Environmental solutions delivered uncommonly well 

ROOFLINE STUDY 

Freeport-McMoRan Miami Inc. – Miami Smelter 

Prepared	By:	

Trinity Consultants

1661	E.	Camelback	Rd.	

Phoenix,	AZ	85016	

(602)	274‐2900	

Freeport‐McMoRan Miami Inc

PO	Box	4444	

Claypool,	AZ	85532	

(928)	473‐7149	

November	2013	
Freeport-McMoRan Miami Inc. | Roofline Study 

Trinity Consultants i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & BACKGROUND 1-1

2. PRE-FEASIBILITY AND FEASIBILITY STUDIES 2-1

3. DESIGN OF EXPERIMENT 3-1

3.1. SO2 Sampling ...........................................................................................................................................................3‐3

3.2. Flow Readings.........................................................................................................................................................3‐3

3.3. Temperature...........................................................................................................................................................3‐3

3.4. Open Areas Along the Converter Aisle and Anode Area............................................................................3‐3

4. SO2 EMISSION CALCULATION METHODOLOGY 4-1

5. RESULTS 5-1

5.1. Overall Sampling Results ....................................................................................................................................5‐1

5.2. Anode Area Test Results......................................................................................................................................5‐2

5.3. Converter Aisle Test Results..............................................................................................................................5‐3

5.4. Isa Test Results.......................................................................................................................................................5‐4

5.5. Electric Furnace Test Results.............................................................................................................................5‐5

5.6. Average SO2, Temperature, and Wind Speed Results ................................................................................5‐6

6. CONCLUSION 6-1

		
Freeport-McMoRan Miami Inc. | Roofline Study 

Trinity Consultants ii 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure	1‐1.		Annual	Smelter	SO2	Fugitive	Emissions	(Calculated	via	Sulfur	Balance	Methodology)	 1‐2

Figure	3‐1.		Gas	Sampling	Locations	for	the	Miami	Smelter	 3‐2

Figure	3‐2.		Miami	Smelter	–	Diagram	of	Non‐Monitored	Open	Areas	(Northwest	to	Southeast	View)	 3‐4

Figure	4‐1.		Sampling	System	 4‐1

	 	
Freeport-McMoRan Miami Inc. | Roofline Study 

Trinity Consultants iii 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table	1‐1.		Concentrate	Throughput	with	Corresponding	Fugitive	SO2	Emissions	 1‐2

Table	3‐1.		Gas	Sampling	Dates	and	Parameters	Measured	 3‐3

Table	4‐1.		Adjustment	Factors	for	SO2	Emission	Calculations	 4‐2

Table	5‐1.		Average	Study	Sampling	Results	 5‐1

Table	5‐3.		Anode	Area	Sampling	Results	 5‐2

Table	5‐4.		Converter	Aisle	Sampling	Results	 5‐3

Table	5‐5.		Isa	Sampling	Results	 5‐4

Table	5‐6.		Electric	Furnace	Sampling	Results	 5‐5

Table	5‐7.		Average	SO2,	Temperature,	and	Wind	Speed	Sampling	Results	 5‐6
Freeport-McMoRan Miami Inc. | Roofline Study 

Trinity Consultants 1-1 

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & BACKGROUND 

Freeport‐McMoRan	Miami	Inc.	(FMMI)	owns	and	operates	a	copper	smelting	facility	in	Claypool,	Arizona	(Miami	

Smelter).		Operations	at	the	Miami	Smelter	are	authorized	pursuant	to	Arizona	Department	of	Environmental	

Quality	(ADEQ)	Class	I	Air	Quality	Permit	53592,	issued	on	November	26,	2012.		Attachment	“B”	Condition	

(VI)(B)(2)	of	this	permit	requires	FMMI	to	determine	smelter	fugitive	sulfur	dioxide	(SO2)	emissions	on	a	

monthly	basis	using	the	“sulfur	balance”	(or	sulfur	mass	balance)	procedures	prescribed	in	Attachment	“D”	of	

the	permit	and	the	Arizona	State	Implementation	Plan	(SIP).		The	following	report	details	the	motivation	behind	

FMMI’s	investigation	into	an	alternative	methodology	to	determine	smelter	fugitive	SO2	emissions,	the	design	of	

a	short‐term	testing	protocol	to	quantify	these	emissions,	and	the	test	results.	

In	2010,	the	U.S.	Environmental	Protection	Agency	(EPA)	finalized	a	revision	to	the	primary	National	Ambient	

Air	Quality	Standard	(NAAQS)	for	SO2	to	75	parts	per	billion	(ppb)	based	on	a	1‐hour	averaging	period.		Prior	to	

this	revision,	the	primary	SO2	NAAQS	was	140	ppb	averaged	over	24‐hours	and	30	ppb	evaluated	over	an	entire	

year.		A	secondary	NAAQS	of	150	ppb	based	on	a	3‐hour	average	remained	unchanged.		FMMI	operations	were	

in	compliance	with	the	prior	standards	and	the	Miami	Planning	Area	was	designated	as	“Attainment”	for	SO2.		

However,	given	the	stringent	new	standard	and	existing	ambient	monitoring	data,	the	Miami	planning	area	has	

been	designated	“Nonattainment”	for	the	revised	SO2	NAAQS.	

