19582 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[IL–64–2–5807; FRL–5997–7]

RIN 2060–AE41

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source

Categories: National Emission

Standards for Primary Copper

Smelters

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of

public hearing.

SUMMARY: This action proposes national

emission standards for hazardous air

pollutants (NESHAP) for new and

existing primary copper smelters under

section 112 of the Clean Air Act (Act),

as amended in November 1990. Primary

copper smelters can potentially emit

significant amounts of certain toxic

metals that have been identified in the

Act as hazardous air pollutants (HAP).

Overall, the HAP emitted in the largest

quantities from primary copper smelters

are arsenic compounds and lead

compounds. Chronic exposure to

arsenic is associated with human

cancers of the skin, bladder, liver and

lungs and can cause other

developmental and reproductive effects.

Exposure to lead compounds results in

adverse effects on the blood, central

nervous system, and kidneys. The

proposed NESHAP would require use of

air emission controls to reduce HAP

emissions from primary copper smelters

that produce anode copper using flash

smelting furnaces integrated with batch

copper converters. The EPA estimates

that the proposed NESHAP would

reduce annual nationwide HAP

emissions from the source category by

approximately 20 percent or 34

megagrams per year (37.5 tons per year).

The NESHAP provides protection to the

public by requiring the affected primary

copper smelters to meet emission

standards that reflect the application of

maximum achievable control

technology (MACT).

DATES: Comments. The EPA will accept

comments regarding this proposed

NESHAP on or before June 19, 1998.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the

EPA requesting to speak at a public

hearing May 11, 1998 a public hearing

will be held May 20, 1998 beginning at

10:00 a.m. For more information, see

section IX.B of SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: Comments: Written

comments (in duplicate, if possible)

should be submitted to Docket No. A–

96–22 at the following address: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

and Radiation Docket and Information

Center (6102), 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. The EPA

requests that a separate copy of the

comments also be sent to the contact

person listed below. The docket is

located at the above address in Room

M–1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor).

A copy of today’s notice and other

materials related to this rulemaking are

available for review in the docket.

Copies of this information may be

obtained by request from the Air Docket

by calling (202) 260–7548. A reasonable

fee may be charged for copying the

docket materials.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the

EPA requesting a public hearing by the

required dates (see DATES), the public

hearing will be held at the EPA Office

of Administration Auditorium, Research

Triangle Park, NC. Persons inquiring as

to whether a hearing is to be held

should call the contact person listed

below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Eugene Crumpler, Metals Group,

Emission Standards Division (MD–13),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711,

telephone number (919) 541–0881,

facsimile number (919) 541–5600,

electronic mail address

‘‘crumpler.gene@epamail.epa.gov.’’.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this

action are primary copper smelters (SIC

3339). No federal government entities

nor State/local/tribal government

entities would be regulated by final

action on this proposal.

This description of the regulated

entities is not intended to be exhaustive,

but rather provides a guide for readers

regarding entities likely to be regulated

by final action on this proposal. This

description identifies the types of

entities that the EPA is now aware could

potentially be regulated by final action

on this proposal. To determine whether

your facility is regulated by final action

on this proposal, you should carefully

examine the applicability criteria in

section V.A of this document, and in

§ 63.1440 of the proposed rule. If you

have any questions regarding the

applicability of this action to a

particular entity, consult the person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Technology Transfer Network

The text of today’s notice is also

available on the Technology Transfer

Network (TTN), one of EPA’s electronic

bulletin boards. The TTN provides

information and technology exchange in

various areas of air pollution control.

The service is free, except for the cost

of a phone call. Dial (919) 541–5742 for

up to a 14,400 BPS modem. The TTN

also is accessible through the Internet at

‘‘TELNET ttnbbs.rtpnc.epa.gov.’’ If more

information on the TTN is needed, call

the HELP line at (919) 541–5348. The

HELP desk is staffed Monday through

Friday from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m.; a voice

menu system is available at other times.

Electronic Access and Filing Addresses

The official record for this

rulemaking, as well as the public

version, has been established under

Docket No. A–96–22 (including

comments and data submitted

electronically). A public version of this

record, including printed, paper

versions of electronic comments, which

does not include any information

claimed as confidential business

information (CBI), is available for

inspection from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. The official rulemaking record

is located at the address in ADDRESSES

at the beginning of this document.

Electronic comments can be sent

directly to EPA’s Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center at: ‘‘Aand-R-Docket@epamail.epa.gov.’’

Electronic comments must be submitted

as an ASCII file avoiding the use of

special characters and any form of

encryption. Comments and data will

also be accepted on disks in

WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII

file format. All comments and data in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket number (A–96–22). No CBI

should be submitted through electronic

mail. Electronic comments on this

proposed rule may be filed online at

many Federal Depository Libraries.

Outline

The information in this notice is

organized as follows.

I. Statutory Authority

II. Initial List of Categories of Major and Area

Sources

III. Background

A. ‘‘Primary Copper Smelting’’ Source

Category Description

B. HAP Emissions

1. Process HAP Emissions

2. Process Fugitive HAP Emissions

3. Fugitive Dust Emissions

4. Existing Air Emission Controls

C. Relationship to Other Air Rules

IV. NESHAP Decision Process

A. Source of Authority for NESHAP

Development

B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19583

C. Determining the MACT Floor

V. Summary of the Proposed Standards

A. Applicability

B. Sources To Be Regulated

C. Emission Limits and Requirements

1. Copper Concentrate Dryers

2. Smelting Furnaces

3. Slag Cleaning Vessels

4. Batch Copper Converters

5. Fugitive Dust Sources

6. Equivalent Standard for Combined

Exhaust Gas Streams

D. Compliance and Maintenance

Requirements

1. Compliance Dates

2. Operation and Maintenance

Requirements

E. Performance Testing Requirements

1. Particulate Matter Emissions

Performance Tests

2. Visible Emissions Performance Tests

F. Inspection and Monitoring

Requirements

1. Capture System Inspections

2. Capture System Monitoring

3. Control Device Inspections and

Monitoring

G. Notification, Recordkeeping, and

Reporting Requirements

1. Notifications

2. Records

3. Reports

VI. Impacts of Proposed Rule

A. Health Impacts

B. Air Quality Impacts

C. Other Environmental and Energy

Impacts

D. Economic Impacts

VII. Rationale for Selection of Proposed

Standards

A. Selection of Pollutants

B. Selection of Affected Sources

C. Selection of Basis and Level for the

Proposed Standards

1. Background

2. Selection of Standards for Copper

Concentrate Dryers

3. Selection of Standards for Smelting

Furnaces

4. Selection of Standards for Slag Cleaning

Vessels

5. Selection of Standards for Batch Copper

Converters

6. Selection of Standards for Fugitive Dust

Sources

D. Selection of Compliance Requirements

1. Selection of Compliance Dates

2. Selection of Test Methods

3. Selection of Monitoring Requirements

E. Selection of Notification,

Recordkeeping, and Reporting

Requirements

VIII. Public Participation

IX. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

B. Public Hearing

C. ‘‘Significant Regulatory Action’’

Determination Under Executive Order

12866

D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership Under Executive Order

12875

E. Clean Air Act

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

G. Pollution Prevention Act

H. Regulatory Flexibility

I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

I. Statutory Authority

The statutory authority for this

proposal is provided by sections 101,

112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air

Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, 7412,

7414, 7416, and 7601).

II. Initial List of Categories of Major

and Area Sources

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (Act)

directs the EPA to establish national

standards to control hazardous air

pollutant (HAP) emissions from major

and area sources, as defined in the Act.

Control of HAP emissions is achieved

by promulgating for specific source

categories emission standards (under

sections 112(d) and 112(f)) or

operational and work practice standards

(under section 112(h)).

The initial list of the source categories

selected by the EPA for regulation under

section 112 of the Act was published on

July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). The EPA

published an updated list of source

categories (61 FR 28202, June 4, 1996)

to reflect source category listing

revisions that the EPA has made since

the initial list was published. ‘‘Primary

Copper Smelting’’ is one of the

approximately 170 categories of sources

listed.

The ‘‘Primary Copper Smelting’’

source category consists of facilities that

produce anode copper by first flash

smelting of copper ore concentrates to

obtain molten copper matte and then

directly convert the molten matte to

blister copper using a batch copper

converting process. Batch copper

converting is characterized by the use of

Pierce-Smith or Hoboken design copper

converters to produce blister copper

from molten copper matte in discrete

batches using a sequence of charging,

blowing, skimming, and pouring steps.

The origin of the HAP emissions from

the ‘‘Primary Copper Smelting’’ source

category is metallic compound

impurities (e.g., compounds containing

arsenic, lead, or other types of heavy

metals) that naturally occur in the

copper ore deposits. The listing of the

‘‘Primary Copper Smelting’’ source

category is based on the Administrator’s

determination that existing and new

individual facilities comprising this

source category may reasonably be

anticipated to emit these HAP in

sufficient quantity to be designated a

major source as defined under the Act.

Information subsequently collected by

the EPA as part of this rulemaking

confirms that existing and new facilities

in the ‘‘Primary Copper Smelting’’

source category do emit or have the

potential to emit at levels greater than

10 tons per year (tpy) of an individual

HAP or more than 25 tpy of total HAP

and therefore are major sources. The

primary source of these emissions are

process fugitive emissions from the

batch copper converting process. A

detailed process description for the

‘‘Primary Copper Smelting’’ source

category and the associated HAP

emissions is presented in sections III.A

and III.B to this preamble.

Since the listing of the ‘‘Primary

Copper Smelting’’ source category, a

new smelter operated by Kennecott

Copper, in Garfield, Utah, has been

constructed. This smelter employs a

new continuous flash converting

technology that is considerably different

from the conventional batch converting

process used at the smelters which form

the basis for the listing of the ‘‘Primary

Copper Smelting’’ source category. The

design and operation of the continuous

flash converting process eliminates

many of the potential air pollutant

emission sources associated with batch

copper converting. As a result, the

smelter does not emit HAP at major

source levels and is therefore an area

source.

III. Background

A. ‘‘Primary Copper Smelting’’ Source

Category Description

The ‘‘Primary Copper Smelting’’

source category is comprised of a total

of six existing facilities nationwide.

Each of these facilities produces anode

copper from copper ore concentrates

using flash smelting integrated with

batch copper converting. All of the

primary copper smelters are owned and

operated by major corporations (two

companies each own and operate two

smelters). Each smelter is located in

relatively close proximity to the copper

mines supplying the copper ore

concentrate processed at the individual

smelter. Three smelters are located in

southeastern Arizona. Two smelters are

located in southwestern New Mexico.

One smelter is located in El Paso, Texas.

Copper ore deposits typically contain

less than 1 percent copper. Once the ore

is extracted from the ground, the ore is

beneficated at the mine site to produce

a processed form of copper ore with a

higher copper content. Concentration of

the ore is accomplished by crushing,

grinding, and flotation purification to

obtain a processed ore concentrate

(referred to hereafter as ‘‘copper

concentrate’’) typically having a

concentration of 15 to 25 percent

copper, 25 to 30 percent sulfur, 25

percent iron, 10 to 15 percent water, and

small amounts of other metals. The type

and quantity of these metals in the
19584 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

copper concentrate vary depending on

the source of the ore, and can include

arsenic, antimony, bismuth, cadmium,

lead, selenium, magnesium, aluminum,

cobalt, tin, nickel, tellurium, silver, gold

and palladium. The copper concentrate

is shipped to the primary copper

smelter by trucks, rail cars, and, in some

cases, slurry pipelines.

All domestic primary copper smelters

operate flash smelting furnaces. Once

the copper concentrate is received at the

smelter, the copper concentrate must be

further processed before feeding it to the

flash smelting furnace. Each smelter

operates a combination of crushers and

mills to obtain the proper size material

for feeding to the smelting furnace. The

copper concentrate is mixed with fluxes

(materials that facilitate formation of

slag containing iron oxides and other

impurities). At most existing smelters,

the moisture content of the copper

concentrate is reduced by passing the

copper concentrate through either a

fluidized-bed dryer or rotary dryer. One

existing smelter currently is able to feed

its copper concentrate directly to the

smelting furnace without prior drying.

The prepared copper concentrate and

finely ground fluxes are injected

together with oxygen and preheated air

into the furnace which is maintained at

approximately 1,000°C (1,830°F). The

furnace uses the heat generated from the

partial oxidation of the sulfide content

in the copper concentrate to provide

most, if not all of the energy required for

the smelting process. Supplemental heat

is supplied, as needed, using oil-fired or

gas-fired burners to maintain the

required smelting temperature. The

resulting molten material collects in a

bath at the bottom of the furnace. This

molten bath separates into two layers.

The lighter density material layer is

called ‘‘slag’’ and contains iron silicates

and other impurities. The heavier

density material layer is called ‘‘copper

matte’’ and contains up to 65 percent

copper in the form of copper sulfide.

The off-gases exhausted from the

furnace contain concentrated sulfur

dioxide (SO2). These off-gases are

treated in a contact sulfuric acid plant

to remove 98 to 99 percent or more of

the SO2 in the gases before being vented

to the smelter main stack.

The molten copper matte and slag are

removed from the flash smelting furnace

through tapholes along the side of the

furnace. Separate tapholes are used to

remove the copper matte and the slag.

The molten material released through a

taphole empties into a heated trough

(called a ‘‘launder’’). The molten copper

matte flows down the launders into

large ladles for transfer to the batch

copper converters. The molten slag from

the furnace either is directly disposed

by transferring it in slag pots to an onsite slag pile or, at some smelters,

processed further before final disposal

to increase the copper yield.

At two of the existing smelters,

molten slag from the flash furnace can

be transferred to a second furnace

(referred to hereafter as a ‘‘slag cleaning

vessel’’). In the slag cleaning vessel, the

slag from the flash furnace is treated

with coke or iron sulfide. Residual

copper in the slag is converted to form

a copper sulfide layer which is tapped

and transferred to the batch copper

converters. The slag is tapped and

discarded. Off-gases from the slag

cleaning vessel contain low

concentrations of SO2 and are typically

vented to a separate wet scrubber

control device.

Converting is an oxidation process

that removes most of the sulfur, iron,

and other impurities in the copper matte

to produce blister copper (a 96 to 99

percent pure copper). Batch copper

converting is performed using large

refractory-lined cylindrical steel vessels

mounted on trunnions at either end. A

large circular opening on the vessel

body (the ‘‘converter mouth’’) provides

access for adding or removing molten

materials and also allows gaseous byproducts to escape from the converter.

A drive mechanism is used to rotate the

position of the converter mouth for

charging materials to the converter and

pouring molten materials from the

converter.

Batch copper converting produces

blister copper in an 8-to-12 hour batch

cycle using three to five converters

aligned in a row inside the converter

building. Operation of the converters is

staggered such that, at any given time,

not all of the converters are being used

for blister copper production, and those

that are ‘‘on-line’’ are operating in

different stages of the copper converting

cycle. The batch copper converting

cycle follows a sequence of steps

involving charging of molten matte to

the converter, blowing oxygen through

the molten bath, skimming off slag, and

finally pouring the blister copper at the

end of the cycle. Material is added to or

removed from each converter using

large ladles which are positioned and

transported using a traveling overhead

crane. Off-gases from each converter are

vented during blowing to a common

ventilation system for routing to the

sulfuric acid plant.

A converter batch cycle begins by

charging an empty converter with

molten matte tapped from the flash

smelting furnace. Air or oxygenenriched air is then blown into the

molten matte through a series of pipes

(called ‘‘tuyeres’’) on the side of the

converter. The iron sulfide in the matte

is preferentially oxidized to form iron

oxides and SO2. The SO2 is exhausted

from the converter in the off-gases

vented to the sulfuric acid plant

operated at the smelter site. Flux is

added to combine with the iron oxide

and forms a top layer of iron silicate slag

on the molten bath in the converter. The

resulting slag layer is removed from the

molten bath by discontinuing blowing

and then rotating the converter mouth

down to skim off the slag. The blowing

and slag skimming steps are repeated

until an adequate amount of relatively

pure copper sulfide (called ‘‘white

metal’’) accumulates in the converter. A

final blow oxidizes the copper sulfide to

SO2, and blister copper forms. At this

time, the blister copper is poured from

the converter for transfer to the copper

refining operations. The converter is

then available to begin a new batch

cycle.

Two different batch copper converter

designs are used in the United States.

