MEMORANDUM
TO:
3848.141
file
FROM:
Craig
Simons,
DPRA
DATE:
September
9,
1999
SUBJ:
Record
of
communication
with
Con
Walker,
Inco
Ltd.
(416­
361­
7801)

I
called
regarding
some
of
our
assumptions
in
the
F006
analysis
and
left
a
message.
Con
returned
my
call
and
was
very
willing
to
talk.

I
asked
about
the
reality
of
our
assumption
regarding
the
minimum
charge
per
load
of
$1350
(noting
the
basis
for
the
cost).
In
short
this
is
not
the
way
they
operate–
but
they
generally
have
full
loads
and
do
not
do
very
much
recycling.
The
flash
furnace
they
have
at
Coppercliff
is
very
finicky
and
does
not
take
variable
feedstocks.
The
roaster
at
the
Thompson
facility
is
more
amenable
but
they
are
operating
at
capacity
with
virgin
materials.
They
do
have
a
corporate
philosophy
to
accept
the
nickel
waste,
but
tend
to
work
more
with
the
reprocessors
(he
named
World
Resources
and
CA
IBR).
In
taking
shipments
from
these
operations
they
have
specs
and
tonnage
specified
and
do
not
have
a
charge
(I
do
not
believe
it
is
an
issue–
they
get
full
loads,
primarily).

They
are
the
second
largest
nickel
operation–
second
only
to
Russia
(he
may
have
been
speaking
about
Canada
rather
than
their
operations??).
He
said
their
own
corporate
image
is
a
nickel
mining
smelting
refining
and
marketing
company.

He
noted
that
back
a
few
years
they
dealt
with
a
Michigan
generator–
American
Bumper–
and
fished
around
for
the
old
contract.
In
the
contract
it
specified
that
they
would
pay
American
Bumper
based
on
90%
of
the
assay
value
of
the
nickel
and
copper
(they
base
contracts
on
the
assumption
that
they
only
recover
90%
of
the
targeted
metals–
in
fact
it
is
well
higher
that
90%,
and
this
volume
of
metal
is
valued
based
on
monthly
average
LME
prices).
They
would
charge
American
Bumper
$130
per
dry
ton
for
smelting,
and
$1/
lb
for
refining
the
accountable
(90%
of
assay)
nickel
and
$0.22/
lb
for
refining
copper.
I
did
not
get
info
on
the
typical
nickel
and
copper
content
of
the
F006.
(In
short
he
thought
our
assumption
of
$200
to
$400
per
ton
for
recycling
was
accurate–
but
he
did
not
realize
that
our
estimates
were
net
of
the
assay
metal
value.
In
other
words
it
appears
that
our
assumptions
of
the
metal
recycling
cost–
at
least
according
to
Inco,
are
too
high).

In
their
contracts
they
also
have
penalties
for
higher
than
expected
"problem"
metals–
such
as
cadmium–
chromium–
selenium–
lead..
At
their
Coppercliff
facility
they
use
less
than
1%
custom
feedstock
(recycled
material).
At
Thompson
they
use
slightly
more.
He
noted
that
at
Falconbridge–
a
subsidiary,
they
use
about
10%
custom
feedstock,
and
an
even
higher
percentage
at
Noranda.

He
noted
that
because
of
some
of
their
operational
quirks,
they
cause
problems
for
individual
generators.
For
instance
in
cold
weather
the
flash
furnace
is
even
less
tolerant
of
the
custom
feedstocks–
and
in
these
periods
they
could
not
accept
F006
from
American
Bumper.
He
noted
that
they
do
not
stockpile
feedstock
materials.
He
did
think
that
the
longer
waste
accumulation
period
would
be
a
benefit
and
would
actually
increase
recycling.