FMMI	engaged	Hatch	Engineering	(Hatch)	to	perform	a	Pre‐Feasibility	Study	and	subsequently	a	Feasibility	

Study	to	determine	if	FMMI	could	modify	smelter	operations	so	that	ambient	SO2	levels	would	meet	the	revised	

standard	at	current	and	possibly	increased	smelter	throughput.		The	goal	of	the	modifications	would	be	to	

reduce	SO2	emissions	from	both	stacks	and	from	fugitive	sources.	

FMMI	evaluated	its	past	SO2	emissions	from	its	Emissions	Inventory	Reports	to	ADEQ,	prepared	as	set	forth	in	

FMMI’s	Class	I	Air	Quality	Permit.		During	the	evaluation,	FMMI	determined	the	SO2	stack	emissions	were	well	

defined,	primarily	because	FMMI	uses	continuous	emissions	monitoring	(CEMS)	to	measure	them.		However,	the	

SO2	fugitive	emissions	were	calculated	using	the	sulfur	balance.		The	sulfur	balance	estimates	fugitive	emissions	

by	quantifying	the	amount	of	sulfur	introduced	into	the	system	(in	copper	concentrate	feed	and	fuels)	and	that	

which	exits	the	system	(including,	but	not	limited	to,	sulfuric	acid,	anode	copper	produced,	and	slag).	

A	review	of	the	sulfur	balance	data	indicated	wide	variability	in	the	fugitive	SO2	emitted	from	the	smelter.		

Figure	1‐1	demonstrates	this	variability	in	smelter	SO2	fugitive	emissions	calculated	via	the	sulfur	balance	

methodology	between	2005	and	2012.	
Freeport-McMoRan Miami Inc. | Roofline Study 

Trinity Consultants 1-2 

Figure 1‐1.		Annual Smelter SO2 Fugitive Emissions (Calculated via Sulfur Balance Methodology)

To	put	the	emissions	variability	in	context,	the	concentrate	throughputs	for	the	2005	to	2012	operating	years	

are	presented	in	Table	1‐1,	which	indicate	a	large	variability	in	fugitive	emissions	compared	to	consistent	feed	

rates	for	six	of	the	eight	operating	years	presented.	

Table 1‐1.		Concentrate Throughput with Corresponding Fugitive SO2 Emissions

Year

Concentrate

Fugitive

Emissions

(tpy) (tpy)

2005	 677,537	 6,089	

2006	 680,645	 4,623	

2007	 804,075	 6,858	

2008	 792,813	 4,832	

2009	 672,216	 2,659	

2010	 688,827	 8,473	

2011	 693,595	 8,460	

2012	 689,775	 1,212	

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

SO2 Emissions (st/y)

Fugitive Sources
Freeport-McMoRan Miami Inc. | Roofline Study 

Trinity Consultants 2-1 

2. PRE-FEASIBILITY AND FEASIBILITY STUDIES 

FMMI	engaged	Hatch	to	perform	a	Pre‐Feasibility	Study	(PFS)	to	evaluate	whether	the	Miami	Smelter	could	

modify	smelter	operations	so	that	ambient	SO2	levels	would	meet	the	revised	NAAQS.		During	the	PFS,	Hatch	

evaluated	each	emission	source	to	determine	whether	a	given	source	was	a	candidate	for	improvement.		Hatch	

then	evaluated	and	selected	the	appropriate	control	technology	to	ensure	future	emissions	met	the	NAAQS	

standards.		Due	to	a	lack	of	direct	monitoring	data	for	fugitive	emissions,	Hatch	based	its	evaluation	on	FMMI’s	

2010	Emissions	Inventory	submitted	to	ADEQ.		The	use	of	2010	data	represented	the	worst	case	fugitive	

emissions	based	on	the	sulfur	balance	methodology.	

Due	to	concerns	with	the	variability	of	emissions	for	SO2	using	the	sulfur	balance,	FMMI	requested	Hatch	to	

develop	a	fugitive	sampling	protocol	and	perform	testing	to	verify	the	fugitive	emissions.		The	goal	of	the	study	

would	be	to	provide	a	more	accurate	emissions	estimate	and	allow	for	the	proper	sizing	of	the	roofline	collection	

and	scrubbing	system.		Hatch’s	protocol	proposed	to	establish	roofline	SO2	emissions,	temperature	profiles,	and	

gas	flow	rates.	

Roofline	SO2	emission	testing	occurred	from	June	3	to	June	12,	2012	during	a	period	of	normal	operations.		

Hatch	teamed	with	AECOM	(Ft.	Collins,	CO)	to	perform	the	testing.		AECOM	was	selected	based	on	their	

familiarity	with	FMMI’s	operations.	
Freeport-McMoRan Miami Inc. | Roofline Study 

Trinity Consultants 3-1 

3. DESIGN OF EXPERIMENT 

The	protocol	developed	by	Hatch	used	a	series	of	gas	sample	probes	and	instrumentation	to	directly	measure	

the	parameters	of	interest	for	the	four	major	operating	areas	at	the	smelter	that	have	fugitive	emissions	(Isa	

Building,	Electric	Furnace	Building,	Converter	Aisle,	and	Anode	Area).1		Each	operating	area	had	probes	and	

instrumentation	placed	at	multiple	locations	to	ensure	an	accurate	assessment	of	emissions.		In	some	locations,	

multiple	the	probes	and	instruments	were	placed	as	a	single	unit.		In	other	locations,	individual	probes	or	

instrumentation	(primarily	thermocouples)	were	placed	to	allow	the	measurement	of	the	selected	parameter.		