Five smelters use the Pierce-Smith

converter design. An alternative to the

Pierce-Smith converter is the Hoboken

converter design, which is used by one

domestic smelter. The design and

operation of these two types of batch

copper converters is similar with the

exception of the means by which offgases vented from the converter are

captured for venting to the sulfuric acid

plant.

The Pierce-Smith converter design

uses a large external hood to cover the

converter mouth when the converter is

rotated into position for the blowing.

The hood for each converter in the

converter aisle is connected to a

common ventilation system that

exhausts the captured off-gases to the

sulfuric acid plant.

In contrast, the Hoboken converter

design does not use an external hood for

capture of the off-gases during blowing.

The Hoboken converter is fitted with a

‘‘U’’-shaped side flue located at one end

of the converter. The side flue allows

siphoning of the converter off-gases

directly from the interior of the

converter for venting to the sulfuric acid

plant. Off-gases are prevented from

escaping through the uncovered

Hoboken converter mouth during

blowing by operating the ventilation

system draft at a level such that a slight

negative pressure is maintained at the

converter mouth.

At the end of the batch converting

cycle, the blister copper is poured from

the converter for further processing by

fire refining to produce anode copper.

Fire refining of blister copper is

conducted in a cylindrical vessel similar
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19585

to a batch copper converter. Flux is

added and air is blown through the

molten blister copper mixture to oxidize

the copper and any remaining

impurities. The impurities are removed

as slag. The remaining copper oxide is

then subject to a reducing atmosphere to

form a very high purity copper. The firerefined copper is then cast into anodes

for further electrolytic refining.

The anode copper is processed by an

electrolytic process to obtain

commercial grade copper for sale as a

product. Electrolytic refining separates

copper from the remaining impurities

by electrolysis in a solution containing

copper sulfate and sulfuric acid. The

copper anode is dissolved and the

elemental copper is re-deposited at the

cathode. As the copper anode dissolves,

residual metallic impurities in the

anode copper precipitate in the acid

solution and form a sludge. The

resulting cathode copper is now more

than 99.9 percent pure and is cast into

bars, ingots, or slabs for sale.

B. HAP Emissions

Under section 112(b) of the Act,

Congress listed specific chemicals,

compounds, or groups of chemicals that

are HAP’s subject to control under a

NESHAP. Metals beside copper

naturally occur in copper ore deposits.

These metallic ‘‘impurities’’ include

metals that are listed as HAP. Lead and

arsenic are found in the largest

quantities in copper ore mined and

smelted in the United States. Lesser

quantities of antimony, beryllium,

cadmium, chromium, cobalt,

manganese, nickel, and selenium also

are frequently present in U.S. copper

ore. These metallic impurities in the

copper ore can be released into the

atmosphere in the form of particulate

matter (PM) during certain smelting

operations, and are the source of the

HAP emissions from primary copper

smelters. The composition and quantity

of the potential HAP emissions from a

given smelter is directly related to the

level of metal impurities in the copper

concentrate processed at the smelter.

The organic chemicals and acid gases

that are listed as HAP have no or

minimal potential to be emitted to the

atmosphere from domestic primary

copper smelters.

On an industry-wide basis, the

composition of the HAP emissions from

primary copper smelters is

approximately 50 percent lead

compounds, 25 percent arsenic

compounds, and lesser amounts of the

other metals. The composition and

quantity of the potential HAP emissions

from a given smelter is directly related

to the level of metal impurities in the

copper concentrate processed at the

smelter. The sources of HAP emitted

from smelters using flash smelting

furnaces integrated with batch copper

converters can be characterized as: (1)

process HAP emissions; (2) process

fugitive HAP emissions; and (3) fugitive

dust emissions. Electrolytic refining of

anode copper does not produce any

metallic HAP emissions.

1. Process HAP Emissions

Process HAP emissions are the HAP

contained in the primary exhaust gas

stream (i.e., off-gases) discharged from a

process vessel. At primary copper

smelters, the potential sources of

process HAP emissions are the exhaust

gas streams from copper concentrate

drying, copper smelting, and copper

converting operations. Process HAP

emissions from the copper concentrate

dryer are generated by the entrainment

of particulate matter containing HAP in

the exhaust gas stream from the dryer.

A second source of process HAP

emissions is the metal compound

vapors in the off-gases exhausted from

the flash smelting furnace. At those

smelters operating slag cleaning vessels,

process HAP emissions are released in

the off-gases exhausted from the slag

cleaning vessel. Process HAP emissions

from the batch copper converters result

when off-gases exhausted during

blowing are not captured and

controlled.

2. Process Fugitive HAP Emissions

Process fugitive emissions are those

emissions associated with a particular

process that are released directly from

the process but are not emitted through

a flue or duct in the process exhaust gas

stream. At primary copper smelters, the

potential sources of process fugitive

HAP emissions primarily are associated

with the flash smelting and batch

copper converting operations. Hot

fumes and gases containing metallic

HAP are intermittently released when

molten copper matte and slag are tapped

from the flash smelting furnace or a slag

cleaning vessel. Process fugitive HAP

emissions from batch copper converters

result when the off-gases generated

during blowing escape capture. In the

case of the Pierce-Smith converter

design, this can be due to leakage

around the primary hood. Improper

ventilation system operation will allow

off-gases to escape from the open

converter mouth in the case of the

Hoboken converter design. Also, process

fugitive HAP emissions from either

copper converter design can result

during those times that the converter

contains molten material and is rolled

out from the blowing position. If not

captured, process fugitive HAP

emissions will be released to the

atmosphere from openings in the

converter building such as roof monitor

vents or exhaust fans.

3. Fugitive Dust Emissions

Fugitive dust HAP emissions at

primary copper smelters can be

generated when dust from copper

concentrate or other materials

containing metallic HAP is released into

the outdoor air. The entrainment of dust

containing metallic HAP into the

outdoor air may be caused by natural

events (e.g., wind erosion of feed storage

piles) or by operations conducted by the

facility personnel. Potential fugitive

dust emission sources at primary copper

smelters include: (1) Dust entrained

when transporting on unpaved roads at

the smelter site, bulk copperconcentrate and other materials

containing HAP in dump trucks, frontend loaders, and other vehicles; (2) dust

generated when unloading copper ore

concentrates from trucks or railcars; (3)

wind erosion of outdoor material storage

piles; (4) dust entrained when blending

copper concentrate with other feed

constituents in the bedding area; and (5)

transferring copper ore concentrate or

other HAP-containing materials to or

from conveyor systems.

4. Existing Air Emission Controls

Air emission controls presently are

used at all of the existing primary

copper smelters in the United States to

comply with Federal and State

regulations limiting emissions of SO2

and total particulate matter (PM). At

each of these copper smelters, exhaust

gases from the copper concentrate dryer

are vented to either a baghouse or

electrostatic precipitator (ESP) for

control of PM emissions. Emissions of

SO2 are controlled by venting the

process off-gases from flash smelting

furnaces and batch copper converters to

a contact sulfuric acid production

process. At those smelters operating slag

cleaning vessels, SO2 emissions are

controlled by venting the process offgases to wet scrubbers. In addition to

these air emission controls, each smelter

operates different combinations of other

types of controls for certain process

fugitive sources and fugitive dust

sources to comply with requirements

imposed by the individual State

standards and air permit conditions

applicable to the smelter.

C. Relationship to Other Rules

The EPA has promulgated national

emission standards applicable to

primary copper smelters under two

previous Clean Air Act rulemakings.
19586 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

The first rule is the new source

performance standards (NSPS) for

primary copper smelters (40 CFR part

60, subpart P). This NSPS establishes a

PM emission limit for new copper

concentrate dryers and an SO2 emission

limit for new smelting furnaces and new

copper converters. The NSPS does not

specifically address HAP emissions

from primary copper smelters.

The second rule applicable to primary

copper smelters is the national emission

standards for inorganic arsenic

emissions from primary copper smelters

(40 CFR part 61 subpart O). This rule

establishes air emission control

requirements for primary copper

smelters at which the total annual

average arsenic charging rate to the

copper converters at the smelter is equal

to or greater than 75 kilograms per hour

(kg/hr). This rule was promulgated in

1986 before the changes to the NESHAP

regulatory program required by the 1990

Amendments. Also, since the rule’s

promulgation date, the primary copper

smelter industry has changed

significantly with the industry-wide

conversion to flash smelting

technologies and a number of smelter

closings. None of the primary copper

smelters presently operating in the

United States processes copper ore

concentrates with arsenic content levels

that require smelter owners and

operators to meet the air emission

control standards under subpart O (i.e.,

the annual average total arsenic

charging rate for the copper converter

department at each smelter is less than

75 kg/hr).

IV. NESHAP Decision Process

A. Source of Authority for NESHAP

Development

The amended section 112 of the Act

replaces the EPA’s previous NESHAP

development system of pollutant-bypollutant health-based regulations that

proved ineffective at controlling the

high volumes and concentrations of

HAP in air emissions. The 1990

Amendments readdress this deficiency

by requiring the EPA to develop

NESHAP by first establishing control

technology-based standards for those

sources emitting HAP, and that these

control technology-based standards may

later be reduced further to address

residual risk that may remain even after

implementing the technology-based

controls.

B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP

The statutory directives set out in

section 112 of the Act require NESHAP

to be established for control of HAP

emissions from both new and existing

sources. The statute requires that the

standards reflect the maximum degree

of reduction of HAP emissions that is

achievable taking into consideration the

cost of achieving the emission

reduction, any nonair quality health and

environmental impacts, and energy

requirements.

Emission reductions may be

accomplished through application of

measures, processes, methods, systems,

or techniques, including, but not limited

to: (1) reducing the volume of, or

eliminating emissions of, such

pollutants through process changes,

substitution of materials, or other

modifications, (2) enclosing systems or

processes to eliminate emissions, (3)

collecting, capturing, or treating such

pollutants when released from a

process, stack, storage, or fugitive

emissions point, (4) design, equipment,

work practice, or operational standards

(including requirements for operator

training or certification) as provided in

section 112(h), or (5) a combination of

the above. [See section 112(d)(2).]

To develop a NESHAP, the EPA

collects information about the source

category, including information on the

emission source characteristics, control

technologies, data from HAP emissions

tests at well-controlled facilities, and

information on the costs and other

energy and environmental impacts of

emission control techniques. The EPA

uses this information to analyze

possible regulatory approaches.

Although NESHAP are normally

formatted in terms of numerical

emission limits, alternative approaches

are sometimes necessary. In some cases,

for example, physically measuring

emissions from a source may be

impossible, or at least impractical,

because of technological and economic

limitations. Section 112(h) authorizes

the Administrator to promulgate a

design, equipment, work practice, or

operational standard, or a combination

thereof, in those cases when it is not

feasible to prescribe or enforce an

emissions standard.

If sources in a given source category

are major sources of HAP emissions,

then section 112 requires the EPA to

establish national emission standards

for these sources based on application of

maximum achievable control

technology (MACT). The regulation of

the area sources in a source category, if

any, is at the discretion of the EPA. If

there is a finding by the EPA of a threat

of adverse effects on human health or

the environment from the area sources,

then the source category can be added

to the list of area sources to be

regulated.

C. Determining the MACT Floor

After the EPA has identified the

specific source categories or

subcategories of major sources to

regulate under section 112, it must set

MACT standards for each category or

subcategory. Section 112 limits the

EPA’s discretion by establishing a

minimum baseline or ‘‘MACT floor’’ for

these standards. For new sources, the

standards for a source category or

subcategory cannot be less stringent

than the emission control that is

achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source, as determined

by the Administrator. [See section

112(d)(3).]

The MACT standards for existing

sources can be less stringent than MACT

standards for new sources, but they

cannot be less stringent than the average

emission limitation achieved by the

best-performing 12 percent of existing

sources (excluding certain sources) for

categories and subcategories with 30 or

more sources, or the best-performing 5

sources for categories or subcategories

with fewer than 30 sources. [See section

112(d)(3).]

After the MACT floor has been

determined for a new or existing source

in a source category or subcategory, the

Administrator must set standards that

are no less stringent than the MACT

floor. Such standards must then be met

by all major sources within the category

or subcategory.

Section 112(d)(2) specifies that the

EPA shall establish MACT standards

that require the maximum degree of

reduction in emissions of hazardous air

pollutants

* * * that the Administrator, taking into

consideration the cost of achieving such

emission reduction, and any non-air quality

health and environmental impacts and

energy requirements, determines is

achievable* * *

In establishing MACT standards, the

Administrator may distinguish among

classes, types, and sizes of sources

within a category or subcategory. [See

section 112(d)(1).] For example, the

Administrator could establish two

classes of sources within a category or

subcategory based on size and establish

a different emission standard for each

class, provided both standards are at

least as stringent as the MACT floor for

that class of sources.

The next step in establishing MACT

standards is the investigation of

regulatory alternatives. With MACT

standards, only alternatives at least as

stringent as the MACT floor may be

selected. Information about the source

category is analyzed to evaluate national

impacts, including HAP emission
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19587

reduction levels, costs, energy, and

secondary impacts. Several regulatory

alternative levels (which may be

different levels of emissions control or

different levels of applicability or both)

are then evaluated to select the

regulatory alternative that best reflects

the appropriate MACT level.

The selected alternative may be more

stringent than the MACT floor, but the

control level selected must be

technically achievable. In selecting a

regulatory alternative that represents

MACT, the EPA considers the

achievable emission reductions of HAP

(and possibly other pollutants that are

co-controlled), cost, and economic

impacts, energy impacts, and other

environmental impacts. The objective is

to achieve the maximum degree of

emissions reduction without

unreasonable economic or other

impacts. [See section 112(d)(2).] The

regulatory alternatives selected for new

and existing sources may be different

because of different MACT floors, and

separate regulatory decisions may be

made for new and existing sources.

The selected regulatory alternative is

then translated into a proposed rule.

The rule implementing the MACT

decision typically includes sections on

applicability, standards, test methods

and compliance demonstration,

monitoring, reporting, and

recordkeeping. The preamble to the

proposed rule provides an explanation

of the rationale for the decision. The

public is invited to comment on the

proposed rule during the public

comment period. Based on an

evaluation of these comments, the EPA

reaches a final decision and

promulgates the final rule.

V. Summary of the Proposed Standards

A. Applicability

The proposed NESHAP applies to

owners and operators of copper smelters

for which both of the following

applicability conditions apply: (1) the

facility produces anode copper by first

flash smelting of copper ore

concentrates to obtain molten copper

matte and then converting the molten

matte to blister copper using batch

copper converters, and (2) the facility is

a major source of HAP as defined in 40

CFR 63.2. If either one of these two

conditions do not apply to a given

smelter, then the owner and operator of

the smelter would not be subject to the

proposed NESHAP.

The first applicability condition

requires that the copper smelter

produces blister copper using batch

copper converters. For the purpose of

implementing the rule, a ‘‘batch copper

converter’’ would be defined as one of

the following copper converter designs:

a Pierce-Smith converter; a Hoboken

converter; or a similar design copper

converter that produces blister copper

in discrete batches using a sequence of

charging, blowing, skimming, and

pouring steps. A batch copper converter

does not use continuous flash

converting technology. Thus, the owner

and operator of a copper smelter that

uses continuous flash copper converters

would not be not subject to the

proposed NESHAP (the rationale for this

decision is presented in Section II of

this preamble).

The second applicability condition

requires that the copper smelter be a

major source of HAP emissions, as

defined in 40 CFR 63.2. This means the

copper smelter emits or has the

potential to emit, considering

application of air emission controls, 10

tpy or more of any single HAP

compound or 25 tpy or more of any

combination of HAP compounds. The

proposed NESHAP would not apply to

a copper smelter that is not a major

source as defined by the EPA.

B. Sources To Be Regulated

The proposed NESHAP establishes air

emission control requirements for

specific HAP emission sources

operating at a primary copper smelter

subject to the rule. The HAP emission

sources that would be affected by this

rule are: (1) The copper concentrate

dryer, (2) the flash smelting furnace, (3)

the slag cleaning vessel, if used at a

smelter, (4) the batch copper converters,

and (5) the fugitive dust sources

associated with the handling and

storage of copper concentrate and other

materials containing metallic HAP.

For the purpose of implementing the

rule with respect to batch copper

converters, the affected source would be

the entire copper converter department.

This area would be defined in the rule

to be all of the batch copper converters

and the associated capture systems used

to collect gases and fumes emitted

during copper converter operations (e.g.,

primary hood ventilation system,

secondary hood ventilation system if

used).

