be essentially
the same as a well-operated Flash Smelting furnace. The sulfur recovery in the smelter is
continuously higher than 99.9+ % [8].

Southern Peru Copper had also to comply with the new emission regulations (PAMA) in Peru.
The initial process selection was based on similar criteria as in Kennecott case i.e. the smelter
has to be able to fulfill the environmental criteria also in the future. However, the smelter rebuild
project based on Flash Smelting – Flash Converting technology was put in ice at the beginning of
2000’s.

New Flash Smelting applications beyond 2000

In all new Flash Smelting projects in 2000’s the ability to cope with environmental regulations
play a significant role. One clear trend recently has been the increase of the share of Blister Flash
Smelting technologies in primary copper smelting. As mentioned earlier, Flash Converting or the
elimination of the converting step totally eases the capture of sulfur dioxide and other emissions
of the smelter. Outokumpu’s estimate is that before 2015 the amount of copper produced by
Blister Flash Smelting technologies is exceeding 2.5 million tons of copper annually.

Emission control

Sulfur dioxide emissions have been the main concern of the primary smelters. In the following
text some of the recent improvements in sulfur capture has been described followed by short
discussions about the other emission types and features of Flash Smelting Technology, which
enable to control these emissions.

Sulfur dioxide

Secondary fugitive emissions of sulfur dioxide and metal containing gases from a smelter are
coming mainly from several numbers of sources the number of them being lower in case the
process step number is lower. In today’s smelter the fugitive emission control of batch
converting step is possible by installing double or even triple hoods to cover the converter, but
this installation is expensive and causes huge amounts of ingress air to be contaminated with
fugitives and thus they have to be treated separately. In Outokumpu-Kennecott Flash Converting
and in Direct-to-Blister Flash Smelting the converting takes place in a closed furnace from which
it is possible to collect all the gases effectively to the acid plant in a continuous gas stream. Other
fugitive emissions are coming mainly from launders through which the melts are transported.
These launders must be covered and the gases are led to the acid plant or to a separate gas-
cleaning step before releasing into atmosphere.

Through the acquisition of Lurgi Metallurgie in 2001 also Acid Plant Technology is now in the
technology palette of Outokumpu. One of the recent developments of the Outokumpu Acid Plant
Technology is the LUREC£-process, which is an innovative way to process gases with high SO2-
contents and suits better to modern continuous Flash Smelting process, with off-gases with more
than 30 % SO2 concentration by volume and only a little or practically no oxygen. Traditionally
the smelter off-gases were diluted with air prior to being processed in a sulfuric acid plant in
order to ensure the required conversion efficiency, which is mainly dominated by the O2/SO2
ratio, and in order to protect the catalyst against overheating caused by excessively high SO2-
contents.

233
A conventional double absorption plant with a 4-bed converter system operates at an O2/SO2
ratio of approximately 1, preferably 1.1 to obtain the required SO2 conversion efficiency. More
recent plants with a 5-bed converter system can tolerate a lower O2/SO2 ratio to achieve the same
conversion efficiency. Conventional acid plant design is limited to typically 12-14 % by volume
of SO2 in the feed gas to the catalytic converter. This is because in general the thermal stability
of conventional vanadium pentoxide catalysts is specified to be around 630°C and that the
temperature at the outlet of the first catalytic layer shifts beyond 640°C at SO2-contents of more
than 14 % by vol. (at an O2/SO2 ratio of 0.9). The gas must thus be diluted, but as a result of
increased flow rates the acid plant equipment is “enlarged” and hence causes an equivalent
increase of the related capital and operating cost.

In smelters using Flash Smelting an off gas of 18 % by vol. or more would be available with the
right parameters (e.g. O2/SO2-ratio) to achieve the required overall conversion. However, the
resulting gas temperature of more than 670°C does not tolerate such design with respect to the
application of conventional catalyst.

From this the challenge of processing high-grade SO2 gases and reduction of equipment and
operating cost by this has long been recognized by the sulfuric acid industry. Outokumpu
Technology developed the LUREC£-process for operating plants with SO2-contents up to 25 %
by volume and a minimum O2/SO2 ratio of 0.8. First reference of this technology will be started
up within 1-2 years from now.

The process is characterized by the recirculation of some SO3 containing gas to the inlet of the
first catalytic bed, which suppresses the oxidation reaction of the incoming SO2 and hence limits
the gas temperature to an acceptable level. A simplified flow sheet of this process is given in
Figure 4. The effect of the recirculation of SO3 is demonstrated in Figure 5.