The	system	was	designed	to	measure	gas	flow	rates,	temperature,	and	SO2	concentration	for	the	calculation	of	

SO2	emissions	from	each	operating	area.		Figure	3‐1	depicts	the	placement	of	sample	probes	and	

instrumentation	in	each	of	the	operating	areas.		Table	3‐1	lists	the	sampling	dates	and	parameters	measured	in	

each	area.	

																																																															

1		Note that a flow rate test was also conducted at the “Crane Bay” to validate the flow rates being used for purposes of executing 

a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modeling analysis for the Miami smelter. This test was not performed to determine SO2 

emissions from the “Crane Bay.” Any SO2 emissions from that area are incidental and accounted for in the adjustment factors 

discussed in this report.
Freeport-McMoRan Miami Inc. | Roofline Study 

Trinity Consultants 

Figure 3‐1. Gas Sampling Locations for the Miami Smelter

Measured through gap between monitor & roofline

a1 a2 a3

a4

c1

i1

c2

c3 c4

i2

i3

e1

e2

Measured through gap between monitor and roofline

e3

Measurements to 

Measured in opening

i3

Measured in opening

i1

Measured below the ridge vent

i2 Le

e1i1‐a1c1‐
Freeport-McMoRan Miami Inc. | Roofline Study 

Trinity Consultants 3-3 

Table 3‐1.		Gas Sampling Dates and Parameters Measured

	 	 Number of Measurements

Area Dates Gas Velocity SO2 Concentration Temperature

Converter	Aisle	 June	3	to	6,	2012	 4	 4	 7	

Anode	Area	 June	3	to	6,	2012	 4	 4	 11	

Isa	Building	 June	10	to	12,	2012	 3	 3	 3	

Electric	Furnace	Building	 June	10	to	12,	2012	 3	 3	 3	

The	following	is	a	discussion	of	the	parameters	measured.	

3.1. SO2 SAMPLING 

Collection	of	SO2	was	accomplished	using	1⁄2	inch	stainless	steel	probes	placed	at	the	building	opening	locations	

shown	in	Figure	3‐1.		The	SO2	sample	was	collected	through	the	use	of	a	vacuum	pump	drawing	1	liter	per	

minute	of	sample	from	each	probe.		Each	probe	contained	a	filter	to	prevent	the	sample	lines	from	becoming	

blocked.		The	sample	lines	for	a	specific	location	were	manifolded	into	a	single	sample	line	and	routed	to	a	CEMS	

for	the	duration	of	the	test	program.		AECOM	used	Ametek	CEMS	to	measure	SO2	(Range:	0	to	2,000	ppm).		The	

CEMS	were	calibrated	daily	for	zero	(clean)	air	and	full	span	(approximately	1,800	ppm	SO2)	using	certified	

calibration	gasses.		Readings	from	the	CEMS	were	taken	every	15	seconds,	averaged	every	2	minutes,	and	

recorded.		The	data	were	then	downloaded	and	sent	to	Hatch	for	analysis.	

3.2. FLOW READINGS 

In	locations	where	anemometers	could	be	placed,	the	study	used	RM	Young	Gill	Propeller	Anemometers	to	

measure	the	exhaust	speed	(in	feet	per	second).		In	locations	where	fixed	anemometers	could	not	be	used	full	

time	due	to	elevated	temperatures	at	the	Anode	Area,	a	hot	wire	anemometer	was	used	to	collect	the	exhaust	

speed.		Flows	(in	actual	cubic	feet	per	minute)	were	then	calculated	using	the	source	opening	size	and	then	

converted	to	standard	cubic	feet	per	minute	(scfm)	by	correcting	the	flows	using	the	gas	temperature	and	

barometric	pressure.	

3.3. TEMPERATURE 

Temperatures	were	recorded	by	using	Type	J	thermocouples	which	were	placed	at	multiple	locations	

throughout	the	operating	areas.		The	sampling	protocol	used	additional	thermocouples	across	the	facility.	

3.4. OPEN AREAS ALONG THE CONVERTER AISLE AND ANODE AREA 

It	should	be	noted	that	there	are	several	openings	along	the	converter	aisle	and	anode	area	which	were	not	

actively	monitored	for	SO2	because	analyses	indicated	emissions	do	not	escape	from	them.		There	are	openings	

at	the	end	walls	located	on	the	west	and	east	sections	of	the	Miami	Smelter	which	provide	access	to	the	

Converter	Aisle	for	vehicles.		There	is	also	an	opening	to	the	south	of	the	Mold	Barrel	and	on	the	north	wall	

behind	each	converter.		Figure	3‐2	provides	a	depiction	of	these	open	areas.	
Freeport-McMoRan Miami Inc. | Roofline Study 

Trinity Consultants 3-4 

Figure 3‐2.		Miami Smelter – Diagram of Non‐Monitored Open Areas

(Northwest to Southeast View)

Air	flow	measurements	were	taken	during	the	testing	and	indicated	that	flows	for	these	areas	were	from	the	

outside	of	the	building	inward.		The	areas	that	are	currently	open	in	Figure	3‐2	are	the	medium	blue	and	light	

green	areas.		Light	green	indicates	sections	that	FMMI	will	enclose	in	the	expansion.		Blue	indicates	that	the	area	

will	remain	open.		Red	indicates	that	the	roofline	will	be	enclosed	in	the	future	for	roofline	monitoring.		The	

lower	open	areas	are	necessary	to	allow	for	ventilation	air	intake	for	the	future	scrubber.