C. Emission Limits and Requirements

1. Copper Concentrate Dryers

The proposed standards establish

emission limits for particulate matter

contained in the exhaust gases

discharged from each affected copper

concentrate dryer. Separate emission

standards would be established for

existing sources and new sources. The

standard would limit the concentration

of particulate matter discharged from

existing copper concentrate dryers to no

more than 50 milligrams per dry

standard cubic meter (mg/dscm)

(approximately 0.022 grains per dry

standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)). New

copper concentrate dryers would be

limited to no more than 23 mg/dscm

(approximately 0.01 gr/dscf) of

particulate matter. The rule would allow

an owner or operator to use any type of

particulate control device (i.e.,

baghouse, electrostatic precipitator, or

wet scrubber) that meets the applicable

PM emission limit.

2. Smelting Furnaces

The proposed standards for smelting

furnaces are the same for both existing

sources and new sources. The proposed

rule requires the SO2 rich off-gases from

the smelting furnace to be vented to a

by-product sulfuric acid plant or other

type of sulfur recovery process unit that

requires comparable levels of gas stream

conditioning and pre-cleaning to

remove particulate matter. The rationale

for proposing an equipment standard for

this source is described in section

VII.C.3 of this document. In addition,

the proposed rule requires that the hot

metal vapors and fumes released when

tapping molten matte or slag from the

smelting furnace be captured using good

ventilation practices (e.g., use of local

ventilation hoods over the tapping port

and launder) and vented to a control

device. Particulate matter emissions

from the control device would be

limited to no more than 16 mg/dscm

(approximately 0.007 gr/dscf).

3. Slag Cleaning Vessels

The proposed NESHAP establishes

standards for those primary copper

smelters that operate slag cleaning

vessels as part of the copper smelting

process. The requirements of proposed

standards would be the same for

existing sources and new sources.

Particulate matter emissions contained

in the off-gases exhausted from a slag

cleaning vessel would be limited to no

more than 46 mg/dscm (approximately

0.02 gr/dscf). As an alternative to

complying with this standard, the rule

would allow an owner or operator to

exhaust the off-gases from the slag

cleaning vessel directly to the byproduct sulfuric acid plant (or other

type of sulfur recovery process unit)

used to control the off-gases from the

smelting furnace.

Like the standards for smelting

furnaces, the proposed rule also requires

that the hot metal fume emissions

released when tapping molten matte or

slag from the slag cleaning vessel be

captured using good ventilation
19588 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

practices and vented to a suitable

control device. Consistent with the

standards for smelting furnaces, PM

emissions from this control device

would be limited to no more than 16

mg/dscm (approximately 0.007 gr/dscf).

4. Batch Copper Converters

The proposed NESHAP establishes

emission standards for particulate

matter and visible emissions from the

batch copper converters at primary

copper smelters subject to the rule.

Separate standards would be established

for existing sources and new sources.

For existing sources, the proposed

NESHAP establishes standards requiring

that particulate matter emitted from the

copper converters during blowing be

captured and vented to a suitable

control device. Different standards for

existing sources would be established

based on the type of copper converter

designs used at the primary copper

smelters (i.e., Pierce-Smith converters or

Hoboken converters). For new sources,

the proposed NESHAP establishes

standards requires that particulate

matter emitted from the copper

converters during all operating modes

be captured and vented to a suitable

control device. The same standards for

new sources would apply regardless of

the design of the copper converters used

at a smelter.

Existing Pierce-Smith Converters. The

proposed standards for existing PierceSmith converters require that SO2 rich

off-gases generated during blowing be

captured by a primary hood ventilation

system and vented directly to the byproduct sulfuric acid plant (or other

type of sulfur recovery process unit)

used to control the SO2 rich gases

exhausted from the smelting furnace.

Additional capture devices (e.g.,

secondary hoods) vented to a control

device would be required to collect PM

emissions that escape capture by the

primary hood as needed to achieve the

visible emission limit established for the

copper converter department.

Particulate matter emissions from the

control device would be limited to no

more than 16 mg/dscm (approximately

0.007 gr/dscf).

The proposed rule requires that the

primary hood and any supplemental

capture system used to comply with the

requirements of the rule be operated

with sufficient ventilation draft such

that the visible emissions exiting the

roof monitors or roof exhaust fans on

the building housing the copper

converter department do not exhibit an

average opacity greater than 3 percent as

determined using the test protocol

specified in the rule. (This test protocol

is described later in this section under

‘‘Performance Testing Requirements’’).

The owner or operator would be

required to subsequently operate the

capture system such that the system

maintains the operating settings

established at the time the owner or

operator initially demonstrates

compliance with this visible emission

limit. Failure to do so would be a

violation of the standard. The visible

emission limit would apply only at

those times when a performance test is

conducted while establishing the

capture system operating settings.

Existing Hoboken Converters. The

proposed standards for existing

Hoboken converters require that the

SO2-rich off-gases be evacuated directly

from the interior of the copper converter

(through the converter’s side flue intake)

to the by-product sulfuric acid plant (or

other type of sulfur recovery process

unit) used to control the SO2-rich gases

exhausted from the smelting furnace. In

addition, the proposed rule requires that

the side flue intake of each Hoboken

copper converter be operated with

sufficient ventilation draft during

blowing such that the visible emissions

exiting the roof monitors on the

building housing the copper converter

department do not exhibit an average

opacity greater than 4 percent.

Compliance with this visible emission

limit would be demonstrated by

following the same requirements and

procedures described above for existing

Pierce-Smith converters.

New Copper Converters. During the

periods when a copper converter is

positioned for blowing, the proposed

standards for new sources require that

the SO2-rich off-gases generated during

blowing be captured and vented directly

to the by-product sulfuric acid plant (or

other type of sulfur recovery process

unit) used to control the SO2-rich gases

exhausted from the smelting furnace. In

addition, the proposed rule requires that

the capture system be designed and

operated with sufficient ventilation

draft whenever molten material is in the

copper converter such that no visible

emissions exit the building housing the

copper converter department. The rule

would require these captured gas

streams to be vented to a suitable

control device. Particulate matter

emissions from the control device

would be limited to no more than 16

mg/dscm (approximately 0.007 gr/dscf).

The proposed visible emission limit

would provide flexibility by allowing

the owner or operator to choose the

capture system design to be used at a

given smelter. The capture system

design could use multiple intake and

duct segments through which the

ventilation rates are controlled

independently of each other and

individual duct segments could be

connected to separate control devices

(e.g., use of individual secondary air

curtain hoods on each copper converter

in combination with a building

evacuation system). The occurrence of

visible emissions from the building

housing the copper converter

department would be determined using

Method 22 in appendix A of 40 CFR

part 60.

5. Fugitive Dust Sources

Under the proposed NESHAP, the

owner or operator of a primary copper

smelter subject to the rule is required to

control fugitive dust emissions

according to a site-specific plan. This

written plan would be prepared by the

owner or operator and would describe

the specific control measures that are

used to limit fugitive dust emissions

from the individual sources at the

smelter site. The duty of the owner or

operator to operate the smelter

according to the fugitive dust control

plan would be incorporated into the

operating permit for the smelter site that

is issued by the designated permitting

authority under 40 CFR part 70 (the

actual fugitive dust control plan for a

given smelter would not be part of the

permit).

The proposed rule defines a fugitive

dust source as a source of PM emissions

resulting from the handling, storage,

transfer, or other management of solid

copper-bearing materials defined in the

rule where the source is not associated

with a specific process, process vent, or

stack. Fugitive dust emissions can be

generated by a variety of different

operations conducted at a primary

smelter, such as dump truck traffic on

smelter roadways; unloading of copper

concentrates from dump trucks or

railcars; wind erosion of outdoor piles

used to store copper concentrate;

blending of copper concentrate and

other feed constituents in the bedding

area; and uncovered conveyor systems

used to transfer copper concentrate.

Examples of control measures that could

be included in the written fugitive dust

control plan include, but are not limited

to: erecting a building or other enclosure

over the copper concentrate bedding

area; covering conveyor systems and

using local ventilation hoods vented to

a control device at the conveyor transfer

points; placing copper concentrate

stockpiles below grade or installing

wind screens or wind fences around the

stockpiles; and spraying water or

applying appropriate dust suppression

agents on smelter roadways or outdoor

storage piles.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19589

6. Equivalent Standard for Combined

Exhaust Gas Streams

At some existing primary copper

smelters, exhaust gas streams from

several sources are combined before

being discharged to a single control

device. The proposed rule addresses

this situation by including an equation

with which the owner or operator

calculates the allowable PM emission

limit for the combined exhaust gas

stream based on the individual PM

emission limits specified in the rule and

the volumetric flow rates for the affected

source gas streams composing the

combined exhaust gas stream. This

equivalent PM emission limit could be

applied to a combined gas stream that

contains any combination of the gas

streams from the following affected

sources: (1) exhaust gas stream from a

copper concentrate dryer; (2) exhaust

gas stream from a smelting vessel

tapping port capture system; (3) exhaust

gas stream from a slag cleaning vessel

tapping port capture system; and (4)

exhaust gas stream from a Pierce-Smith

copper converter capture system other

than the primary hood capture system

(e.g., secondary hood, building

evacuation system).

D. Compliance and Maintenance

Requirements

1. Compliance Dates

Compliance with the air emission

control standards under the NESHAP

would be required within 2 years from

the date of promulgation for existing

sources and at startup for new or

reconstructed sources. An ‘‘existing

source’’ is a source that commenced

construction or reconstruction before

today’s date. Sources that commence

construction or reconstruction on or

after today’s date would be considered

to be a ‘‘new source.’’

2. Operation and Maintenance

Requirements

At all times, including periods of

startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the

owner or operator would be required to

operate and maintain each affected

source, including associated air

pollution control equipment, according

to the requirements in section 63.6 in

the NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR

part 63, subpart A). As part of the

written startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan required by section

63.6(e)(3), the owner or operator would

be required to include a description of

the corrective action procedures to be

implemented to restore a

malfunctioning capture system or

control device to proper operation.

E. Performance Testing Requirements

1. Particulate Matter Emission

Performance Tests

Compliance with each of the PM

emission limits in the proposed rule

would be determined by performance

tests that the owner or operator

performs according to the NESHAP

general provisions in § 63.7 under 40

CFR part 63, subpart A, and using

specific EPA reference test methods. For

each performance test, the sampling

locations would be determined using

EPA Method 1; the stack gas velocity

and volumetric flow rate would be

determined using EPA Method 2; and

the gas analysis would be performed

using EPA Methods 3 and 4. Each of

these methods is included in appendix

A to 40 CFR part 60. Measuring PM

emissions would be performed using

EPA Method 5, ‘‘Determination of

Particulate Matter Emissions from

Stationary Sources’’, in 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A (Method 5D would be

required for positive pressure

baghouses). The average of three test

runs (each run having a minimum

sampling time of 60 minutes and

minimum sampling volume of 0.85

dscm) would be used to determine

compliance with the applicable PM

emission limit specified in the rule.

During the performance test, the owner

or operator also would establish limits

for appropriate control device operating

parameters based on the actual values

measured during this test.

2. Visible Emission Performance Tests

Existing Copper Converters.

Compliance of existing Pierce-Smith or

Hoboken copper converters with the

applicable visible emission limit would

be demonstrated using a specific test

protocol that is being proposed in the

rule. The proposed protocol is based on

performing a series of opacity readings

during specific copper converter

operations using Method 9, ‘‘Visual

Determination of the Opacity of

Emissions from Stationary Sources,’’ in

40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The

opacity observations would be made by

a team of two qualified visible emission

observers during the period when the

primary copper smelter is operating

under conditions representative of the

smelter’s normal blister copper

production rate.

The total time of the observation

period would be of sufficient duration

to obtain a minimum of 20

uninterrupted 6-minute intervals during

which opacity readings made using

Method 9 (i.e., 24 readings, each reading

made at a 15-second interval) are

recorded for those conditions when at

least one copper converter is operating

in the blowing mode with no visible

emission interferences from other

smelter operations occur as specified in

the rule. The total observation period

may be divided into two or more

segments performed on different days if

a change in the outdoor conditions or

copper production conditions prevents

the required number of opacity readings

from being obtained during one

continuous period.

Throughout the opacity observation

period, an additional person familiar

with the primary copper smelter

operation is stationed inside the

building housing the copper converters

to visually monitor the copper converter

operations. These indoor process

monitors maintain a log recording the

process information. During the

observation period, the owner or

operator also would establish minimum

or maximum limiting values, as

appropriate, for selected capture system

operating parameters based on the

actual values measured during the test.

Upon completion of the opacity

observations, the data recorded by the

outdoor opacity observers and the

indoor process monitors are

summarized in a tabular format that is

specified in the rule. Next, 6-minute

average opacity values are calculated for

all periods listed in the data summary

table composed of six consecutive

minutes of blowing with no

interferences. A minimum of twenty 6-

minute periods are required for the

compliance calculation (if more than

twenty 6-minute periods are included in

the data summary table, then all of the

6-minute periods included in the table

would be used for the compliance

calculation). These twenty 6-minute

periods (or more if applicable) are

averaged to obtain a single opacity value

to determine compliance with the

visible emission limit applicable to a

given smelter. Refer to the proposed rule

text for more information regarding the

test conditions, test notification

requirements, procedure for conducting

the opacity observations and gathering

the converter process information, and

the methods to be used for data

reduction and calculation of the average

opacity value.

New Copper Converters. Compliance

of new copper converters with the no

visible emission limit specified in the

proposed rule would be demonstrated

using Method 22, ‘‘Visual Determination

of Fugitive Emissions from Material

Sources and Smoke Emissions from

Flares,’’ in appendix A of 40 CFR part

60. Method 22 requires only a

determination as to whether a visible

emission occurs and does not require
19590 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

that the opacity of the emissions be

determined. A minimum observation

period of no less than 2 hours during

normal copper production operations is

proposed for the performance test.

F. Inspection and Monitoring

Requirements

1. Capture System Inspections

Regular visual inspections of all

capture systems used to comply with

the standards would be required under

the proposed NESHAP. The owner or

operator would be required to conduct

at least once per month a visual

inspection of each capture system

operated to meet standards under the

rule. These inspections would involve

visually inspecting all of the capture

system components to check for any

defects or damage that could diminish

or impair capture system performance.

Examples of these defects or damage

include, but are not limited to: openings

through which gas can escape as

indicated by the presence of cracks,

holes, or gaps in hoods or ductwork;

flow constrictions caused by dents or

accumulated dust in ductwork; and

reduced fan performance as indicated

by fan blade erosion. If a defect is

detected, then the owner or operator

would be required to replace or repair

the defective or damaged components

consistent with the measures for

corrective action detailed in the facility

startup, shutdown and malfunction

plan. Completion of the repair would be

required as soon as practical but no later

than 30 calendar days after the date the

defect is detected. Delay of repair

beyond 30 calendar days of detecting

the capture system defect would be

allowed under special circumstances as

specified in the rule.

2. Capture System Monitoring

Monitoring of appropriate operating

parameters would be required for the

copper converter capture system

operated to comply with the converter

building visible emission limit. No

monitoring requirements for other

capture systems operated at the smelter

(e.g., smelting furnace tapping port and

launder capture systems, slag cleaning

vessel tapping port and launder capture

systems) would be specified under the

proposed rule.

The rule would not specify the

individual operating parameters to be

monitored by the owner or operator for

the copper converter capture system.

Instead, each owner or operator would

be required to select a set of operating

parameters appropriate for the capture

system design used at the smelter that

the owner or operator determines to be

a representative and reliable indicator of

the range within which the equipment

can operate and achieve the visible

emission limit. During the initial

performance test to demonstrate

compliance of the copper converter

capture system with the applicable

visible emission limit, the owner or

operator would establish minimum

operating parameter limits (or a

maximum operating parameter limit if

appropriate) for selected capture system

operating parameters. The rule would

require that the owner or operator

install, calibrate, operate, and maintain

monitoring devices equipped with a

recorder to measure and record at 15-

minute or more frequent intervals the

actual value for each operating

parameter for which operating limits are

established. In cases when the

monitoring regimen includes periodic

checking by facility workers of the

capture system fan motor amperages

and damper positions, checks are to be

made at least once-per-shift.

