{0211.003 / 111 / 00087671.DOCX}

Quemetco, Inc., City of Industry, California --- The Evolution of Polishing Wet Electrostatic 

Precipitator (WESP) Technology for Secondary Lead Process Emissions

Background: The emissions from secondary lead smelting industry in general have declined significantly 

over the last 30 years. This decline is in part due to NESHAPS (1997) and Pb NAAQS (1978 & 2008), but 

also is due to new methods and technologies being researched , developed and implemented.

Define the problem: Air emissions result from two basic sources: (1) process and (2) fugitives. Thus, 

defining these two sources and designing methods and technologies to specifically mitigate them is 

necessary. It is important to know that Quemetco does not categorize furnace feed/tap hoods or drying 

kiln transition hooding as fugitive. These sources are process in nature. 

Fugitives are emissions that have escaped process hooding or are generated from material handling. In 

the early 1990’s Quemetco identified what is believed to be the best method of controlling fugitives, i.e., 

total enclosure under negative pressure. Quemetco’s choice for the air movement mechanism 

necessary to accomplish the task was use of a skid mounted one cell pulse baghouse followed by HEPA 

filters in an arrangement that allows quick easy visual inspection of both sides of the HEPA filters. These

units were originally marketed for use on electronics manufacturing clean rooms. To date Quemetco

has 10 of the units pulling air out of its totally enclosed operations. As need was identified units have 

been added. Currently one more unit is scheduled. Quemetco having in place the method / technology 

of reducing fugitive emissions by orders of magnitude (currently in range of 16 pounds of lead emitted 

per year), turned its attention to process emissions which were in the range of 615 pounds of lead per 

year.

Solving the problem: Having effectively controlled fugitive emissions, around 2003 it was apparent that 

if further facility-wide reduction in lead emissions was to occur, then process emissions must be 

lowered. The problem was Quemetco already had or was near to having the lowest process emissions 

in the industry using the best known off the shelf control techniques, e.g., closed dust drop out systems, 

baghouses (with high efficiency bags), followed by high efficiency sulfur dioxide scrubbers. Collected 

dust was closed conveyed directly back the furnace feed. Having maximized the use of known process 

emission control technologies, Quemetco was unaware of any technology traditionally utilized in the 

secondary lead smelting industry that might significantly lower its process emissions (non-fugitive stack 

emissions). Quemetco identified several emission control technology vendors with technical expertise 

and challenged them to make a proposal to take Quemetco’s process emission stacks (refinery, kiln, 

electric furnace and reverb furnace) and lower the emissions by an order of magnitude. At the time the 

technique for the reduction had not been selected, i.e., WESP was suspected to be the best choice, but 

all methods/techniques were on the table. (See Appendix _A_, the 2003 cover letter requesting 

proposals)

The surrogate selected by Quemetco for this reduction was the Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) Arsenic, 

not Lead. After reviewing the received proposals, one was selected. The vendor and Quemetco came 

to agreement upon guaranteed reductions for Arsenic, Lead and Nickel and begin defining how those 

reductions were to be accomplished and what the actual reductions would be. The WESP system went 
{0211.003 / 111 / 00087671.DOCX}

on line in June 2008 (five years after identifying the goal). Unfortunately, as is the case many times 

when developing items in unknown territory, Quemetco experienced a setback. Specifically, a fire of 

unknown origin occurred in July, 2008 which significantly damaged the WESP. Since other WESPs used 

in other industries are made of fiberglass that construction medium was utilized. Of course fiberglass 

will burn, it caught on fire, and the plant was down for about 3 months while it was reconstructed with 

steel to remove the fire hazard. In October 2008 the WESP was back on line and Quemetco was 

preparing to stack test for the first time. The initial test emissions data is attached as Appendix _____. 

Test emissions data for 2009 and 2010 are found in Appendices _____ and _____. The test data show 

inlet and outlet of the WESP. Immediately below is a summary of pertinent data.

WESP Metals Reduction Efficiency - November, 2008 Test Results

Inlet 

Concentration Inlet Load

Outlet 

Concentration

Outlet 

Emission 

Rate

Reduction 

Efficiency

Reduction 

Efficiency

(ug/dscm) (lbs.hour) (ug/dscm) (lbs/hour)

(%, Concentration 

Basis)

(%, lbs/hour 

Basis)

Arsenic 197 6.92E-02 2.79 1.06E-03 98.6 98.5

Lead 40.7 1.43E-02 2.85 1.09E-03 93 92.4

Nickel 1.73 6.08E-04 0.73 2.78E-04 57.8 54.3

Cadmium 0.705 2.48E-04 0.33 1.24E-04 53.2 50

WESP Metals Reduction Efficiency - November, 2009 Test Results

Inlet 

Concentration

Inlet 

Load

Outlet 

Concentration

Outlet 

Emission 

Rate

Reduction 

Efficiency

Reduction 

Efficiency

(ug/dscm) (lbs.hour) (ug/dscm) (lbs/hour)