The operating line for the layer one is simply shifted upwards as a function of the degree of the
recirculation and limit itself by the equilibrium line. A higher recirculation pushes the operating
line up-wards and a lower recirculation downwards respectively. This simple mechanism allows
coping with fluctuations in the SO2 content of feed gas. The exit temperature can be adjusted by
simply changing the amount of the recirculated gas. The installation of the LUREC£--process is
not only possible for new plants; it can also be installed as an add-on unit to existing smelter
operations. The process can be added, depending on the SO2-content, as a 1- or 2-bed pre-
converter unit. Subject to the gas conditions, it may fit with or without pre-absorber unit.

Figure 4. Simplified flow sheet of LUREC£-process

234
 Figure 5. Process temperature versus conversion for the LUREC£-process

Green house gases

As was mentioned already at the beginning, the development of Flash Smelting Technology
during the early days was not aimed to decrease the green house gas emissions from smelting,
but the main target was to reduce the use of external energy. Greenhouse gas emissions in copper
smelting, such as CO2, CO, N2O, NOx, CH4 and non-methane volatile organic compounds
(NMVOC) are mainly related to the fossil fuel utilization in the smelting process. Direct carbon
dioxide emissions from a copper smelter are generated by utilization of external energy i.e. fuels
like natural gas, oil, coal, coke etc. It has been shown that even at relatively low capacities the
Flash Smelting process is able to produce copper efficiently with low energy consumption and
with low equivalent carbon dioxide emissions. As a summary, in the Flash Smelting – Flash
Converting process a very small amount of fossil fuel is used and thus the direct greenhouse gas
emissions of the smelter are small compared for example with conventional processes, where
fossil fuels are used for smelting. In addition, in the greenhouse gas balance of the total smelter
there is the option to recover electrical energy from the steam generated in the WHBs, which is
generated essentially without greenhouse gas emissions and which can be used to replace the
electrical energy generated in power plants. The reason for this, is that the process is very energy
efficient, since the oxidation and burning of pre-dried concentrate is well controlled and high
grade matte or even blister copper is produced by using high oxygen enriched air [10].

NOx

Nitrogen oxide emissions from smelting are not a major environmental issue at modern primary
copper Flash Smelters, where state-of-the-art concentrate and fuel burners are used. The reason
for this is that usually concentrate and matte particles react slower with the oxygen in process air
than fuel and they are able to reduce the NOx in the gas possibly formed in high temperature or
form fuel nitrogen before the suspension leaves the reaction shaft. In addition to that it has been
shown that high SO2 concentration in gas reduces NOx formation by reaction (1)

235
 2 SO2 + 2 NO -> 2 SO3 + N2 (1)

In addition to that SO2 is competing with N-components in gas for radicals. Thus high SO2 in the
gas decreases the influence of radicals on the NOx formation [11].

Dust, slag, arsenic containing residues

In Flash Smelting the process dust is recovered effectively from the waste heat boiler and
electrostatic precipitator and is normally circulated back to the furnace. Thus there is neither dust
emitted nor accumulated to the plant from the process. Other dust emissions related to material
handling as drying and conveying can be solved today by proper equipment design and by
cleaning all the gasses released from these operations for example by fabric filters.

Slag produced in the Flash Smelting furnace is normally fayalite type slag. Especially when
treated for further copper recovery in an electric furnace, the slag is obtained in a form in which
the possible soluble heavy metals and other impurities are in vitrified form. Thus the slag is in
stable form and is not considered to cause any environmental emissions even in case these
byproducts are used in road construction or as other land filling applications, like riverbanks
building [12].

Arsenic and other heavy metal containing residues of the smelter are collected from the gas wet
cleaning section of the process. The most stable form to stabilize arsenic in these residues and
also form effluent treatment has until recently been to precipitate arsenic as ferric arsenate.
However, due to the amorphous form of this residue there are doubts that the stability of this
residue in long term would not be high enough. Thus many studies have been carried out in order
to find a way to stabilize arsenic economically as scorodite, which is one of the crystallize forms
of ferric arsenate. Also Outokumpu has studied these possibilities and after intensive tests the
main process parameters have been found and a patent application on this has been filed recently.

Dioxins, furans

Dioxins and furans (polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans, PCDD/PCDF) and

their precursors (like hexachlorobenzene, HCB and polychlorinated biphenyls, PCB) formed in
hazardous, municipal and industrial waste incineration plants have been in focus of several
studies for about 15 years now and the emissions of these compounds have been generally
regulated to a level of 0.1 ng (nano grams = 10-9 g)/Nm3 of gas. In a recent United Nations
Environment Programme the aim is to generate a document called "Guidelines on best available
techniques and provisional guidance on best environmental practices relevant to Article 5 and
Annex C of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants", in which the main
concern is to define BAT technologies and BEP used in reduction or avoidance of dioxins,
furans, HCB and PCB in different processes. The work is under way and the document will also
contain a chapter about the primary base metals smelting.