The owner or operator would be

required to regularly inspect the data

recorded by the monitoring system at a

sufficient frequency to ensure the

capture system continues to operate

properly. If the recorded actual value of

a selected operating parameter is less

than the minimum operating parameter

limit (or, if applicable, greater than the

maximum operating parameter limit)

established for the parameter, then an

excursion would be determined to have

occurred. The proposed rule requires

that within 1 hour of detecting the

excursion, the owner or operator initiate

the corrective action procedures

identified in the startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan as necessary to restore

the operation of the capture system to

the proper operating settings. Failure to

take the necessary corrective actions to

correct the operating problem would be

a violation of the standard. Also, for a

given operating parameter, if excursions

occur six times in any semi-annual

reporting period, then any subsequent

excursion of that operating parameter

during the reporting period would be a

violation of the standard. For the

purpose of determining the number of

excursions in a semi-annual reporting

period, only one excursion would be

counted in any given 24-hour period.

3. Control Device Inspection and

Monitoring

Baghouses. For each baghouse used to

comply with the PM emission limits,

the owner or operator would be required

to operate the baghouse according to a

written standard operating procedures

(SOP) manual. This SOP manual would

be prepared by the owner or operator,

and the manual would describe in detail

the inspection, maintenance, bag leak

detection, and corrective action

procedures to be implemented by the

owner or operator for the baghouse.

Specific inspection, maintenance, and

monitoring requirements to be included

by the owner or operator in the SOP

manual are specified in the proposed

rule. The proposed rule also requires the

use of a bag leak detector system

equipped with an audible alarm. Failure

by the owner or operator to operate and

maintain the baghouse according to the

requirements specified in the SOP

manual would be a violation of the

standard. The inspection and

monitoring requirements would not

apply to a baghouse that is included in

the smelter’s fugitive dust control plan

and exclusively operated to control

fugitive dust emissions.

Venturi Wet Scrubbers. If an owner or

operator elects to use a venturi wet

scrubber to comply with a PM emission

limit, the proposed rule requires that the

owner or operator monitor the scrubber

pressure drop and water flow rate.

During the initial performance test to

demonstrate compliance with the

applicable standard, the owner or

operator would establish minimum

operating values for each of these

parameters based on the actual values

measured during this test. The rule

would require that the owner or

operator install, calibrate, operate, and

maintain monitoring devices equipped

with a recorder to measure and record

at 15-minute or more frequent intervals

the actual value for each operating

parameter. An excursion would be

determined to have occurred when the

recorded actual value of the scrubber

pressure drop or water flow rate is less

than the minimum operating limit

established for the parameter during the

compliance test. Any excursion would

be a violation of the standard.

Other Control Devices. If an owner or

operator elects to use a control device

other than a baghouse or venturi wet

scrubber to comply with a PM emission

limit (e.g., an ESP), the proposed rule

requires that the owner or operator

monitor appropriate operating

parameters for the control device. The

rule would not specify the individual

operating parameters to be monitored.

Instead, each owner or operator would

be required to select a set of operating

parameters appropriate for the control

device design that the owner or operator

determines to be a representative and

reliable indicator of the control device

performance. During the initial

performance test to demonstrate

compliance with the applicable

standard, the owner or operator would
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19591

establish limiting values for selected

operating parameters based on the

actual values measured during this test.

The rule would require that the owner

or operator install, calibrate, operate,

and maintain monitoring devices

equipped with a recorder to measure

and record at 15-minute or more

frequent intervals the actual value for

each operating parameter for which

operating limits are established. The

owner or operator would be required to

regularly inspect the data recorded by

the monitoring system at a sufficient

frequency to ensure the control device

is operating properly. An excursion

occurs when the recorded actual value

of a selected operating parameter is less

than the minimum operating parameter

limit (or, if applicable, greater than the

maximum operating parameter limit)

established for the parameter. When an

excursion occurs, the owner or operator

would be required to initiate the

corrective action procedures identified

in the startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan as necessary to restore

the operation of the control device to

the proper operating settings. Failure by

the owner or operator to take the

necessary corrective actions would be a

violation of the standard.

G. Notification, Recordkeeping, and

Reporting Requirements

The proposed rule requires the owner

or operator to comply with the

notification, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements in the general

provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR part

63 with one exception. The notification,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements in the general provisions

related directly to the visible emission

limit compliance provisions specified in

40 CFR 63.6(h) would not apply to this

rule.

1. Notifications

The owner or operator would be

required to submit notifications

described in the general provisions (40

CFR part 63, subpart A), which include

initial notification of applicability,

notifications of performance tests, and

notification of compliance status.

2. Records

The owner or operator would be

required to maintain records required by

the general provisions and records

needed to document compliance with

the standard. For each control device

used to comply with the rule, records

would include copies of inspection

records and a copy of the written

maintenance plan.

The owner or operator would be

required to retain all records for at least

5 years following the date of each

occurrence, measurement, maintenance,

corrective action, report, or record. The

records for the most recent 2 years must

be retained on site; records for the

remaining 3 years may be retained off

site but must still be readily available

for review. The files could be retained

on microfilm, microfiche, on a

computer, or on computer or magnetic

disks. The owner or operator could

report required information on paper or

a labeled computer disk using

commonly available and compatible

computer software.

3. Reports

As required by the general provisions,

the owner or operator would be required

to submit a report of performance test

results; develop and implement a

written startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan and report semiannually any events where the plan was

not followed; and submit semi-annual

reports of any excursions when any

monitored parameters fall outside the

range of values established during the

performance test.

VI. Impacts of Proposed Rule

A. Health Impacts

The Clean Air Act was created in part

to protect and enhance the quality of the

Nation’s air resources so as to promote

the public health and welfare and the

productive capacity of its population.

[See section 101(b)(1).] As previously

explained, Congress specified in the

1990 Amendments that each standard

for major sources require the maximum

reduction in emissions of HAP that the

EPA determines is achievable

considering cost, health and

environmental impacts, and energy

impacts. In essence, these MACT

standards would ensure that all major

sources of air toxic emissions achieve

the level of control already being

achieved by the better controlled and

lower emitting sources in each category.

This approach provides assurance to

citizens that each major source of toxic

air pollution will be required to

effectively control its emissions. At the

same time, this approach provides a

level playing field, ensuring that

facilities that employ cleaner processes

and good emissions control are not

disadvantaged relative to competitors

with poorer controls.

Emission data collected during

development of the proposed NESHAP

show that the pollutants that are listed

in section 112(b)(1) and are emitted by

primary copper smelters in the largest

quantities are arsenic and lead

compounds. Other HAP that are emitted

in lesser quantities include antimony,

beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt,

manganese, nickel, and selenium. These

toxic metals can cause effects such as

mucous membrane irritation (e.g.,

bronchitis, decreased lung capacity),

gastrointestinal effects, nervous system

disorders (from loss of function to

tremor and numbness), skin irritation,

and reproductive and developmental

disorders. Chronic inhalation exposure

to arsenic compounds is strongly

associated with lung cancer; chronic

oral exposure is linked to skin, bladder,

liver, and lung cancer. Additionally,

several of the metals accumulate in the

environment and the human body.

Cadmium, for example, is a cumulative

pollutant, which can cause kidney

effects after the cessation of exposure.

Similarly, the onset of effects from

beryllium exposure may be delayed 3

months to 15 years. Many of the metals

also are known (arsenic, chromium VI,

certain nickel compounds) or probable

(cadmium, lead, and beryllium) human

carcinogens.

In addition to HAP, the proposed rule

would also reduce some of the

pollutants whose emissions are

controlled under the National Ambient

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These

pollutants include particulate matter

and lead. The health effects of these

pollutants are described in EPA’s

Criteria Documents, which support the

NAAQS. Briefly, PM emissions have

been associated with aggravation of

existing respiratory and cardiovascular

disease and increased risk of premature

death. Depending on the degree of

exposure, lead can cause subtle effects

on behavior and cognition, increased

blood pressure, reproductive effects,

seizures, and even death. Children are

particularly sensitive and exposure can

also result in reduced growth. Lead

compounds can be persistent in the

environment and have the potential to

accumulate in food chains.

The EPA does recognize that the

degree of adverse effects to health can

range from mild to severe. The extent

and degree to which the health effects

may be experienced is dependent upon:

(1) the ambient concentrations observed

in the area (e.g., as influenced by

emission rates, meteorological

conditions, and terrain), (2) the

frequency and duration of exposures, (3)

characteristics of exposed individuals

(e.g., genetics, age, pre-existing health

conditions, and lifestyle) which vary

significantly with the population, and

(4) pollution specific characteristics

(e.g., toxicity, half-life in the

environment, bioaccumulation, and

persistence).
19592 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

B. Air Quality Impacts

Nationwide HAP emissions from the

‘‘Primary Copper Smelting’’ source

category are estimated to be

approximately 189 Mg/yr (208 tpy). The

EPA estimates that implementation of

the NESHAP, as proposed, would

reduce these nationwide HAP emissions

by approximately 20 percent to 155 Mg/

yr (171 tpy).

C. Other Environmental and Energy

Impacts

Other environmental and energy

impacts associated with implementing

the requirements of the proposed rule

primarily are expected to result from the

operation of the capture systems and the

PM control devices. No significant

adverse water, solid waste, or energy

impacts are expected as a result of the

proposed rule.

Direct water quality impacts from the

proposed rule would vary depending on

the type of control devices that the

smelter owners and operators choose to

use to comply with the proposed

particulate matter emission limits. No

direct water quality impacts would

result from operation of either a

baghouse or electrostatic precipitators. If

wet scrubbers are used to control PM

emissions, wastewater from the scrubber

blowdown would be generated. The

EPA expects wet scrubbers to be used

only in limited applications to comply

with the rule (the most likely use of

existing wet scrubbers is to meet the

standards for slag cleaning vessels).

The dust collected in baghouses and

electrostatic precipitators and the sludge

generated by wet scrubbers would be

potential sources of solid waste. At

existing primary copper smelters, the

common operating practice is to recycle

the dust collected by the baghouses and

electrostatic precipitators by feeding the

material back to the flash smelting

furnace and not dispose of this material

as a solid waste.

Energy impacts would result from the

increased consumption of electricity

required at a primary copper smelter to

operate any additional capture systems

and control devices installed to meet the

proposed rule requirements. Electricity

is required to charge the collector plates

in electrostatic precipitators. Electric

motor-driven fans, blowers, or pumps,

(depending on the type of control

equipment) are used for operations such

as moving the captured gas stream to the

control device, operating baghouses,

and circulating water through a wet

scrubber.

D. Economic Impacts

The cost impacts of the proposed

NESHAP are expected to result mainly

from costs that some primary copper

smelters may incur to replace or

upgrade their existing copper converter

secondary capture systems (e.g., install

a new secondary hood design or

increase the system draft by installing a

larger fan) and costs for monitoring,

recording, and recordkeeping. The EPA

estimated the cost to owners and

operators of implementing the

requirements of the proposed rule at the

smelter sites that the EPA expects are

likely to be subject to the rule. The total

nationwide capital investment cost to

purchase and install the air emission

controls that would be required by the

rule is estimated by the EPA to be

approximately $6 million. The total

nationwide annual cost would be

approximately $2.2 million per year.

Emission control costs as a percentage

of sales revenues were estimated to

evaluate the impact of the regulation on

the primary copper smelting industry

and affected individual facilities.

Economic impacts are expected to be

minimal. The annualized costs of the

regulation represents approximately

0.07 percent of 1996 sales revenues for

the industry. Individual copper smelting

facilities are expected to experience

emission control costs as a percent of

sales ranging from 0.01 to 0.44 percent.

VII. Rationale for Selection of Proposed

Standards

A. Selection of Pollutants

For the proposed NESHAP, the EPA

decided that it is not practical to

establish individual standards for each

specific type of metallic HAP the could

be present in a copper ore (e.g., separate

standards for arsenic emissions,

separate standards for lead emissions,

and so forth for each of the metals listed

as HAP and potentially could be present

in the copper ore). When released into

the air during the primary copper

smelting operations, each of the metallic

HAP compounds behaves as particulate

matter. Therefore, the EPA decided to

establish standards for total particulate

matter as a surrogate pollutant for the

individual types of metallic HAP

emitted from primary copper smelters.

The type and concentration of the

metallic HAP compounds contained in

the copper ore concentrate shipped to a

primary copper smelter is not constant

but instead varies over time. The

concentrations of each type of metallic

HAP frequently vary throughout the

copper ore deposit from which the

copper concentrate is obtained.

Establishing separate standards for each

individual type of metallic HAP would

impose costly and significantly more

complex compliance and monitoring

requirements on the primary copper

smelter owners and operators and

would achieve little, if any, more HAP

emission reduction than would be

achieved using the surrogate pollutant

approach based on total particulate

matter. On the other hand, strong

correlations exist between air emissions

of the selected surrogate pollutant and

emissions of the individual metals it

represents. The control technologies

used for the control of PM emissions

achieve equivalent levels of

performance on metallic HAP

emissions. Therefore, standards

requiring good control of particulate

matter will also achieve good control of

the metallic HAP emitted from primary

copper smelters.

B. Selection of Affected Sources

For the purpose of implementing a

NESHAP, an affected source is defined

to mean the stationary source, or portion

of a stationary source that is regulated

by a relevant standard or other

requirement established under section

112 of the Act. Each relevant standard

is to designate the ‘‘affected source’’ for

the purpose of implementing that

standard. Within a source category, the

EPA decides which HAP emission

sources (i.e., emission points or

groupings of emission points) are most

appropriate for establishing separate

emission standards in the context of the

Clean Air Act statutory requirements

and the industry operating practices for

the particular source category. The EPA

selected the specific HAP emission

sources requiring the development of air

standards under this rulemaking based

on consideration of test data and HAP

emission estimates for these individual

emission points.

The EPA reviewed available

information regarding HAP emissions

from anode copper fire refining

operations. The information is

insufficient to specifically quantify the

level of HAP emissions from the anode

furnaces and anode casting operations.

However, at this stage of the copper

production process, the residual content

of metallic HAP in the blister copper is

very low. Therefore, EPA decided not to

propose specific emission standards for

anode copper fire refining operations.

The EPA considered different

approaches for designating the ‘‘affected

source’’ for the selected emission point

types ranging from using a broad

definition (e.g., the entire smelter site)

to narrow definitions (e.g., individual

emission points). Designating the

affected source for the NESHAP as the

entire smelter site was dismissed by the

EPA. This approach would require that

the MACT floor be established by the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19593

total smelter-wide HAP emissions

indicative of the level that is achieved

by the best-performing five existing

smelters. Application of a single MACT

floor to combinations of different

process and fugitive emission points at

a primary copper site would be difficult.

A second approach is to designate an

affected source by grouping the same or

similar types of emission points together

under a single affected source

designation. The EPA decided that

grouping similar emission points was

the appropriate approach to use for two

of primary copper smelter HAP

emission sources selected to be

controlled: batch copper converters and

fugitive dust sources.

At each of the existing primary copper

smelters, a row of three to five batch

copper converters are used to produce

blister copper. Off-gases captured from

each of the individual converters during

blowing are exhausted to the sulfuric

acid plant through a common

ventilation system used for the entire

group of converters. At those smelters

currently operating secondary capture

devices (e.g., secondary hoods or air

curtains) on each of the copper

converters, the secondary captured gas

streams are vented to a separate control

device. Considering the smelter

operating practices and existing air

pollution control configurations used

for copper converters, the EPA decided

it is appropriate to designate the entire

group of copper converters as the

affected source.

Fugitive dust sources are those

sources of PM emissions at the primary

copper smelter resulting from the

handling, storage, transfer, or other

management of copper concentrate or

other materials containing metallic HAP

where the source is not associated with

a specific process, process vent, or

stack. The type and number of

individual fugitive dust sources varies

from smelter-to-smelter. Therefore, the

EPA decided it is appropriate to

designate the entire group of fugitive

dust sources as the affected source.

The narrowest designation of affected

source is by individual emission point.

At each of the existing primary copper

smelters only one copper concentrate

dryer and one flash smelting furnace (or

flash smelting furnace and slag cleaning

vessel combination) is used at the

smelter site. Each of these individual

emission points would potentially emit

significant quantities of HAP emissions

if not controlled. Therefore, the EPA

decided to designate each individual

copper concentrate dryer, smelting

furnace, and slag cleaning vessel as a

separate affected source.

C. Selection of Basis and Level of the

Proposed Standards

1. Background

The Clean Air Act statutory

requirements for determination of the

MACT floor are explained in section

IV.C of this document. Determination of

MACT floor for existing sources is

dependent on the nationwide number of

existing sources within the source

category. The source category for which

the EPA is developing this NESHAP is

comprised of six existing primary

copper smelters nationwide (discussed

in Section III.A of this preamble). For a

source category with less than 30

existing sources, the MACT floor is the

average emission limitation achieved by

the best performing five existing

sources. The MACT floor for new

sources is defined by the emission

control that is achieved in practice by

the best-controlled source.