(%, 

Concentration 

Basis)

(%, 

lbs/hour 

Basis)

Arsenic 52.67 1.60E-02 0.66 2.14E-04 98.7 98.7

Lead 75.81 2.32E-02 0.5 1.64E-04 99.3 99.3

Nickel 0.35 1.08E-04 0.08 2.52E-05 77.1 76.7

Cadmium 1.28 3.90E-04 0.21 7.00E-05 83.6 82.1
{0211.003 / 111 / 00087671.DOCX}

WESP Metals Reduction Efficiency - November, 2010 Test Results

Inlet 

Concentration

Inlet 

Load

Outlet 

Concentration

Outlet 

Emission 

Rate

Reduction 

Efficiency

Reduction 

Efficiency

(ug/dscm) (lbs.hour) (ug/dscm) (lbs/hour)

(%, 

Concentration 

Basis)

(%, 

lbs/hour 

Basis)

Arsenic 101 3.06E-02 1.16 3.70E-04 98.9 98.8

Lead 416 1.26E-01 1.45 4.60E-04 99.7 99.6

Nickel 15.3 4.64E-03 0.26 8.34E-05 98.3 98.2

Cadmium 2.18 6.64E-04 0.44 1.38E-04 79.8 79.2

There is a noticeable difference between the outlet emission rates observed during the 2008 test as 

compared to the results observed during the 2009 and 2010 tests. This difference is based upon lessons 

learned during the 2008 test on how to best perform the test methods given the superior performance 

of the WESP. The detection limits established for the 2008 test program were designed based on 

engineering estimates of outlet emission rates for several metals, notably Arsenic and Lead. The 2008 

metals tests, which were performed in triplicate, each lasted approximately six hours. The 2008 test 

results demonstrated that the initial metals detection limits were not low enough to establish the true 

control effectiveness of the WESP. In response to this enhanced knowledge, the duration of the 2009 

and 2010 metals tests was increased from six hours to ten hours and lower detection limits were 

established. As a result, the 2009 and 2010 test results represent the best available assessment of the 

performance of the WESP.

The attached emissions data has redacted from it those items considered confidential by Quemetco and 

the SCAQMD. However, as is well known, SCAQMD does not issue or allow an operating permit for 

through puts greater than that used while stack testing to show compliance. Furthermore, it is 

Quemetco’s policy to stack test at or above current operating permit limits while maintaining 

compliance with all permit conditions. Found at Section H page 29 of the permit:
{0211.003 / 111 / 00087671.DOCX}

However, based on the testing through 2010, Quemetco is gathering the data to file for an increase in 

the permit limit. This current limit was established pre-WESP and no longer has a valid basis. At 600 

tons/day for 365 days per year the annual quantity is 219,000 tons with process lead emissions in the 

range of 9 pounds/year and fugitives in the range of 16 pounds /year, the facility annual lead emissions 

are 0.0000057% of material processed annually.

Misrepresentation by others: Quemetco’s WESP technology was not developed to control fugitive 

emissions and has not ever been advocated as a control for fugitives. In an attempt to overstate the 

cost of the WESP technology, others have presented theoretical WESP cost information based on 

control of fugitive sources, large volumes of air that do not exhibit process emission characteristics, and 

EPA efficiencies and associated costs which are biased towards control of boiler “fly ash” and the use of 

ESP/WESP’s for primary control (see COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF AIR QUALITY CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES USED FOR 

LEAD-ACID BATTERY RECYCLING ;Final Report ;TCEQ Contract No. 582-11-99776).

Quemetco has been very clear about the use of the WESP technology as a polishing control after current 

high efficiency controls on process emissions. Quemetco is aware of several comments questioning the 

effectiveness of the technology on varying particle sizes. Quemetco is at a loss to understand those 

comments, since almost all papers, text books, and common scientific knowledge concerning 

electrostatic precipitation plainly make it clear that control efficiency depends on the design 

parameters. Even the EPA Air Pollution Training Institute Classroom – SI 412B Electrostatic Precipitator 

Plan Review (FEB 1998) notes this fact. It should be noted that this EPA publication does have the basics 

of electrostatic precipitating, but those basics are biased by the fact that most of the comparative 

information and some general rules of thumb come from controlling boiler “fly ash” and using the 

“ESP/WESP” for primary control. None of those biases apply to Quemetco’s Polishing WESP. Quemetco 

has made this point several times and will continue to do so. 

Related to these comments are some other misconceptions. Some commenters have stated that 

Quemetco’s polishing WESP is designed to only work on condensables. That misconception is further

extended by indicating control of condensables is needed because of electric furnace emissions. The 

fact is that electric furnace emissions go through a high efficiency baghouse followed by a high efficiency 

scrubber before making it to the WESP. This theory advanced by others suggesting that Quemetco’s 

post-baghouse, post-scrubber particles are somehow different from particles generated by other 

secondary smelters makes no sense to Quemetco, i.e., it simply does not happen the way these 

commenters suggest. There are not more smaller particles generated by the electric furnace scrubber 

due to temperature profile differences than by other well controlled furnaces, necessitating use of the 

WESP.