Only	during	specific	high‐wind	conditions	(greater	than	10	m/s)	where	air	flows	strike	the	building	will	there	be	

cross	flows	that	could	result	in	emissions	escaping	from	the	east	to	west	and	west	to	east.		It	is	important	to	note	

that	these	high‐wind	conditions	occur	during	less	than	2.5%	of	the	annual	smelter	operating	time.		In	addition,	

high‐wind	conditions	at	the	east	end	of	the	Converter	Aisle	(east‐southeast	to	west‐northwest	wind	flow,	78.75	

to	123.75°	wind	direction),	where	there	is	no	shielding	provided	by	geographic	or	engineered	structures,	occur	

during	less	than	0.12%	of	the	annual	smelter	operating	time.		Due	to	shielding,	the	southern	opening	is	

protected	from	most	adverse	wind	conditions.		Furthermore,	the	west	end	of	the	Converter	Aisle	is	below	grade	

of	the	acid	plant	which	provides	for	some	shielding	of	winds	from	the	west.		High‐wind	conditions	at	the	west	

end	of	the	Converter	Aisle	(west‐northwest	to	east‐southeast	wind	flow,	258.75	to	303.75°	wind	direction)	

occur	during	less	than	0.02%	of	the	annual	smelter	operating	time.		For	the	impact	of	winds	from	the	north,	the	

emissions	would	blow	across	the	aisle	and	primarily	affect	emissions	from	the	mold	vessel.		Emissions	from	the	

converters	during	the	winds	originating	from	the	north	would	either	impact	internal	walls	and	be	deflected	

upwards	to	the	roof	openings,	which	were	monitored,	or	exit	the	openings	through	the	Isa	or	Electric	Furnace	

buildings,	which	were	also	monitored.	

It	should	also	be	noted	that	emissions	from	the	converters,	mold	vessel	and	anode	vessels	are	elevated	

approximately	25	feet	above	the	ground	and	are	located	significantly	inside	the	building	from	the	east	and	west	
Freeport-McMoRan Miami Inc. | Roofline Study 

Trinity Consultants 3-5 

openings	(approximately	80	to	100	feet	inside	the	building).		The	east	and	west	openings	are	approximately	35	

feet	high.	

Therefore,	due	to	the	negligible	emissions	from	these	areas	under	normal	operating	conditions,	these	sources	

were	not	actively	monitored	for	SO2.	
Freeport-McMoRan Miami Inc. | Roofline Study 

Trinity Consultants 4-1 

4. SO2 EMISSION CALCULATION METHODOLOGY 

Locations	for	SO2	measurement,	as	shown	in	Figure	3‐1	were	selected	to	be	representative	of	average	SO2

concentrations	for	each	operating	area	and	thus	provided	a	representative	analysis	of	the	total	smelter	fugitive	

emissions.		Concentrations	of	SO2	were	reported	in	2	minute	intervals,	reflective	of	the	duration	of	operating	

activities	such	as	transfers.		All	data	points	recorded	during	calibrations,	as	indicated	by	AECOM,	were	removed	

from	the	data	set	reported	and	not	used	in	the	analysis.		Relevant	apparatus	components	are	shown	in	Figure	

4‐1	for	reference.	

Figure 4‐1.		Sampling System

Emissions	of	SO2	were	calculated	for	each	operating	area	from	total	gas	flows	and	SO2	concentration.		An	

adjustment	factor	was	applied	when	calculating	mass	emissions	of	SO2	(lb/hr)	to	account	for	the	fact	that	all	

sample	locations	in	a	given	operating	area	are	sent	to	a	single	analyzer.		As	the	sample	rate	from	each	sample	

location	within	an	operating	area	is	not	increased	with	increased	gas	flow	(typically	due	to	increased	activity	

and	associated	emissions),	sample	locations	with	high	gas	flow	may	be	underweighted	in	the	calculation	of	

average	concentration	of	SO2	in	building	ventilation.		The	adjustment	factor	assumes	that	SO2	concentrations	

increase	linearly	with	gas	flow.		This	is	considered	reasonably	conservative.		The	average	adjustment	factors	

applied	are	listed	in	Table	4‐1,	where	a	factor	of	1	represents	no	adjustment	and	reflects	perfectly	uniform	gas	

flow.	
Freeport-McMoRan Miami Inc. | Roofline Study 

Trinity Consultants 4-2 

Table 4‐1.		Adjustment Factors for SO2 Emission Calculations

Area Adjustment Factor

Converter	Aisle	 1.05	

Anode	Aisle	 1.24	

Isa	Building	 1.18	

Electric	Furnace	 1.02	

It	should	be	noted	that	the	adjustment	factor	for	the	Anode	Aisle	area	conservatively	incorporates	any	SO2

emissions	that	may	result	from	carryover	into	the	Crane	Bay	Area	in	addition	to	accounting	for	the	fact	that	all	

sample	locations	in	the	area	are	sent	to	a	single	analyzer,	as	discussed	in	Section	5.2.	
Freeport-McMoRan Miami Inc. | Roofline Study 