From the studies of waste incineration two main sources for these species have been identified
i.e. uncompleted incineration of hydrocarbons, which are then able to react with chlorines and
form the species and secondly de Novo synthesis, which is a kind of catalytic formation of
dioxins and furans from their precursors at lower temperatures. In the waste incineration the
solution has been found to be to post incinerate the dioxin precursors by air having long
residence time in high temperature before the gas is cooled down.

236
Many basic features of Flash Smelting support the operation with low dioxin and furan
formation. In Flash Smelting the flame temperature is high so that any dioxins in feed material
will be destroyed in the flame, the gas is leaving the furnace normally at around 1300 – 1350 °C.
Principally the gas entering into the waste heat boiler is slightly reduced as the furnace operates
at low oxygen partial pressure and might contain some hydrocarbons formed possibly in
incomplete combustion of some external fuel or carbon in the raw material itself. However, in
today’s practice, in order to control the dust quality, air or oxygen is injected into the gas stream
when it enters into the waste heat boiler or even before that. Thus also possible dioxin precursors
are effectively destroyed before the gas temperature drops to the temperature range, where de
Novo synthesis would take place. Secondly, the gases are oxidized strongly in the catalytic
oxidation step of the acid plant. Thus the likelihood for dioxins and furans emissions from the
smelter is low.

Conclusions

The metallurgical industry needs to meet stringent environmental regulations and these
regulations are more and more demanding. On the other hand many of the major copper
producers have committed to sustainable production. Outokumpu Flash Smelting originally
developed to reduce energy consumption in smelting has had as natural born characteristic
features, which allow the copper producers to capture the basic emissions from the smelter and
allow the producers to release resources to cope with secondary emission sources, which already
today but especially in the future are the major obstacles for sustainable development.

Acknowledgements

The authors like to thank Mr. Risto Saarinen and Mr. Yrjö Anjala for discussions, which helped
in orientating to the history part of this paper.

References

1. Hans Portish, “ASM Historical Landmark Award to Outokumpu Flash Smelting

Process”,Proceedings of the Tenth International Flash Smleitng Congress, Finland, Sweden,
Russia, ed. E. Tuomikoski (Outokumpu Technology, Espoo, Finland, 2002).

2. Tuomo Särkikoski, A Flash of Knowledge – How an Outokumpu Innovation became a

Culture. (Espoo, Finland, Outokumpu Oyj, 1999).

3. E. Bryk, “Autogenes Schmelzen sulfidischer Kupfererze”, Radex Rundshau, Heft 1,

1952, 7-19.

4. E.Bryk, “Autogenes Schmelzen vosn sulfidischen Kupfererzen und herstellung von Eisen
aus Eisensilikatschlacken von Kupferschmelzöfen”, Erzmetal, Band IV, 1951, 447-450.

5. E. Bryk, J. Ryselin, J. Honkasalo, R. Malmström, ”Flash Smelting Copper Concentrates”,

Journal of Metals, June 1958, 395-400.

6. Osamu Fujii, “The History of First Application and Followed Progress on Flash Smelting
in Japan”, Proceedings of the Ninth International Flash Smelting Congress, Australia, ed. E.
Nieminen (Outokumpu Technology, Espoo, Finland, 1999).

237
 7. Bo Göransson. “Technological Chage and the Environmental Imperative: the Case of
Copper Smelting in China”, Technological Chage and the Environmental Imperative, Challenge
to the Copper Industry, ed. C. Brudenius (Edwar Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK,
2003).

8. M. Lahtinen, E. Peuraniemi, ” Outokumpu Blister Smelting Processes”, Sohn

International Symposium on Advanced Processing of
Metals and Materials. Ed. F. Kongoli (TMS, The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society), 2006.

9. C.Newmann, D.Collins, A.Weddick, “Recent Operations and Environmental Control in

the Kennecott Smelter”, Proceedings of Copper 99 – Cobre 99, vol V. Ed. D.B.George,
W.J.Chen, P.J. Mackey, A.J.Weddick (The Mineras, Metals and Materials Society, USA, 1999)

10. P. Hanniala, A.Jokilaakso, I.V. Kojo, “Non-Polluting Metal Production Network”,

Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, Xerox Tower Suite 1210 3400 de
Maisonneuve Blvd. W, Montreal, PQ, Quebec H3Z 3B8, Canada, 2001, 397-408.

11. Mikko Hupa, private communication with author, Åbo Akademi, Turku, Finland, 26
November, 1992.

12. Reza Khorasani, “Die Beurteilung der Verwitterungsbeständigkeiten und

Umweltverträglichkeit von metallurgischen Schlacken”, Schlacken in der Metallurgie, ed. M.
Pfennig and F. Liese, (GDMB, Claustahl-Zellerfeld, Germany, 1999), 237-248.

238
View publication stats