For the other NESHAP developed by

the EPA to date, the Agency has used

several different approaches to

determine MACT floor for individual

source categories depending on the

type, quality, and applicability of

available data. These approaches

include determining a MACT floor

based on: (1) emission test data that

characterize actual HAP emissions from

presently controlled sources included in

the source category; (2) existing

federally-enforceable emission

limitations specified in air regulations

and facility air permits applicable to the

individual sources comprising the

source category; or (3) application of a

specific type of air emission control

technology currently being used by

sources in the source category or by

sources with similar pollutant stream

characteristics. For the ‘‘Primary Copper

Smelting’’ source category, the EPA

decided to use the approach best suited

for establishing the MACT floor on an

individual affected source basis.

Once the MACT floors are determined

for new and existing sources in a source

category, the EPA must establish

standards under a NESHAP that are no

less stringent than the applicable MACT

floors. The Administrator may

promulgate standards that are more

stringent than the MACT floor when

such standards are determined by the

EPA to be achievable taking into

consideration the cost of implementing

the standards as well as any non-air

quality health and environmental

impacts and energy requirements.

Section 112 of the Act requires that

emission standards for control of HAP

be established unless it is the

Administrator’s judgment that emission

standards cannot be established or

enforced for a particular type of source.

In those cases when it is not possible to

establish or enforce an emission

standard, an alternative format must be

used. Section 112(h)(2) of the Act

identifies two conditions under which

the Administrator may use an

alternative format: (1) If the pollutants

cannot be emitted through a conveyance

designed and constructed to emit or

capture the pollutant; or (2) if the

application of measurement technology

to a particular class of sources is not

practicable because of technology and

economic limitations. In these cases, the

EPA may instead establish design,

equipment, work practice, or

operational standards, or a combination

of these.

2. Selection of Standards for Copper

Concentrate Dryers

Emissions of HAP from the copper

concentrate dryer result from the

entrainment of particulate matter

containing metallic HAP in the exhaust

gas stream from the dryer. At all six

existing copper smelters, PM emissions

from copper concentrate dryers are

controlled by venting the dryer exhaust

gases to either a baghouse or ESP. All

six of the existing copper concentrate

dryers have federally enforceable PM

emission limits. Four of the dryers are

subject to the NSPS PM emission limit

of 50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf) (See

§ 60.162 in 40 CFR part 60, subpart P).

The other two dryers are subject to a PM

emission limit established in each

smelter’s respective State air permit.

One dryer is subject to a State permit

PM emission limit of 0.01 gr/dscf

(approximately 23 mg/dscm). The

second dryer is subject to a State permit

PM emission limit of 0.03 gr/dscf limit

(approximately 69 mg/dscm). The EPA

also has obtained copies of the results

for the compliance tests for each of

these sources. Upon consideration of the

information available to the EPA, the

Agency elected to select the MACT floor

for copper concentrate dryers based on

the federally enforceable PM emission

limits.

Using the federally-enforceable PM

limits for the top five controlled

sources, the average PM emission limit

for existing copper concentrate dryers is

0.45 mg/dscm. The median limit for the

five sources is the NSPS level of 0.50

mg/dscm. The average and median

values are essentially the same and

represent the control level established

by the NSPS. Therefore, the EPA

selected the NSPS PM emission limit of

50 mg/dscm as the MACT floor control

level for existing copper concentrate

dryers.
19594 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

The EPA established a separate MACT

floor control level for new sources based

on the best-controlled copper

concentrate dryer. As discussed above,

the federally-enforceable PM emission

limit for the best-controlled existing

source is 0.01 gr/dscf. Converting this

value to metric units, the MACT floor

control level selected for new copper

concentrate dryers is the PM emission

limit of 23 mg/dscm.

The format of both the existing NSPS

and State standards for copper

concentrate dryers is a numerical

emission limit using a mass

concentration limit format. Consistent

with the directives of section 112(h) of

the Act, the EPA selected a mass

concentration limit format for the

proposed standards.

The MACT floor control level selected

for existing copper concentrate dryers is

50 mg/dscm. The EPA considered

establishing regulatory alternatives more

stringent than the MACT floor control

level based on the actual emissions

recorded during compliance testing at

each source. After review of the

available test data for the controlled

sources, the EPA concluded that these

test data indicate actual PM emissions

from each of the six controlled copper

concentrates dryers effectively are at or

near the control level established for the

MACT floor. Therefore, EPA selected

the MACT floor level of 50 mg/dscm as

the proposed PM emission limit for an

existing copper concentrate dryer.

The MACT floor control level selected

for new copper concentrate dryers is the

PM emission limit of 23 mg/dscm. The

EPA did not identify any regulatory

alternatives beyond the MACT floor for

new sources. Therefore, the EPA

selected the MACT floor of 23 mg/dscm

(0.01 grain/dscf) as the level for the

proposed standard for new copper

concentrate dryers.

3. Selection of Standards for Smelting

Furnaces

The smelting of copper concentrate in

a furnace to obtain copper matte results

in two types of HAP emissions. Process

HAP emissions from the flash smelting

furnace are metallic compound vapors

in the off-gases exhausted from the

furnace. Process fugitive HAP emissions

result from hot metal vapors released

when molten copper matter or slag is

tapped from the furnace. Separate

standards are proposed for smelting

furnace process HAP emissions and for

process fugitive HAP emissions.

Process HAP Emissions. All six of the

existing smelters operate some type of

flash smelting furnace. Process HAP

emissions from these furnaces are

controlled by exhausting the SO2 rich

off-gases to a by-product sulfuric acid

plant. These controls have been

installed to comply with requirements

established to meet the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for SO2 and, in five of the six

smelters, the primary copper smelter

NSPS (40 CFR 60 subpart P). The

smelting furnace at the Phelps Dodge

Hidalgo smelter is not subject to this

NSPS standard because it was built

before the effective date of the standard.

The NSPS limits SO2 emissions from

affected smelting furnaces to no more

than 650 parts per million. All

requirements under the NSPS as well as

the applicable State Implementation

Plans (SIP) are federally-enforceable.

While the by-product sulfuric acid

plants were originally installed at the

smelters for controlling SO2 emissions,

the inherent design and operating

requirements of these plants also

provide effective control of the metallic

HAP contained in the smelting furnace

off-gases. The sulfuric acid production

process involves the catalytic

conversion of the SO2 contained in the

off-gases to produce liquid sulfuric acid.

To optimize the process performance

and prevent expensive damage to the

catalysts and other critical process

equipment, the first step of the process

requires that the smelting furnace offgases be pre-cleaned and conditioned.

Typically, these pre-cleaning and

conditioning operations involve first

passing the gas stream through an ESP

(to remove particulate matter) and then

a wet scrubber (to remove particulate

matter further and to reduce the gas

stream temperature). By using multiple

control devices in series, very high

overall particulate matter removal

efficiencies are achieved such that

effectively no particulate matter (and,

therefore no metallic HAP) are emitted

in the tail gas from the sulfuric acid

plant.

Considering that all existing smelters

use the same control technology for the

smelting furnace off-gases, the EPA

elected to select the MACT floor for

smelting furnaces process HAP

emissions based on application of a

specific air emission control technology

being used by the existing sources in the

source category. The MACT floor

control level selected for process HAP

emissions from existing smelting

furnaces is to vent the SO2 rich off-gases

from the smelting furnace to a byproduct sulfuric acid plant or other type

of sulfur recovery process unit that

requires comparable levels of gas stream

conditioning and pre-cleaning to

remove particulate matter. Since all of

the existing smelting furnaces represent

the best-controlled source, the new

source MACT floor is the same as the

existing source MACT floor for smelting

furnace process HAP emissions.

Furthermore, the EPA did not identify

any regulatory alternatives beyond the

MACT floor. Therefore, the EPA

selected the MACT floor as the basis for

a proposed standard to control HAP

emissions from smelting furnace offgases at both new and existing sources.

To prescribe numerical emission

limits for metals or particulate matter in

the tail gases from the by-product

sulfuric acid plants operated at primary

copper smelters is very difficult because

any actual emissions of metals or

particulate matter from the by-product

sulfuric acid plant, if present at all, are

very variable and occur in trace

amounts. Section 112 of the Act requires

that an emission standard for control of

HAP be established except in those

cases when it is the Administrator’s

judgement that it is not feasible to

prescribe or enforce an emission

standard. In this case, it is neither

feasible nor practical to prescribe or

enforce a numerical emission limit for

gases vented to a sulfuric acid plant due

to technological and economic

limitations. Because rigorous

precleaning and conditioning of the

smelting furnace off-gases is a necessary

operating condition for the by-product

sulfuric acid plant, venting to this unit

ensures that emissions of metallic and

particulate matter HAPs are either

nonexistent or limited to trace amounts.

In such a case, it is neither feasible nor

practical to prescribe, measure, and

enforce a numerical emission limit for

the by-product sulfuric acid plant at

these emission levels and, not only

would such a standard be essentially

unworkable from a technical standpoint,

it would also provide virtually no

benefit.

As an alternative to establishing a

numerical emission limit, the EPA is

proposing an equipment-based format

for the standard. The proposed standard

requires that the off-gases from the

smelting furnace be vented to a byproduct sulfuric acid plant or other type

of sulfur recovery process unit that

requires comparable levels of gas stream

pre-cleaning and conditioning to

remove particulate matter. The NSPS

and SIP requirements for each smelter

already provide for continuous emission

monitoring of SO2 emissions from these

by-product sulfuric acid plants to assure

compliance and proper operation of the

plants. When indicated by the SO2

emission monitoring, the smelter

owners and operators are required to

implement appropriate corrective

actions as necessary to prevent

degradation of the by-product sulfuric
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19595

acid plant performance. The EPA

believes that the mandatory gas stream

pre-cleaning requirements imposed by

this equipment standard together with

the continuous SO2 monitoring required

by other federally-enforceable air rules

assures that a consistently very high

level of metallic HAP control is

achieved for the off-gases exhausted

from smelting furnaces without the need

to establish a specific emission standard

and perform emission testing to

demonstrate compliance with the

standard.

Fugitive Process HAP Emissions. At

five of the six existing smelters, the hot

metal vapors released during matte and

slag tapping are captured using local

hood ventilation systems. Because these

emissions occur intermittently (only

when matte or slag tapping is

performed) and have relatively low SO2

concentrations, the capture gas stream is

not vented to the sulfuric acid plant but

instead is vented to a separate baghouse

or ESP. At the sixth smelter, the matte

and slag tapping emissions are currently

captured by a local ventilation hood

system and vented to the smelter’s main

stack.

Not all of the controlled sources have

federally enforceable PM emission

limits. Four of the sources are subject to

State air permit limits; however these

PM emission limits vary in format and

the type of particulate regulated, and

therefore cannot be averaged together.

The test data for these controlled

sources are highly variable. The

characteristics of the captured gas

streams from smelting furnace matte

and slag tapping operations are similar

to the gas streams captured by PierceSmith converter secondary hood

systems (e.g., same HAP constituents,

similar particulate matter loadings,

relatively low SO2 concentrations, and

emitted intermittently). Therefore, the

EPA elected to establish the MACT floor

for smelting furnace matte and slag

tapping operations based on application

of the control devices to a similar

controlled source (i.e., lean SO2 gas

streams captured by Pierce-Smith

copper converter secondary hood

systems).

The MACT floor control level selected

for control devices used to treat lean

SO2 gas streams from Pierce-Smith

copper converters is a PM emission

limit of 16 mg/dscm (the rationale for

this level is described later in this

section). Applying the same MACT floor

to smelting furnaces, the MACT floor

control level selected for smelting

furnace process fugitive emission

sources is a PM emission limit of 16 mg/

dscm. No best-controlled smelting

furnace could be identified by the EPA.

Therefore, the new source MACT floor

is the same as the existing source MACT

floor.

The format selected for the standard

is a numerical emission limit expressed

as a mass concentration of particulate

matter. The EPA did not identify any

regulatory alternatives beyond the

MACT floor for existing sources nor

could the EPA identify a best-controlled

source. Therefore, EPA selected the

MACT floor of 16 mg/dscm as the level

for the PM emission limit proposed for

both existing and new smelting furnace

matte and slag tapping operations.

4. Selection of Standards for Slag

Cleaning Vessels

Two existing primary copper smelters

operate a slag cleaning vessel in

conjunction with the flash smelting

furnace. At one of these smelters, the

slag cleaning vessel currently is not

being used as part of the smelting

process, but representatives of the

smelter have told the EPA that operation

of this slag cleaning vessel may be

resumed in the future.

Process HAP Emissions. The existing

air emission control used for the slag

cleaning vessels is to exhaust the offgases from the slag cleaning vessel to a

wet scrubber for control of sulfur oxide

gases and particulate matter. One source

is subject to a State air permit emission

limit of 0.02 gr/dscf. The EPA’s review

of the available particulate matter

emission test data for the wet scrubbers

concluded that the data are limited,

highly variable, and should not be used

to characterize the actual emission

levels for the purpose of establishing the

MACT floor. The EPA elected to select

the MACT floor for slag cleaning vessel

exhaust gases based on the federally

enforceable emission limit of 0.02 gr/

dscf. Converting this value to metric

units, the MACT floor control level

selected for existing slag cleaning

vessels is the PM emission limit of 46

mg/dscm.

The format selected for the standard

is a numerical emission limit. The EPA

did not identify any regulatory

alternatives beyond the MACT floor for

existing sources nor could the EPA

identify a best-controlled source.

Therefore, the EPA selected the MACT

floor of 46 mg/dscm as the level for the

PM emission limit proposed for the offgases exhausted from existing and new

slag cleaning vessels.

Process Fugitive HAP Emissions. Like

smelting furnaces, process fugitive HAP

emissions from slag cleaning vessels

occur when molten copper matte or slag

is tapped from the vessel. No data exists

for these systems. At the one smelter

currently operating a slag cleaning

vessel, the hot metal vapors captured by

the hood ventilation system over the

slag cleaning vessel tapping ports are

exhausted into the same control system

used for the smelting furnace process

fugitive emissions. Based on the

application of air emission controls

used by sources with similar pollutant

stream characteristics, the MACT floor

control level selected for slag cleaning

vessel matte and slag tapping operations

is the same PM emission limit of 16 mg/

dscm established for smelting furnaces.

The format selected for the standard

is a numerical emission limit. The EPA

did not identify any regulatory

alternatives beyond the MACT floor for

existing sources nor could the EPA

identify a best-controlled source.

Therefore, EPA selected the MACT floor

of 16 mg/dscm as the level for the PM

emission limit proposed for both

existing and new slag cleaning vessel

matte and slag tapping operations. This

is the same limit selected for control

devices used to treat lean SO2 gas

streams from Pierce-Smith copper

converters as described in the next

section.

5. Selection of Standards for Batch

Copper Converters

Selection of Regulatory Approach.

Two different batch converter designs

currently are used at primary copper

smelters in the United States. The

majority of the smelters use the PierceSmith converter design while one

smelter uses the Hoboken converter

design. These two designs differ

significantly in the method used to

capture the converter off-gases for air

emission control. The side-flue design

of the Hoboken converter evacuates the

gases directly from the interior of the

converter shell. In contrast, the design

of the Pierce-Smith converter relies

totally on the use of external hood

systems positioned over the converter

mouth to capture the gases after they

have already exited the converter shell.

These air emission capture methods are

integrated into the overall design of

each type of converter and are not

interchangeable between the two

designs (i.e., a Pierce-Smith converter

cannot readily be retrofitted to use the

Hoboken design). Thus, the EPA

concluded that it is not appropriate to

group the Hoboken converters with the

Pierce-Smith converters for the purpose

of establishing standards for existing

batch copper converters. The EPA

decided to develop separate standards

for existing Pierce-Smith converters and

for existing Hoboken converters.

Visual observations by EPA

representatives of the converter capture

systems in operation at each of the
19596 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

smelters suggests that the capture

efficiency varies from smelter-to-smelter

because different capture system

designs and operating practices are used

at individual smelters. No data are

available to determine a specific capture

efficiency for the capture systems used

for either Pierce-Smith converters or

Hoboken converters. In lieu of having

specific capture efficiency values, the

EPA believes that the opacity of the

visible emissions exiting the converter

building roof vents or exhaust fans

directly over the converter aisle is a

direct function of converter capture

system performance when the

converters are operating under certain

specific conditions. Thus, the approach

selected by the EPA for establishing a

MACT floor for the converter capture

system performance is to use opacity

and converter operating data gathered at

each of the smelters during a series of

site visits conducted by the Agency.