Trinity Consultants 5-1 

5. RESULTS 

5.1. OVERALL SAMPLING RESULTS 

A	summary	of	gas	sampling	results	are	presented	in	this	section.		Table	5‐1	summarizes	the	average	results	of	

the	sampling	campaign	as	well	as	the	SO2	emission	rate	following	the	application	of	the	adjustment	factor	

discussed	in	Section	4.		Note	that	all	parameters	contained	in	Table	5‐1	are	an	average	of	the	sample	population	

for	illustration	purposes.		Note	that	due	to	the	short	duration	of	the	measurement	frequency	(in	minutes),	the	

average	values	may	not	adequately	describe	the	true	value	of	the	parameter	(which	is	more	adequately	

represented	using	the	99th	percentile	of	the	sampling	population).	

Table 5‐1.		Average Study Sampling Results

Operating Area

Gas Flow Gas Flow

Gas

Temperature

Rise

Gas

Temperature Rise

(99th Percentile)

Adjusted SO2

Emissions

(acfm) (scfm) (°F) (°F) (lb/hr)

Anode	Area	 548,800	 403,700 84.8 168.3	 43.5

Converter	Aisle	 767,300	 619,400 30.4 72.3	 123.3

Isa	Building	 225,900	 182,900 27.0 68.0	 57.0

Electric	Furnace	

Building

186,100	 147,300 39.4 80.4	 9.1

Total 1,728,000 1,353,300 47.0 97.3 233

The	following	is	a	discussion	of	the	specific,	actively	monitored	operating	areas.	
Freeport-McMoRan Miami Inc. | Roofline Study 

Trinity Consultants 5-2 

5.2. ANODE AREA TEST RESULTS 

A	total	of	three	sample	runs	were	performed	at	the	Anode	Area	operating	area	from	June	4	through	6,	2012.		The	

samples	were	collected	over	a	480‐minute	period	at	three	locations	along	the	roof	monitor	using	a	single	sample	

point	in	the	center	of	the	monitor	area.		The	average	of	the	recorded	test	parameters,	including	stack	

temperature,	meter	temperature,	and	pressure	for	the	three	Anode	sample	runs	are	provided	in	Table	5‐2.		Also	

included	in	this	table	are	calculations	of	effluent	molecular	weight	(wet	and	dry)	and	moisture	content.		In	

addition,	the	average	SO2	concentration,	temperature	(°C)	and	flow	rate	(m/s)	measured	during	the	test	run	are	

listed.		For	all	operating	areas,	SO2	concentrations	were	converted	to	emission	rates	using	the	following	

methodology:	