There is no technical reason that Quemetco can identify that would make a well designed polishing 

WESP not appropriate for any current typically controlled secondary lead industry process emission. 

Those reasons we have seen put forward indicating a technical non-feasibility do not standup under 

proper scientific review. This includes some of the SCAQMD staff who have all the data and know it 

works, but understandably see the need for further review because this is a first time event with little 

comparative background in their files. The reason people are having problems understanding is that 
{0211.003 / 111 / 00087671.DOCX}

they are biased by the bulk of publications concerning WESP being slanted to fly ash removal and as a 

primary control device. If one strips away this bias and applies the scientific WESP concepts to 

secondary lead emissions of Arsenic, Lead and Nickel, the process lead emissions can be reduced from 

around 615 pounds lead per year to within range of 9 pounds lead per year.

The conjunction of Quemetco’s process controls and fugitive controls puts annual lead emissions from 

the facility in the range of 25 pounds per year, helps assure on property and off property ambient air 

type monitoring results in compliance with the Pb NAAQS of 0.15 ug/m^3, and hazard risk model results

predict minimal impact from the facility.

The polishing WESP for process emissions is applicable to all secondary lead smelters which have 

existing proper controls. The input to this polishing device would be similar in all cases, i.e., it is the 

result of passing the processes gases through baghouses and/or scrubbers. Thus, particle size, gases, 

and source of the emission are attenuated to uniformity, i.e., secondary lead process emissions after 

typical proper controls are for practical engineering purposes the same. Presently, a second generation 

of the polishing WESP is being installed Quemetco’s Indianapolis, Indiana facility and a third generation 

is planned for Revere Smelting & Refining Corporation in Middletown, New York. 

Finally, EPA’s own historical test data indicate that control of both filterable and condensable particulate 

is necessary. As noted in a recent (2011) report with reference to a 1992 EPA report:

COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF AIR QUALITY CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES USED FOR 

LEAD-ACID BATTERY RECYCLING ;Final Report ;TCEQ Contract No. 582-11-99776 ;Work

Order No. 582-11-99776-FY11-07 ;Prepared by: Eastern Research Group, Inc. ,1600 Perimeter 

Park Drive, Suite 200,Morrisville, NC 27560 ; Prepared for: Brian Foster ,Air Quality Division,

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; April 21, 2011

“Previous tests conducted at secondary lead smelting facilities indicated that an average of 48% 

of the particles were filterable particulate, 37% were condensable inorganic, and 15% were 

condensable organic particles. 4 “

The point of a condensing small particle collector is clearly made in that only 48% of secondary lead 

particles are filterable particulate. A full 37% are condensable inorganic and 15% are condensable 

organic. The Polishing WESP has designed characteristics which provide effective control of the 52% of 

particulate that is not filterable. This EPA testing report clearly demonstrates the necessity to address 

both filterable and condensable particulates when considering the best available or maximum 

achievable control technologies for the secondary lead smelting industry.
{0211.003 / 111 / 00087671.DOCX}

APPENDIX A

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

On behalf of its subsidiary Quemetco, Inc., RSR Corporation is requesting proposals for: (1) design, (2) 

fabrication, and/or (3) installation of an air pollution control device or devices which would lower the 

combined arsenic emissions of the four stacks described in the attached "emissions data" and "process 

schematic" by at least one order of magnitude.

Quemetco, Inc. is a lead recycling facility located in City of Industry, California at 720 South Seventh 

Avenue. The major raw material for the facility is the used automobile lead-acid battery. The major 

processing steps are separating non-lead bearing materials from lead bearing materials, smelting lead 

bearing materials, refining & alloying lead to customer specifications, and casting lead ingots to 

customer specifications.

Emissions are presently highly controlled, however, Quemetco desires to significantly lower the existing 

emissions. Reduction in arsenic emissions have only been selected as a surrogate for reduction in all or 

most of the parameters listed in the attached "emissions data". Thus, proposals must indicate expected 

percent reduction for each parameter of emissions data. A secondary desire is to eliminate water vapor 

plume. 

Current reviews of technical literature have lead Quemetco and RSR to believe that Wet Electrostatic 

Precipitation is the technology necessary to achieve its desires. However, proposals may include other 

technologies capable of the desired reduction in emissions. 

Proposals are expected on or before Thursday March 27, 2003. If you have any questions, please do 

not hesitate in contacting Homer Hine at : Phone: 214-583-316; FAX: 214-688-5954; e-mail: 

hhine@rsrcorp.com;

Homer Hine

Vice President

RSR Corporation

2777 Stemmons Freeway

Suite 1800

Dallas, Texas 75207