Converter Visible Emission

Observations. In April and May of 1997,

the EPA conducted a series of visible

emission observations at existing

primary copper smelters in the United

States operating Pierce-Smith converters

or Hoboken converters. A summary of

protocol used for the field observation

data collection and analysis is presented

below. More detailed information about

the site visits, the opacity observations,

and EPA’s analysis of the data are

available in Docket No. A–96–22.

Visible emission readings of the

converter building at each of the smelter

sites were made by teams of certified

observers. At the three primary copper

smelters located in Arizona, opacity

observations were made by a team of

EPA observers and a team of observers

from the State of Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality. The opacity

observations for the two smelters

located in New Mexico were made by a

team of EPA observers.

All of the opacity observations were

performed using procedures specified in

Method 9 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix

A. The observers recorded opacity

readings at 15-second intervals for those

sections of the converter building roof

monitor (or in the case of one smelter,

the converter building roof exhaust fan

outlets) that are positioned directly over

the location of the copper converters

inside the building. When it was

possible for an observer to see two or

more plumes emitted from the converter

building roof during the same reading

interval, the observer identified the

plume having the highest opacity and

recorded an opacity reading for that

plume.

Throughout the periods when outdoor

opacity observations were being made

by the observer teams, an EPA

representative familiar with primary

copper smelter operations was stationed

inside the converter building and

visually monitored the copper converter

operations. This observer recorded on a

clock time basis the times when a

converter was in the blowing position

and times when events occurred which

generated visible plumes inside the

building. Additional information about

the converter operations was obtained

from the smelter’s computer records of

the individual converter blowing rates.

In general, a sufficient number of

opacity observations were obtained

during the site visits to obtain a data

base for each smelter consisting in the

range of 400 to 500 minutes of opacity

readings. Not included in the data base

prepared for each smelter were any

opacity readings made during periods

when the converter operations were

judged to not be representative of

normal smelter operations (e.g.,

converter capture system malfunction)

or when the opacity observation

conditions did not meet Method 9

criteria (e.g., occurrence of high winds).

The analysis of the field data began by

creating a spreadsheet data file for each

smelter listing by the clock time at 1-

minute intervals an average opacity

value (based on the outside EPA and

State observer opacity readings) and

corresponding converter process

information (based on the indoor

process monitor log and records of the

converter system blowing rates provided

by the smelter operator). The 1-minute

opacity value was calculated by

averaging all of the 15-second readings

made by the EPA and State observers

during the clock time minute interval.

The EPA considered alternative

approaches for determining an average

opacity value for each smelter to

represent the converter capture system

performance. For each smelter data file,

the EPA identified those clock minute

intervals when one or more converters

are operating in the blowing mode and

none of the following ladle transfer

operations were indicated in the file to

be occurring in the converter aisle:

charging of matte, reverts, or other

materials to a converter; converter slag

skimming from a converter; blister

copper pouring from a converter; or slag

return to the furnace. To account for the

time delay between when visible

emissions generated in the converter

building are seen by the inside observer

and when these impact the opacity

recorded by the outside observers, the

two minutes of opacity readings

recorded immediately following the

clock time recorded for cessation of the

activity were assumed to be impacted by

the visible emission event. The set of

conditions when at least one of the

converters is operating in the blowing

mode and no visible emission events

have occurred in the converter aisle

during the preceding two minutes is

referred to as ‘‘blowing without

interferences’’. The EPA then calculated

the average opacity value for each

period consisting of 6 consecutive

minutes during which ‘‘blowing without

interferences’’ occurred.

Existing Pierce-Smith Copper

Converters. Five existing primary

copper smelters use Pierce-Smith

converters. At each smelter, the air

emissions from these copper converters

during blowing are captured and

controlled. The design and operation of

the overall capture system used at each

of these smelters to collect these

emissions from Pierce-Smith converters

varies from smelter-to-smelter. At every

smelter, whenever each Pierce-Smith

converter is positioned for blowing, the

mouth of the converter is covered by a

close-fitting primary hood. The gas

stream captured by the primary hood is

vented to the by-product sulfuric acid

plant at the smelter. However, the

primary hood does not completely seal

the converter mouth since sufficient

space must be provided to rotate the

converter mouth out from under the

hood during charging, skimming, and at

other times.

To collect emissions that escape

capture by the primary hoods, capture

devices of various designs in addition to

the primary hoods are used at each of

the existing smelters (hereafter referred

to collectively as the ‘‘converter

secondary capture system’’). At four of

the smelters, the converter secondary

capture system consists of a second set

of mechanical hoods (hereafter referred

to as the ‘‘secondary hoods’’) positioned

above the primary hoods. The secondary

hoods used at the individual smelters

vary in design, capture effectiveness,

and operating practices.

The fifth smelter controls air

emissions from its Pierce-Smith

converter operations using a secondary

air curtain hood for each individual

converter and also evacuates the entire

converter building to a baghouse. This

capture system design effectively

provides 100 percent capture of all

converter process fugitive emissions (as

well as those process fugitive emissions

and fugitive dust emissions from other

sources located inside the converter

building). The State air permit

requirement for this capture system is to

operate with no visible emissions.

The approach selected by the EPA for

establishing the MACT floor for the

overall Pierces-Smith converter capture
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19597

system performance is to use opacity of

the visible emissions from the converter

building. The results for the EPA’s field

visible emission observations (described

in the preceding section) were used to

quantify the MACT floor control level.

At the four smelters using primary

hoods with secondary hoods to capture

converter process fugitive emissions, the

average converter building opacity

observed at each of the individual

smelters ranged from 0.7 percent to 7.1

percent. At the fifth smelter converter

process fugitive emissions are

controlled using secondary air curtain

hoods in combination with a building

evacuation system. Based on the State

air permit requirement that the building

evacuation system operate with no

visible emissions, the EPA set the

average converter building opacity for

this smelter to be zero percent.

The arithmetic average of the opacity

values for the five smelters operating

Pierce-Smith converters is 2.8 percent.

To establish the MACT floor, the EPA

rounded this average opacity value to

the nearest whole opacity value and

selected 3 percent as the MACT floor

converter capture system performance

level for Pierce-Smith copper

converters. The EPA did not identify

any regulatory alternatives beyond the

MACT floor for existing sources.

Therefore, EPA selected the MACT floor

of 3 percent as the level for the visible

emission limit proposed for existing

Pierce-Smith converters.

To establish the MACT floor for the

level of control achieved for each of the

captured converter gas streams, the EPA

selected the approach of basing the

MACT floor on application of the air

emission control technology being used

by the existing sources in the source

category. Separate MACT floors were

selected for the gas streams captured by

the converter primary hoods and for the

gas streams captured by the converter

secondary capture system.

At each of the existing smelters, the

SO2 rich off-gases generated during

converter blowing and captured by the

primary hoods are blended with the offgases from the smelting furnace and

then vented to the smelter’s by-product

sulfuric acid plant. None of these

converters is subject to the primary

copper smelter NSPS (40 CFR 60

subpart P). Nonetheless, the control of

the converter primary off-gases (i.e., SO2

rich off-gases generated during

converter blowing) is required under

each smelter’s SIP for attainment of the

NAAQS for SO2.

Given that the SO2 rich off-gases

exhausted from the Pierce-Smith

converters and smelting furnace are

treated by the same controls (i.e., the byproduct sulfuric acid plant), it follows

that the MACT floor for the converters

should be the same as the MACT

selected for the smelting furnace offgases. As presented in section VII.C.3 of

this preamble, the standard that the EPA

selected for smelting furnaces is to vent

the furnace off-gases to a by-product

sulfuric acid plant (or other type of

sulfur recovery process unit that

requires comparable levels of gas stream

pre-cleaning and conditioning to

remove particulate matter). Therefore,

the EPA selected the same MACT floor

and standard for gas streams captured

by the Pierce-Smith converter primary

hoods.

The low SO2 concentrations of gas

streams captured by the Pierce-Smith

converter secondary capture systems are

not suitable for venting to the byproduct sulfuric acid plant. Instead, PM

emissions from the gas streams captured

by the Pierce-Smith converter secondary

capture systems (hereafter referred to as

‘‘converter secondary emissions’’) are

controlled at each of the existing

smelters by venting the gas streams to a

separate control device. At four of the

smelters operating Pierce-Smith copper

converters, the converter secondary

capture system is vented to a baghouse.

At the fifth smelter, the converter

secondary capture system is vented to

an ESP.

Considering that four of the five

existing smelters use the same control

technology for the Pierce-Smith

converter secondary emissions, the

MACT floor control level selected for

Pierce-Smith converter secondary

emissions is to vent the captured gas

streams to a baghouse (or other type

particulate matter control device that

achieves a comparable level of control

for particulate matter emissions). Since

this control technology also represents

the best-controlled source, the new

source MACT floor is the same as the

existing source MACT floor for PierceSmith converter secondary emissions.

The EPA did not identify any

regulatory alternatives beyond the

MACT floor for control of gas streams

captured by the converter secondary

capture systems. Therefore, the EPA

selected the application of baghouses as

the basis for the proposed standards to

control converter secondary emissions.

Consistent with other standards the EPA

has promulgated based on application of

baghouses for control of PM emissions,

the EPA selected the format of the

standard to be a numerical emission

limit expressed using a mass

concentration.

The EPA used available test data to

select a value for the numerical

emission limit for Pierce-Smith

converter secondary emissions.

Particulate matter emission test data are

available for each of the existing

baghouses used to control Pierce-Smith

converter secondary emissions. A data

set consisting of results for three

individual source test runs are available

for each of the four baghouses. The

results for these individual test runs

show baghouse outlet PM

concentrations range from

approximately 0.002 gr/dscf to 0.01 gr/

dscf. Averaging the results of the three

individual runs for each baghouse

shows that comparable levels of

particulate matter emission control are

achieved by all of the baghouses (the

average baghouse outlet PM

concentrations ranging from

approximately 0.004 gr/dscf to 0.007 gr/

dscf). Test results for a three-run source

test are also available for the single ESP

used to control Pierce-Smith converter

secondary emissions. The ESP outlet

PM concentrations measured by the

three individual test runs range from

approximately 0.002 gr/dscf to 0.004 gr/

dscf. The data show that the ESP

achieved a level of PM emission control

similar to that demonstrated by the

baghouses.

All of the control devices were

operating properly when the source

tests were conducted. Considering that

the gas stream flow rates and inlet

particulate matter concentrations varied

between the individual control devices,

the EPA cannot distinguish any real

differences between the control levels

measured for the control devices used to

control Pierce-Smith converter

secondary emissions. Therefore, for the

numerical emission limit, the EPA

selected the value at the upper end of

the range of the average outlet PM

concentrations in the data set (0.007 gr/

dscf). It is the EPA’s judgement that a

control device outlet PM concentration

of 0.007 gr/dscf best characterizes the

level of actual emissions that can

reasonably be expected to be

consistently achieved by all wellcontrolled sources. Converting this

value to metric units, the proposed

standard for both existing and new

sources selected for Pierce-Smith

converter secondary emissions is the

PM emission limit of 16 mg/dscm.

Existing Hoboken Copper Converters.

One existing copper smelter uses

Hoboken converters. The off-gases from

these copper converters during blowing

are evacuated through the side-flue and

vented to the sulfuric acid plant at the

smelter. At this smelter, the average

converter building opacity value

observed by the EPA was 3.8 percent.

The MACT floor converter capture

system performance level selected for
19598 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Hoboken copper converters is an

average opacity value of 3.8 percent as

measured at the converter building roof

monitor using the test protocol

developed by the EPA for this

rulemaking. To be consistent with the

method used to select the MACT floor

for Pierce-Smith converters, the EPA

rounded this average opacity value to

the nearest whole opacity value and

selected 4 percent as the MACT floor

converter capture system performance

level for Hoboken copper converters.

The EPA did not identify any regulatory

alternatives beyond the MACT floor for

existing sources. Therefore, EPA

selected the MACT floor of 4 percent as

the level for the visible emission limit

proposed for existing Hoboken

converters.

Like the Pierce-Smith converters, the

SO2 rich off-gases exhausted from the

Hoboken converters during converter

blowing is blended with the off-gases

stream from the smelting furnace and

vented to the by-product sulfuric acid

plant. For consistency with the PierceSmith converter standards, the EPA

established the proposed standard for

existing Hoboken converters to be that

the SO2 rich off-gases directly evacuated

from the converters be vented to a byproduct sulfuric acid plant or other type

of sulfur recovery process unit that

requires comparable levels of gas stream

conditioning and pre-cleaning to

remove particulate matter.

New Copper Converters. The EPA

established a separate standard for new

batch copper converters based on the

best-controlled source. This source is

the smelter that controls air emissions

from the copper converter operations

using secondary air curtain hoods and

evacuation of the entire converter

building to a baghouse. This capture

system design effectively provides 100

percent capture of all converter

emissions. The federally-enforceable

opacity limit for the converter building

at this smelter is no visible emissions.

Although this capture system presently

is used at a smelter operating PierceSmith converters, the capture system

design is equally applicable to a smelter

operating Hoboken converters.

Therefore, the MACT floor capture

system performance selected for any

new batch copper converter, regardless

of design, is to operate with sufficient

ventilation draft whenever molten

material is in the copper converter such

that no visible emissions exit the

building housing the copper converters.

For the captured gas streams, the

control levels achieved by the bestcontrolled source are the same as the

standards established for existing

converters. Thus, the standard the EPA

selected for new converters is to vent

the SO2 rich off-gases from the converter

generated during blowing to a byproduct sulfuric acid plant or other type

of sulfur recovery process unit that

requires comparable levels of gas stream

conditioning and pre-cleaning to

remove particulate matter. The EPA

selected 16 mg/dscm to establish the

proposed PM emission limit for the

converter gases not controlled by

venting to the sulfuric acid plant.

6. Selection of Standards for Fugitive

Dust Sources

Fugitive dust emissions at existing

primary copper smelters are controlled

by using a variety of different methods.

Not all smelters control the same

sources nor use the same type of

control. The fugitive dust control

measures used at a given smelter varies

depending on the dust controls required

by the facility’s State air permit and the

facility owner’s preferences and polices

regarding fugitive dust control. These

controls can range from daily water

spraying of plant roads and outdoor

storage piles to enclosure and venting of

the source to a control device. No

specific group of fugitive dust control

measures could be identified that

reflected an average emission limitation

for the existing smelters. The EPA

decided that MACT floor for fugitive

dust sources is to develop and

implement a site-specific set of fugitive

dust control measures to be

implemented by the smelter owner or

operator according to a written plan. No

best-controlled fugitive dust sources

could be identified by the EPA.

Therefore, the new source MACT floor

is the same as the existing source MACT

floor for fugitive dust sources.

Establishing and enforcing emission

limitations for fugitive dust sources is

not practical. The inherent mechanisms

by which pollutants are emitted from

fugitive dust sources prevents the

application of batch stack sampling

methods to measure the level of the

emissions from these sources. It is not

feasible to capture the emissions and

subsequently discharge these emissions

through a duct or other conveyance to

a control device. Therefore, as allowed

under section 112(h) of the Act, the EPA

decided to use a work practice format

for the proposed standards for fugitive

sources.

The proposed standards would

require the smelter owner or operator to

implement appropriate work practice

control measures specific to the types of

fugitive dust sources at a smelter site.

For many fugitive dust sources there are

several equivalent control measures

available for controlling fugitive dust

emissions from a particular type of

source. Therefore, the standard for each

affected owner or operator to develop

and implement a site-specific fugitive

dust control plan is being proposed

rather than the EPA establishing the

specific individual work practices that

all smelter owners and operators must

use. The EPA believes that flexibility

provided to the smelter owner and

operator by the site-specific approach is

needed because the best fugitive dust

control options for a given smelter are

determined by the physical layout of the

smelter, the types of fugitive dust

sources, and the control measures that

are already being implemented. These

factors vary significantly from smelter to

smelter.

D. Selection of Compliance

Requirements

1. Selection of Compliance Dates

Section 112(i)(3) of the Act requires

the Administrator to establish a

compliance date or dates for each

category or subcategory of existing

sources which provides for compliance

with the applicable standards as

expeditiously as practicable but in no

event later than 3 years after the

effective date of the standards. To select

the proposed compliance date for

existing affected sources at primary

copper smelters, the EPA considered the

time that would be necessary for owners

and operators of existing primary

copper smelters to complete the tasks

required to comply with the proposed

rule.