݈ܾ൬ ݁ݐܴܽ	݊݋݅ݏݏ݉݅ܧ

݂ܿݏ൬ ݁ݐܴܽ	ݓ݋݈ܨ	݈݋ܸ ൌ ൰ݎ݄ݐݎܽ݌	1 ൈ ൰݉݅݊

ݏݐݎܽ݌଺10

ൈ

60	݉݅݊

ൈ ݎ݄

݈݋݉

ൈ ݂ܿݏ	385

64	݈ܾ

݈݋݉

Table 5‐2.		Anode Area Sampling Results

Test

Parameters

A2‐1 A3‐1 A4‐1

Average

06/04/31 06/05/12 06/06/12

0610‐1410 1100‐1900 0800‐1600

Sample	Time	(min)	 480	 480	 480	 480	

Vol	meter	(acf)	 214.447	 210.652	 229.866	 218.322	

Ave.	SQRT	dP	(in	WC)1/2	 0.17	 0.17	 0.17	 0.17	

dH	(in	WC)	 0.48	 0.48	 0.56	 0.51	

T	stack	(F)	 142.6	 192.0	 179.3	 171.3	

T	meter	(F)	 101.1	 106.9	 118.3	 108.8	

P	static	(in	WC)	 0.01	 0.01	 0.01	 0.01	

P	bar	(in	Hg)	 26.30	 26.25	 26.20	 26.25	

P	stack	(in	WC)	 26.30	 26.25	 26.20	 26.25	

H2O	Mass	Gain	(g)	 25.90	 60.10	 34.70	 40.23	

Yd	(meter	coef.)	 0.970	 0.970	 0.970	 0.970	

dH	@	(in	WC)	 1.857	 1.857	 1.857	 1.857	

Cp	(pitot	coef.)	 0.84	 0.84	 0.84	 0.84	

Dia	stack	(in)	 NA	 NA	 NA	 NA	

Dia	nozzle	(in)	 0.358	 0.358	 0.358	 0.358	

CO2	(%)	 0.00	 0.00	 0.00	 0.00	

O2	(%)	 20.90	 20.90	 20.90	 20.90	

Vol	meter	(dscf)	 172.162	 167.055	 178.386	 172.534	

Md	(lb/lb‐mole)	 28.84	 28.84	 28.84	 28.84	

Ms	(lb/lb‐mole)	 28.76	 28.66	 28.74	 28.72	

Vwc	 1.22	 2.83	 1.63	 1.89	

H2O	(%)	 0.7	 1.7	 0.9	 1.1	

ISO	(%)	 100.8	 102.6	 107.9	 103.8	

SO2	Results	

SO2	(ppm)	 0.8	 6.2	 10.5	 5.8	

SO2	(lb/hr)	 0.00	 0.00	 0.00	 0.00	

Meteorological	Results	

Temp	(°C)	 61.3	 85.3	 81.0	 75.9	

Flow	Rate	(m/s)	 1.33	 1.88	 2.17	 1.79	

	 	
Freeport-McMoRan Miami Inc. | Roofline Study 

Trinity Consultants 5-3 

5.3. CONVERTER AISLE TEST RESULTS 

A	total	of	four	sample	runs	were	performed	at	the	Converter	Aisle	operating	area	from	June	3	through	6,	2012.		

The	samples	were	collected	over	a	480‐minute	period	at	four	locations	along	the	roof	monitor	using	a	single	

sample	point	in	the	center	area	of	the	monitor.		The	average	of	the	recorded	parameters,	including	stack	

temperature,	meter	temperature,	and	pressure	for	the	four	Converter	sample	runs	are	provided	in	Table	5‐3.		

Also	included	in	this	table	are	calculations	of	effluent	molecular	weight	(wet	and	dry)	and	moisture	content.		In	

addition,	the	average	SO2	concentration,	temperature	(°C)	and	flow	rate	(m/s)	measured	during	the	test	run	are	

listed.	

Table 5‐3.		Converter Aisle Sampling Results

Test

Parameters

C1‐1 C2‐1 C3‐1 C4‐1

Average

06/03/31 06/04/31 06/05/31 06/06/31

0553‐1353 0556‐1356 0801‐1601 0825‐1625

Sample	Time	(min)	 480	 480	 480	 480	 480	

Vol	meter	(acf)	 220.655	 218.772	 220.043	 253.861	 228.333	

Ave.	SQRT	dP	(in	WC)1/2	 0.17	 0.17	 0.17	 0.20	 0.18	

dH	(in	WC)	 0.60	 0.59	 0.59	 0.78	 0.64	

T	stack	(F)	 99.6	 105.3	 107.3	 125.1	 109.3	

T	meter	(F)	 92.7	 87.8	 103.9	 111.5	 99.0	

P	static	(in	WC)	 0.01	 0.01	 0.01	 0.01	 0.01	

P	bar	(in	Hg)	 26.30	 26.30	 26.25	 26.20	 26.26	

P	stack	(in	WC)	 26.30	 26.30	 26.25	 26.20	 26.26	

H2O	Mass	Gain	(g)	 21.60	 21.10	 30.50	 20.30	 23.37	

Yd	(meter	coef.)	 0.974	 0.974	 0.974	 0.974	 0.974	

dH	@	(in	WC)	 1.894	 1.894	 1.894	 1.894	 1.894	

Cp	(pitot	coef.)	 0.84	 0.84	 0.84	 0.84	 0.84	

Dia	stack	(in)	 NA	 NA	 NA	 NA	 #DIV/0!	

Dia	nozzle	(in)	 0.369	 0.369	 0.369	 0.369	 0.369	

CO2	(%)	 0.00	 0.00	 0.00	 0.00	 0.00	

O2	(%)	 20.90	 20.90	 20.90	 20.90	 20.90	

Vol	meter	(dscf)	 180.734	 180.802	 176.307	 200.449	 184.573	

Md	(lb/lb‐mole)	 28.84	 28.84	 28.84	 28.84	 28.84	

Ms	(lb/lb‐mole)	 28.78	 28.78	 28.75	 28.78	 28.77	

Vwc	 1.02	 0.99	 1.44	 0.96	 1.10	

H2O	(%)	 0.6	 0.5	 0.8	 0.5	 0.6	

ISO	(%)	 95.8	 96.4	 94.4	 95.0	 95.4	

SO2	Results	

SO2	(ppm)	 19.4	 19.2	 21.5	 19.9	 20.0	

SO2	(lb/hr)	 0.00	 0.00	 0.00	 0.00	 0.00	

Meteorological	Results	

Temp	(°C)	 39.1	 41.0	 44.0	 52.5	 44.2	

Flow	Rate	(m/s)	 0.448	 0.514	 1.124	 2.431	 1.13	

	 	
Freeport-McMoRan Miami Inc. | Roofline Study 

Trinity Consultants 5-4 

5.4. ISA TEST RESULTS 

A	total	of	three	sample	runs	were	performed	at	the	Isa	Building	operating	area	from	June	11	and	12,	2012.		The	

first	two	samples	were	collected	over	a	480‐minute	period	and	the	third	was	collected	over	a	300‐minute	

period.		The	samples	were	collected	using	a	single	sample	point	in	the	roof	monitor	in	the	center	area	of	the	

monitor	and	at	the	two	openings	on	the	south	and	east	sides	of	the	building.		The	average	of	the	recorded	test	

parameters	including,	stack	temperature,	meter	temperature,	and	pressure	for	the	three	Isa	sample	runs	are	

provided	in	Table	5‐4.		Also	included	in	this	table	are	calculations	of	effluent	molecular	weight	(wet	and	dry)	and	

moisture	content.		In	addition,	the	average	SO2	concentration,	temperature	(°C)	and	flow	rate	(m/s)	measured	

during	the	test	run	are	listed.	

Table 5‐4.		Isa Sampling Results

Test

Parameters

ISA1‐1 ISA2‐1 ISA3‐1

Average

06/11/12 06/12/12 06/11/12

0840‐1640 1828‐2412 0845‐1645

Sample	Time	(min)	 480	 300	 480	 420	

Vol	meter	(acf)	 222.706	 140.309	 227.756	 196.924	

Ave.	SQRT	dP	(in	WC)1/2	 0.17	 0.17	 0.17	 0.17	

dH	(in	WC)	 0.55	 0.52	 0.53	 0.53	

T	stack	(F)	 108.4	 112.3	 98.3	 106.3	

T	meter	(F)	 108.8	 101.7	 101.8	 104.1	

P	static	(in	WC)	 0.01	 0.01	 0.01	 0.01	

P	bar	(in	Hg)	 26.30	 26.30	 26.30	 26.30	

P	stack	(in	WC)	 26.30	 26.30	 26.30	 26.30	

H2O	Mass	Gain	(g)	 28.70	 36.40	 28.60	 31.23	

Yd	(meter	coef.)	 0.989	 0.970	 0.970	 0.976	

dH	@	(in	WC)	 1.722	 1.857	 1.857	 1.81	

Cp	(pitot	coef.)	 0.84	 0.84	 0.84	 0.84	

Dia	stack	(in)	 NA	 NA	 NA	 #DIV/0!	

Dia	nozzle	(in)	 0.370	 0.358	 0.358	 0.362	

CO2	(%)	 0.00	 0.00	 0.00	 0.00	

O2	(%)	 20.90	 20.90	 20.90	 20.90	

Vol	meter	(dscf)	 179.876	 112.538	 182.636	 158.350	

Md	(lb/lb‐mole)	 28.84	 28.84	 28.84	 28.84	

Ms	(lb/lb‐mole)	 28.76	 28.67	 28.76	 28.73	

Vwc	 1.35	 1.71	 1.35	 1.47	

H2O	(%)	 0.7	 1.5	 0.7	 1.0	

ISO	(%)	 95.8	 103.4	 102.9	 100.7	

SO2	Results	

SO2	(ppm)	 32.6	 37.2	 31.8	 33.9	

SO2	(lb/hr)	 0.00	 0.00	 0.00	 0.0	

Meteorological	Results	

Temp	(°C)	 43.9	 46.1	 38.1	 42.7	

Flow	Rate	(m/s)	 1.543	 1.376	 0.130	 1.016	

	 	
Freeport-McMoRan Miami Inc. | Roofline Study 

Trinity Consultants 5-5 

5.5. ELECTRIC FURNACE TEST RESULTS 

A	total	of	two	sample	runs	were	performed	at	the	Electric	Furnace	operating	area	from	June	11	and	12,	2012.		

The	samples	were	collected	over	a	480‐minute	period	and	a	300‐minute	period,	respectively,	at	two	locations	

along	the	roof	monitor	using	a	single	sample	point	in	the	center	area	of	the	monitor.		The	average	of	the	

recorded	test	parameters	including,	stack	temperature,	meter	temperature,	and	pressure,	etc.	for	the	two	

Electric	Furnace	sample	runs	are	provided	in	Table	5‐5.		Also	included	in	this	table	are	calculations	of	effluent	

molecular	weight	(wet	and	dry)	and	moisture	content.		In	addition,	average	SO2	results,	temperature	(°C)	and	

flow	rate	(m/s)	measured	during	the	test	run	are	listed.	