At all of the existing smelters, air

emission control equipment capable of

meeting the applicable proposed

standard is currently in place for many

of the affected sources that would be

subject to the rule. For a few existing

affected sources, an upgrade of an

existing capture system or installation of

new control equipment may be needed.

Owners and operators* will need to

develop and implement the required

operating plan for control of fugitive

dust sources, and implement the

required operating and monitoring

requirements for the air emission

control equipment used to comply with

the standards. The EPA concluded that

it is reasonable to expect that achieving

compliance of existing affected sources

with the requirements of the proposed

rule can be completed within a period

significantly shorter than 3 years. The

EPA selected the compliance date for

existing affected sources at primary

copper smelters to be no later than 2

years after the effective date of the

standards. The EPA believes it is

realistic and practical to accomplish the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19599

tasks needed to comply with the

proposed rule within 2 years, and this

period fulfills the Clean Air Act

directive that the Administrator

establish a compliance date which

provides for compliance with the

applicable standards as expeditiously as

practicable. Furthermore, should special

circumstances arise at an individual

smelter such that installation of controls

which cannot be completed within the

specified 2-year compliance period,

section 63.6(i) of the NESHAP general

provisions already provide for a

compliance date extension (allowing up

to 1 additional year for compliance) to

be granted upon request of the owner or

operator and approval by the

Administrator or the delegated

regulatory authority.

The compliance date for new affected

sources was selected by the EPA to meet

the requirements of section 112(i) of the

Act. Owners or operators of new

affected sources at primary copper

smelters would be required to achieve

compliance upon startup or the effective

date of this NESHAP, whichever is later.

2. Selection of Test Methods

The proposed NESHAP would require

the owner or operator to conduct an

initial performance test to demonstrate

compliance with each of the particulate

matter emission limits specified in the

rule that is applicable to a given smelter

site. In addition, the rule would require

that the owner or operator perform an

initial performance test to determine the

visible emissions from the building

housing the copper converter

department.

The EPA selected the performance

test requirements to demonstrate

compliance with the particulate matter

emission limits based on the use of

appropriate EPA reference test methods.

Method 5 in appendix A to 40 CFR part

60 is an EPA reference test method that

has been developed and validated for

the measurement of PM emissions from

stationary sources. Method 5D is a

variation of Method 5 to be used for

measuring PM emissions at the outlet to

a positive pressure baghouse. For

sampling and analysis of the gas stream

the following EPA reference methods

would be used with Method 5: Method

1 to select the sampling port location

and the number of traverse points;

Method 2 to measure the volumetric

flow rate; Method 3 for gas analysis; and

Method 4 to determine stack gas

moisture.

As part of this rulemaking, the EPA is

proposing a specific test protocol to be

used for determining compliance with

the visible emission limits established

for existing Pierce-Smith and Hoboken

copper converters. These standards

establish average opacity limits for the

visible emissions exiting the building

roof monitors or exhaust fans directly

above the copper converters. The test

protocol includes making opacity

readings using the Agency’s EPA

reference test method for the

measurement of visible emissions from

stationary sources (Method 9 in

appendix A of 40 CFR part 60). This

method is widely used in EPA air rules

for determining compliance with visible

emission limits. The EPA selected the

procedures specified in the proposed

test protocol based on the Agency’s

experience with the opacity

observations performed during the

smelter program the EPA conducted at

existing primary copper smelters. A

preliminary draft of the test protocol

was reviewed by the State agencies and

copper companies that participated in

the field observation program. Based on

comments received by the EPA from

these reviewers, certain refinements to

the opacity observation and data

analysis procedures were incorporated

into the test protocol included in the

proposed NESHAP.

For determining compliance with the

no visible emission limit proposed for

new copper converters, the EPA

selected Method 22, ‘‘Visual

Determination of Fugitive Emissions

from Material Sources and Smoke

Emissions from Flares,’’ in appendix A

of 40 CFR part 60. Method 22 requires

only determination as to whether a

visible emission occurs and does not

require that the opacity of the emissions

be determined. This method provides a

simpler and less expensive method for

determining compliance with a no

visible emission limit than requiring

new sources to use an appropriate

version of the test protocol being

proposed for existing sources. So that a

performance test using Method 22

would represent a range of the different

copper converter operations that

typically occur inside the converter

building during normal copper

production, the EPA is proposing a

minimum observation period of no less

than 2 hours.

3. Selection of Monitoring Requirements

The EPA evaluates a hierarchy of

options to select compliance assurance

monitoring of HAP emissions from

affected sources. This involved

identifying and analyzing several

different monitoring options for each of

the affected sources and the proposed

control equipment. This hierarchy

includes measurement of the HAP or an

appropriate surrogate pollutant by a

continuous emission monitoring system

(CEMS), installation of measurement

devices for monitoring of process and/

or control device operating parameters,

and periodic or one-time performance

tests. Each option is evaluated relative

to its technical feasibility, cost, ease of

implementation, and relevance to the

process or air emission control

equipment.

The use of a CEMS provides a direct

measurement of the emissions from a

given source. Monitors for measuring

metallic HAP emissions are not

commercially available. Monitors for

measuring PM emissions as a surrogate

for metallic HAP emissions have not yet

been demonstrated for primary copper

smelting operations. Therefore, the EPA

did not consider further the use of

CEMS for this proposed rule.

Another option for compliance

assurance is monitoring appropriate

process and/or control equipment

operating parameters. Process

parameters were not selected as

indicators for metallic HAP emissions

from the primary copper smelter sources

because an adequate correlation does

not exist between production or process

parameters and emission rates. The EPA

does believe that reasonable assurance

of compliance with the standards

proposed for this NESHAP can be

achieved by the owner or through

appropriate periodic inspection and

continuous monitoring of the operation

of the air emission control equipment

that has been demonstrated by an initial

performance test to achieve the

applicable emission standards under the

rule. Therefore, operating parameters

were selected instead for the converter

capture system and for control devices

with one exception because

measurements outside a range of values

established during an initial

performance test can be used to indicate

the control device is not operating

properly (i.e., not operating at the

conditions under which compliance

was demonstrated by performance

testing).

A modified approach to monitoring

control device operation parameters was

selected for baghouses because the

baghouse operating parameters

routinely monitored do not correlate

well with the particulate matter

emission rates. The approach selected

for baghouses uses a comprehensive,

periodic inspection and maintenance

program in combination with the use of

bag leak detectors. The EPA has

previously adopted this baghouse

monitoring approach for similar types of

metallurgical industry sources that use

baghouses to control particulate matter

emissions (e.g., secondary lead smelting
19600 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

NESHAP under 40 CFR part 63, subpart

X).

E. Selection of Notification, and

Recordkeeping Reporting Requirements

Under section 114(a) of the Act, the

EPA may require any owner or operator

of a source subject to a NESHAP to

establish and maintain records as well

as prepare and submit notifications and

reports to the EPA. The general

recordkeeping, notification, and

reporting requirements for NESHAP are

specified in sections 63.9 and 63.10 of

the NESHAP general provisions. The

recordkeeping, notification, and

reporting requirements for the proposed

NESHAP were selected to be consistent

with the general provisions

requirements.

VIII. Public Participation

The EPA seeks full public

participation in arriving at its final

decisions, and strongly encourages

comments on all aspects of this proposal

from all interested parties. Full

supporting data and detailed analyses

should be submitted with comments to

allow the EPA to make maximum use of

the comments. All comments should be

directed to the Air and Radiation Docket

and Information Center, Docket No. A–

96–22 (see ADDRESSES). Comments on

this notice must be submitted on or

before the date specified in DATES.

Commenters wishing to submit

proprietary information for

consideration should clearly distinguish

such information from other comments,

and clearly label it ‘‘Confidential

Business Information’’ (CBI).

Submissions containing such

proprietary information should be sent

directly to the following address, and

not to the public docket, to ensure that

proprietary information is not

inadvertently placed in the docket:

Attention: Mr. Gene Crumpler, c/o Ms.

Melva Toomer, U.S. EPA Confidential

Business Information Manager, OAQPS

(MD–13), Research Triangle Park, NC

27711. Information covered by such a

claim of confidentiality will be

disclosed by the EPA only to the extent

allowed and by the procedures set forth

in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of

confidentiality accompanies the

submission when it is received by the

EPA, the submission may be made

available to the public without further

notice to the commenter.

IX. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

The docket is an organized and

complete file of all the information

considered by the EPA in developing

this rulemaking. The docket is a

dynamic file, because material is added

throughout the rulemaking

development. The docketing system is

intended to allow members of the public

and industries involved to readily

identify and locate documents so that

they can effectively participate in the

rulemaking process. Along with the

proposed and promulgated standards

and their preambles, the contents of the

docket will serve as the record in case

of judicial review. [See section

307(d)(7)(A) of the Act.]

B. Public Hearing

If a request to speak at a public

hearing is received, a public hearing on

the proposed standards will be held

according to section 307(d)(5) of the

Act. Persons wishing to present oral

testimony or to inquire as to whether a

hearing is to be held should contact the

EPA (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). To provide an opportunity for

all who may wish to speak, oral

presentations will be limited to 15

minutes each.

Any member of the public may file a

written statement on or before June 19,

1998. Written statements should be

addressed to the Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center (see

ADDRESSES) and refer to Docket No. A–

95–43. A verbatim transcript of the

hearing and written statements will be

placed in the docket and be available for

public inspection and copying, or

mailed upon request, at the Air and

Radiation Docket and Information

Center.

C. ‘‘Significant Regulatory Action’’

Determination Under Executive Order

12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must

determine whether the regulatory action

is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) and the requirements of

the Executive Order. The Executive

Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ as one that is likely to result in

a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

state, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs, or the rights and

obligation of recipients thereof; or

(4) raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

Under the terms of Executive Order

12866, it has been determined that this

regulatory action is not significant

because none of the listed criteria apply

to this action. Consequently, this action

was not submitted to OMB for review

under Executive Order 12866.

D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership Under Executive Order

12875

In compliance with Executive Order

12875, the EPA involved State

regulatory experts in the development of

this proposed rule. No tribal

governments are believed to be affected

by this proposed rule. Although not

directly impacted by the rule, State

governments will be required to

implement the rule by incorporating the

rule into permits and enforcing the rule

upon delegation. They will collect

permit fees that will be used to offset

the resources burden of implementing

the rule. Comments have been solicited

from State partners and have been

carefully considered in the rule

development process. In addition, all

States are encouraged to comment on

this proposed rule during the public

comment period, and the EPA intends

to fully consider these comments in the

development of the final rule.

E. Clean Air Act

As directed by section 117 of the Act,

publication of this proposal was

preceded by consultation with

appropriate advisory committees,

independent experts, and Federal

departments and agencies. This rule

will be reviewed 8 years from the date

of promulgation. This review will

include an assessment of such factors as

evaluation of the residual health risks,

any overlap with other programs, the

existence of alternative methods,

enforceability, improvements in

emission control technology and health

data, and the recordkeeping and

reporting requirements.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this proposed rule have

been submitted for approval to the OMB

under the requirements of the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq. An information collection

request (ICR) document has been

prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1850.01), and

a copy may be obtained from Sandy

Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19601

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (2137), 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20460, or by calling

(202) 260–2740.

The proposed information

requirements are based on notification,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements in the NESHAP general

provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A),

which are mandatory for all owners or

operators subject to national emission

standards. These recordkeeping and

reporting requirements are specifically

authorized by section 114 of the Act (42

U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted

to the EPA for which a claim of

confidentiality is made is safeguarded

according to Agency policy under 40

CFR part 2, subpart B. [See 41 FR

36902.]

The proposed rule would require

maintenance inspections of the control

devices but would not require any

notifications or reports beyond those

required by the general provisions. The

proposed recordkeeping requirements

require only the specific information

needed to determine compliance.

The annual monitoring, reporting, and

recordkeeping burden for this collection

(averaged over the first 3 years after the

effective date of the rule) is estimated to

be 11,400 labor hours per year at a total

annual cost of $560,500. This estimate

includes a one-time performance test

and report (with repeat tests where

needed); one-time submission of a

startup, shutdown, and malfunction

plan with semi-annual reports for any

event when the procedures in the plan

were not followed; semi-annual excess

emission reports; maintenance

inspections; notifications; and

recordkeeping. Total capital/startup

costs associated with the monitoring

requirements over the 3-year period of

the ICR are estimated at $156,000, with

operation and maintenance costs of

$72,000/yr.

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose,

or provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purpose of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information; processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to

respond to a collection of information;

search existing data sources; complete

and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

Comments are requested on the EPA’s

need for this information, the accuracy

of the provided burden estimates, and

any suggested methods for minimizing

respondent burden, including the use of

automated collection techniques. Send

comments on the ICR to the Director,

OPPE Regulatory Information Division;

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(2137), 401 M Street SW., Washington,

DC 20460; and to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget, 725

17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,

marked ‘‘Attention: Desk Office for

EPA.’’ Include the ICR number in any

correspondence. Because the OMB is

required to make a decision concerning

the ICR between 30 and 60 days after

April 20, 1998, comment to OMB is best

assured of having its full effect if OMB

receives it by May 20, 1998. The final

rule will respond to any OMB or public

comments on the information collection

requirements contained in this proposal.

G. Pollution Prevention Act

The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990

(42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., Pub. L. 101–

508, November 5, 1990) establishes the

national policy of the United States for

pollution prevention. This act declares

that: (1) pollution should be prevented

or reduced whenever feasible; (2)

pollution that cannot be prevented or

reduced should be recycled or reused in

an environmentally-safe manner

wherever feasible; (3) pollution that

cannot be recycled or reused should be

treated; and (4) disposal or release into

the atmosphere should be chosen only

if none of the other options is available.

The HAP emitted during the copper

smelting process result from metallic

compound impurities that occur

naturally in copper ore deposits. The

House Conference Report on the 1990

Amendments specifically prevents the

Administrator from considering the

substitution of, or other changes in,

metal or mineral bearing raw material

used as feedstocks in establishing

emission standards, work practice

standards, operating standards, or other

prohibitions for nonferrous metals

source categories. Thus, no restrictions

can be placed by the EPA on the HAP

content of the copper ore shipped to

primary copper smelters. Furthermore,

there are no commercial-scale

pretreatment processes available for

removing or reducing the metallic HAP

contained in the copper concentrate

before feeding the material to the flash

smelting furnace.

Opportunities for applying pollution

prevention to the ‘‘Primary Copper

Smelting’’ source category are basically

limited to application of air emission

controls to reduce the release of metallic

HAP from the copper smelting process

into the atmosphere. Particulate matter

collected by baghouses or ESP’s used to

control the HAP emissions from the

smelting processes can be recycled back

through the flash smelting furnace for

recovery of the residual copper

contained in this material. Thus, to the

extent possible, pollution prevention

has been considered in the development

of this rulemaking, and the NESHAP is

consistent with the Pollution Prevention

Act.

H. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small government jurisdictions.

The impact of the regulation on small

entities was evaluated in the economic

impact analysis. Companies engaged in

primary copper smelting with less that

1,000 employees are classified as small

businesses by the Small Business

Administration. Based on the analysis

conducted, none of the companies

owning the six primary copper smelters

potentially affected by this rulemaking

are small entities. Under section 605(b)

of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the

Administrator certifies that this rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on small entities.

I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L.

104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

the EPA generally must prepare a

written statement, including a costbenefit analysis, for proposed and final

rules with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures by State, local,

and tribal governments, in aggregate, or

by the private sector, of $100 million or

more in any one year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires the EPA
19602 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

to identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule. The provisions of section

205 do not apply when they are

inconsistent with applicable law.

Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA to

adopt an alternative other than the least

costly, most cost-effective, or least

burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation of why that

alternative was not adopted. Before the

EPA establishes any regulatory

requirements that may significantly or

uniquely affect small governments,

including tribal governments, it must

have developed under section 203 of the

UMRA a small government agency plan.

The plan must provide for notifying

potentially affected small governments,

enabling officials of affected small

governments to have meaningful and

timely input in the development of EPA

regulatory proposals with significant

Federal intergovernmental mandates,

and informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

The EPA has determined that this rule

does not contain a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local, and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

the private sector in any one year. Thus,

today’s rule is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of

the UMRA. In addition, the EPA has

determined that this rule contains no

regulatory requirements that might

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments because it contains no

requirements that apply to such

governments or impose obligations

upon them. Therefore, today’s rule is

not subject to the requirements of

section 203 of the UMRA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Primary copper smelter,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: April 9, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, part 63 of title 40, chapter I,

of the Code of Federal Regulations is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE

CATEGORIES

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

2. Part 63 is amended by adding

subpart QQQ to read as follows:

Subpart QQQ—National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

From Primary Copper Smelters

Sec.