Table 5‐5.		Electric Furnace Sampling Results

Test

Parameters

E2‐1 E1‐1

Average

06/11/12 06/12/12

0821‐1621 1824‐0012

Sample	Time	(min)	 480	 300	 390	

Vol	meter	(acf)	 222.826	 137.229	 180.028	

Ave.	SQRT	dP	(in	WC)1/2	 0.17	 0.17	 0.17	

dH	(in	WC)	 0.63	 0.60	 0.61	

T	stack	(F)	 123.7	 124.6	 124.1	

T	meter	(F)	 109.5	 97.8	 103.6	

P	static	(in	WC)	 0.01	 0.01	 0.01	

P	bar	(in	Hg)	 26.30	 26.35	 26.33	

P	stack	(in	WC)	 26.30	 26.35	 26.33	

H2O	Mass	Gain	(g)	 27.70	 7.90	 17.80	

Yd	(meter	coef.)	 0.974	 0.974	 0.974	

dH	@	(in	WC)	 1.894	 1.894	 1.894	

Cp	(pitot	coef.)	 0.84	 0.84	 0.84	

Dia	stack	(in)	 NA	 NA	 NA	

Dia	nozzle	(in)	 0.369	 0.369	 0.37	

CO2	(%)	 0.00	 0.00	 0.00	

O2	(%)	 20.90	 20.90	 20.90	

Vol	meter	(dscf)	 177.157	 111.599	 144.378	

Md	(lb/lb‐mole)	 28.84	 28.84	 28.84	

Ms	(lb/lb‐mole)	 28.76	 28.80	 28.78	

Vwc	 1.30	 0.37	 0.84	

H2O	(%)	 0.7	 0.3	 0.5	

ISO	(%)	 96.1	 96.5	 96.3	

SO2	Results	

SO2	(ppm)	 4.4	 3.5	 4.0	

SO2	(lb/hr)	 0.00	 0.00	 0.0	

Meteorological	Results	

Temp	(°C)	 52.6	 50.9	 51.8	

Flow	Rate	(m/s)	 1.702	 1.596	 1.649	

	 	
Freeport-McMoRan Miami Inc. | Roofline Study 

Trinity Consultants 5-6 

5.6. AVERAGE SO2, TEMPERATURE, AND WIND SPEED RESULTS 

Table	5‐6	contains	the	average	SO2	(ppm),	temperature	(°C)	and	wind	speed	(m/s)	for	the	entire	measurement	

time	at	each	operating	area.		Included	in	the	table	are	the	test	location,	start	time,	stop	time	and	average	value	

recorded.	

Table 5‐6.		Average SO2, Temperature, and Wind Speed Sampling Results

Test Start Stop SO2 Temp. Wind Speed

Location Date Time Date Time (ppm) (°C) (m/s)

Crane Bay 6/1/12 1140 6/5/12 0816 NA 31.62 0.906

Anode 6/2/12 1500 6/6/12 1600 11.2

A1 5/31/12 1305 6/7/12 0826 61.52

A2 5/31/12 0940 6/7/12 0828 63.91 1.555

A3 5/31/12 1305 6/7/12 0826 70.96

A4 5/31/12 0940 6/7/12 0828 78.45 1.775

A5 5/31/12 1305 6/7/12 0826 78.93

A6 5/31/12 1306 6/7/12 0826 75.20

A7 5/31/12 1306 6/7/12 0826 69.03

A8* 5/31/12 0940 6/7/12 0828 77.07 2.058

A9 6/1/12 0855 6/7/12 0826 74.79

A10** 5/31/12 0940 6/7/12 0828 72.72 1.325

A11 6/2/12 1415 6/7/12 0754 57.20

Converter 6/2/12 1625 6/7/12 0736 16.7

C1 6/2/12 1325 6/7/12 0754 45.45 2.124

C2 6/2/12 1415 6/7/12 0754 40.81

C3 6/2/12 1325 6/7/12 0754 42.34 1.299

C4 6/2/12 1415 6/7/12 0754 44.14

C5 6/2/12 1325 6/7/12 0754 42.10 0.911

C6 6/2/12 1415 6/7/12 0754 41.27

C7 6/2/12 1325 6/7/12 0754 38.98 0.385

ELF 6/10/12 1822 6/13/12 1114 4.8

E1 6/8/12 1926 6/13/12 1304 49.61 1.658

E2 6/8/12 1926 6/13/12 1304 49.60 1.833

E3 6/8/12 1926 6/13/12 1304 47.17 1.381

ISASmelt 6/10/12 1736 6/13/12 0922 26.6

ISA1 6/10/12 1718 6/13/12 1158 40.65 1.629

ISA2 6/10/12 1718 6/13/12 1158 46.20 1.470

ISA3 6/10/12 1718 6/13/12 1158 35.46 0.466

* Wind speed at A8 started on 6/1/12 at 0855.

** Wind speed at A10 was out of service from 6/5/12 at 1912 through 6/6/12 at 1008.
Freeport-McMoRan Miami Inc. | Roofline Study 

Trinity Consultants 6-1 

6. CONCLUSION 

Based	upon	the	results	from	the	study,	the	Miami	Smelter’s	fugitive	SO2	emissions	were	calculated	as	1,021	tons	

per	year.		The	calculated	results	from	the	study	are	approximately	13%	of	the	2010	emissions	estimation	using	

the	sulfur	balance	required	by	Arizona’s	SIP.	

A	long	term	study	of	the	roofline	emissions	has	been	undertaken	to	further	validate	the	emissions	estimated	in	

this	report.		The	sampling	locations	used	for	the	long	term	study	are	generally	the	same	with	sole	exception	that	

measurements	for	the	Electric	Furnace	operating	area	now	has	only	two	sample	locations	rather	than	three,	the	

Anode	Aisle	has	three	sample	locations	rather	than	four,	and	the	Converter	Aisle	has	four	sample	locations	

rather	than	five.		These	minor	changes	in	sampling	protocol	are	not	expected	to	impact	the	concentration	results	

significantly.		In	addition,	the	probe	placements	in	the	Anode	Aisle	and	Converter	Aisle	have	been	placed	such	

that	the	sampling	results	would	bias	the	average	SO2	emissions	higher	than	the	original	study	due	to	their	

placement	closer	to	the	vessel	openings.		Preliminary	SO2	concentration	results	for	the	long	term	roofline	

sampling	campaign	suggest	no	major	changes	from	the	emissions	estimated	in	this	report.