63.1440 Applicability.

63.1441 Definitions.

63.1442 [Reserved]

63.1443 Standards: Copper concentrate

dryers.

63.1444 Standards: Smelting vessels.

63.1445 Standards: Slag cleaning vessels.

63.1446 Standards: Copper converters.

63.1447 [Reserved]

63.1448 Standards: Fugitive dust sources.

63.1449 Equivalent standards: combined

exhaust gas streams.

63.1450 Compliance with standards and

maintenance requirements.

63.1451 Performance testing requirements.

63.1452 Inspection and monitoring

requirements.

63.1453 Notification requirements.

63.1454 Recordkeeping and reporting

requirements.

63.1455 State authority and delegations.

Appendix A of Subpart QQQ to Part 63—

Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR

part 63, subpart A) to Subpart QQQ.

Figure 1 of Subpart QQQ—Data Summary

Sheet for Determination of Average Opacity.

Subpart QQQ—National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

From Primary Copper Smelters

§ 63.1440 Applicability.

(a) The requirements of this subpart

apply to the owner or operator of a

facility for which both of the following

conditions apply:

(1) The facility produces anode

copper by first flash smelting of copper

ore concentrates to obtain molten

copper matte and then converting the

molten matte to blister copper using

batch copper converters as defined in

§ 63.1441 of this subpart.

(2) The facility is a major source as

defined in § 63.2 of this part.

(b) The affected sources at a primary

copper smelter subject to this subpart

are the sources listed in paragraphs

(b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section.

(1) Copper concentrate dryers. The

affected source is each individual

copper concentrate dryer as defined in

§ 63.1441 of this subpart.

(2) Smelting vessels. The affected

source is each individual smelting

vessel as defined in § 63.1441 of this

subpart.

(3) Slag cleaning vessels. The affected

source is each individual slag cleaning

vessel as defined in § 63.1441 of this

subpart.

(4) Batch copper converters. The

affected source is the copper converter

department as defined in § 63.1441 of

this subpart.

(5) Fugitive dust sources. The affected

source is the entire group of all fugitive

dust sources, as defined in § 63.1441 of

this subpart, that are located at a

primary copper smelter.

(c) A new affected source is an

affected source for which construction

or reconstruction commences on or after

April 20, 1998. New affected sources are

subject to the relevant standards for new

sources specified in this subpart.

(d) The requirements of the general

provisions in subpart A of this part that

apply and those that do not apply to

owners and operators subject to this

subpart are specified in appendix A to

this subpart.

§ 63.1441 Definitions.

All terms used in this subpart shall

have the meaning given to them in this

section, § 63.2 of this part, or the Act.

Baghouse means a control device that

collects particulate matter by filtering

the gas stream through bags. A baghouse

is also referred to as a ‘‘fabric filter.’’

Bag leak detection system means an

instrument that can monitor particulate

matter (e.g., dust) loadings in the

exhaust of a baghouse to detect bag

failures. A bag leak detection system

includes, but is not limited to, an

instrument that operates on

triboelectric, light scattering,

transmittance or other effect to monitor

relative particulate matter loadings.

Batch copper converter means a

copper converter that is one of the

following copper converter designs: a

Pierce-Smith converter; a Hoboken

converter; or a similar design copper

converter that produces blister copper

in discrete batches using a sequence of

charging, blowing, skimming, and

pouring steps. A batch copper converter

does not use continuous flash

converting technology.

Blowing means the copper converter

operating mode during which air or

oxygen-enriched air is injected into the

molten converter bath.

By-product sulfuric acid plant means

a facility that produces sulfuric acid by

a contact process involving the catalytic

conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfur

trioxide followed by absorption of the

sulfur trioxide in a sulfuric acid

solution.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19603

Capture system means the collection

of components used to capture gases

and fumes released from one or more

emission points, and then convey the

captured gas stream to a control device.

A capture system may include, but is

not limited to, the following

components as applicable to a given

capture system design: duct intake

devices, hoods, enclosures, ductwork,

manifolds, plenums, and fans.

Charging means the copper converter

operating mode during which molten or

solid material is added to a copper

converter.

Control device means the air pollution

control equipment used to collect

particulate matter emissions. Examples

of such equipment include, but are not

limited, to a baghouse, an electrostatic

precipitator, and a wet scrubber.

Copper concentrate dryer means a

vessel in which copper concentrates are

heated in the presence of air to reduce

the moisture content of the material.

Supplemental copper-bearing feed

materials and fluxes may be added or

mixed with the copper concentrates fed

to a copper concentrate dryer.

Copper converter means a vessel in

which copper matte or other copperbearing material is oxidized to form

blister copper.

Copper converter department means

the area at a primary copper smelter in

which operations are conducted to

oxidize copper matte or other copperbearing material to form blister copper.

The copper converter department

includes the batch copper converters

and the associated capture systems used

to collect gases and fumes emitted

during copper converter operations (e.g.,

primary hood ventilation system,

secondary hood ventilation system).

Copper matte means a material

predominately composed of copper and

iron sulfides produced by smelting

copper ore concentrates.

Fugitive dust material means copper

concentrate, dross, reverts, slag, speiss,

or other solid copper-bearing materials.

Fugitive dust source means a

stationary source of particulate matter

emissions resulting from the handling,

storage, transfer, or other management

of fugitive dust materials where the

source is not associated with a specific

process, process vent, or stack.

Examples of fugitive dust sources

include, but are not limited to, plant

roadways used by vehicles transporting

copper concentrate, outdoor copper

concentrate storage piles, bedding areas,

and conveyor system transfer points.

Holding means the copper converter

operating mode during which the

molten bath is maintained in the copper

converter but does not include periods

of blowing or periods when material is

being added or removed from the

copper converter.

Opacity means the degree to which

emissions reduce the transmission of

light.

Operating parameter monitoring

system means the total equipment that

may be required to meet the data

acquisition and availability

requirements of this subpart used to

sample, condition (if applicable),

analyze, and provide a record of capture

system or control device operating

parameters.

Particulate matter means any finely

divided solid or liquid material, other

than uncombined water, as measured by

the specific reference method.

Pouring means the copper converter

operating mode during which molten

copper is removed from the molten

converter bath.

Primary copper smelter means a

facility that produces anode copper by

first flash smelting of copper ore

concentrates to obtain molten copper

matte and then converting the molten

matte to blister copper using batch

copper converters. Primary copper

smelting includes the handling and

blending of copper concentrate, the

drying of copper concentrate, the flash

smelting of copper concentrate to mattegrade copper, the conversion of mattegrade copper to blister-grade copper in

a batch copper converter, the refining of

blister-grade copper to anode-grade

copper, and the casting of copper

anodes.

Skimming means the copper converter

operating mode during which molten

slag is removed from the molten

converter bath.

Slag cleaning vessel means a vessel

that receives molten copper-bearing

material and the predominant use of the

vessel is to separate this material into

molten copper matte and slag layers.

Smelting vessel means a furnace,

reactor, or other type of vessel in which

copper ore concentrate and fluxes are

melted to form a molten mass of

material containing copper matte and

slag. Other copper-bearing materials

may also be charged to the smelting

vessel.

§ 63.1442 [Reserved].

§ 63.1443 Standards: Copper concentrate

dryers.

(a) The requirements of this section

apply to affected copper concentrate

dryers at a primary copper smelter

subject to this subpart. Standards for

existing copper concentrate dryers are

specified in paragraph (b) of this

section. Standards for new copper

concentrate dryers are specified in

paragraph (c) of this section.

(b) The owner or operator shall not

discharge nor cause to be discharged to

the atmosphere from the exhaust vent

for an existing copper concentrate dryer

any gases that contain particulate matter

greater than 50 milligrams per dry

standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) as

determined by a performance test

conducted in accordance with the

applicable requirements of § 63.1451 of

this subpart.

(c) The owner or operator shall not

discharge nor cause to be discharged to

the atmosphere from the exhaust vent

for a new copper concentrate dryer any

gases that contain particulate matter

greater than 23 mg/dscm as determined

by a performance test conducted in

accordance with the applicable

requirements of § 63.1451 of this

subpart.

§ 63.1444 Standards: Smelting vessels.

(a) The requirements of this section

apply to affected existing and new

smelting vessels at a primary copper

smelter subject to this subpart.

(b) The owner or operator shall

discharge the off-gases exhausted from

the smelting vessel to a by-product

sulfuric acid plant or another type of

sulfur recovery process that requires

comparable levels of gas stream precleaning and conditioning to remove

particulate matter. A performance test is

not required for gas streams that meet

the requirements of this paragraph.

(c) The owner or operator shall

capture and control air emissions when

tapping molten material from the

smelting vessel in accordance with the

requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and

(c)(2) of this section.

(1) The owner or operator shall install

and operate a capture system to collect

gases and fumes released from each

opening to the smelting vessel that is

used to tap molten material from the

vessel. The design and placement of this

capture system shall be such that the

tapping port opening, launder, and

molten material receiving vessel are

positioned within the confines or

influence of the system’s ventilation

draft during all periods when molten

material flows from the tapping port

into the molten material receiving

vessel.

(2) The owner or operator of each

capture system operated to comply with

paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall not

discharge nor cause to be discharged to

the atmosphere from the capture system

exhaust outlet any gases that contain

particulate matter greater than 16 mg/

dscm as determined by a performance

test conducted in accordance with the
19604 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

applicable requirements of § 63.1451 of

this subpart.

§ 63.1445 Standards: Slag cleaning

vessels.

(a) The requirements of this section

apply to affected existing and new slag

cleaning vessels at a primary copper

smelter subject to this subpart.

(b) The owner or operator shall

discharge the off-gases exhausted from

the slag cleaning vessel in accordance

with the requirements of either

paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section.

(1) The owner or operator shall

discharge the off-gases exhausted from

the slag cleaning vessel to a by-product

sulfuric acid plant or another type of

sulfur recovery process that requires

comparable levels of gas stream precleaning and conditioning to remove

particulate matter. A performance test is

not required for gas streams that meet

the requirements of this paragraph.

(2) The owner or operator shall not

discharge nor cause to be discharged to

the atmosphere from the slag cleaning

vessel any off-gases that contain

particulate matter greater than 46 mg/

dscm as determined by a performance

test conducted in accordance with the

applicable requirements of § 63.1451 of

this subpart.

(c) The owner or operator shall

capture and control air emissions when

tapping molten material from the slag

cleaning vessel in accordance with the

requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and

(c)(2) of this section.

(1) The owner or operator shall install

and operate a capture system to collect

gases and fumes released from each

opening to the slag cleaning vessel that

is used to tap molten material from the

vessel. The design and placement of this

capture system shall be such that the

tapping port opening, launder, and

molten material receiving vessel are

positioned within the confines or

influence of the system’s ventilation

draft during all periods when molten

material flows from the tapping port

into the molten material receiving

vessel.

(2) The owner or operator of each

capture system operated to comply with

paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall not

discharge nor cause to be discharged to

the atmosphere from the capture system

exhaust outlet any gases that contain

particulate matter greater than 16 mg/

dscm as determined by a performance

test conducted in accordance with the

applicable requirements of § 63.1451 of

this subpart.

§ 63.1446 Standards: Copper converters.

(a) Applicability. The requirements of

this section apply to the affected copper

converter department at a primary

copper smelter subject to this subpart.

Standards for existing copper converter

departments are specified in paragraph

(b) of this section. Standards for new

copper converter departments are

specified in paragraph (c) of this

section.

(b) Standards for existing copper

converter departments. The owner or

operator shall install, operate, and

maintain air emission controls for each

copper converter located in the copper

converter department. As applicable to

the copper converter design, the air

emission controls shall meet the

requirements in either paragraphs (b)(1),

(b)(2), or (b)(3) of this section.

(1) Existing Pierce-Smith copper

converters. Gases and fumes emitted

when the Pierce-Smith converter is

operating in a blowing mode shall be

collected by a capture system and the

captured gases and fumes vented to a

control device in accordance with the

requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)(i)

through (b)(1)(iii) of this section.

(i) The capture system design shall

include use of a primary hood that

covers the entire mouth of the copper

converter when the copper converter is

positioned for blowing. Additional

hoods (e.g., secondary hoods) or other

capture devices shall be included in the

capture system design as needed to

achieve the operating requirements in

paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section. The

capture system design may use multiple

intake and duct segments through

which the ventilation rates are

controlled independently of each other

and individual duct segments may be

connected to separate control devices.

(ii) The capture system shall be

operated with sufficient ventilation

draft such that the visible emissions

exiting the roof monitors or roof exhaust

fans on the building housing the copper

converter department do not exhibit an

average opacity greater than 3 percent as

determined by a performance test

conducted in accordance with the

requirements of § 63.1451(c) of this

subpart. This visible emission limit

shall apply only during those periods

when a performance test is conducted in

conjunction with establishing the

capture system operating parameter

limits in accordance with the

requirements in § 63.1452(c)(1) of this

subpart. The requirements for

compliance with opacity and visible

emission limits specified in § 63.6(h) of

the general provisions in subpart A of

this part do not apply to this paragraph.

(iii) Each capture system exhaust

stream shall be vented to one of the air

emission controls specified in paragraph

(b)(1)(iii)(A) or (b)(1)(iii)(B) of this

section, as applicable considering the

sulfur oxide concentration of the

individual gas stream.

(A) A by-product sulfuric acid plant

or another type of sulfur recovery

process that requires comparable levels

of gas stream pre-cleaning and

conditioning to remove particulate

matter. A performance test is not

required for gas streams that meet the

requirements of this paragraph.

(B) A control device which does not

exhaust any gases to the atmosphere

that contain particulate matter greater

than 16 mg/dscm as determined by a

performance test conducted in

accordance with the applicable

requirements of § 63.1451 of this

subpart.

(2) Existing Hoboken copper

converters. Gases and fumes released

when the Hoboken converter is

operating in a blowing mode shall be

evacuated directly from the interior of

the copper converter into a side flue

intake positioned at one end of the

converter vessel and these captured

gases and fumes vented to a control

device in accordance with the

requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and

(b)(2)(ii) of this section.

(i) The side flue intake of each

Hoboken copper converter shall be

operated with sufficient ventilation

draft during blowing such that the

visible emissions exiting the roof

monitors on the building housing the

copper converter department do not

exhibit an average opacity greater than

4 percent as determined by performance

tests conducted in accordance with the

requirements of § 63.1451(c) of this

subpart. This visible emission limit

shall apply only during those periods

when a performance test is conducted in

conjunction with establishing the

capture system operating parameter

limits in accordance with the

requirements in § 63.1452(c)(1) of this

subpart. The requirements for

compliance with opacity and visible

emission limits specified in § 63.6(h) of

the general provisions in subpart A of

this part do not apply to this paragraph.

(ii) Each side flue exhaust stream

shall be vented through a capture

system to a by-product sulfuric acid

plant or another type of sulfur recovery

process that requires comparable levels

of gas stream pre-cleaning and

conditioning to remove particulate

matter. A performance test is not

required for gas streams that meet the

requirements of this paragraph.

(3) Other existing batch copper

converters. Gases and fumes released

from a batch copper converter that is

neither a Pierce-Smith copper converter

nor a Hoboken copper converter shall be
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19605

controlled in accordance with the

requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(i)

through (b)(1)(iii) of this section.

(c) Standards for new copper

converter departments. The owner or

operator shall install, operate, and

maintain air emission controls for each

copper converter located in the copper

converter department. The air emission

controls shall meet the requirements in

paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this

section.

(1) Gases and fumes emitted

whenever molten material is in the

copper converter shall be collected by a

capture system, and the captured gases

and fumes shall be vented to a control

device. The capture system design may

use multiple intake and duct segments

through which the ventilation rates are

controlled independently of each other,

and individual duct segments may be

connected to separate control devices.

(e.g., use of individual hoods on each

copper converter in combination with a

building evacuation system).

(2) The capture system shall be

operated with sufficient ventilation

draft whenever molten material is in the

copper converter such that no visible

emissions exit the the building housing

the copper converter department as

determined by performance tests

conducted in accordance with the

requirements of § 63.1451(d) of this

subpart.

(3) Each capture system exhaust

stream shall be vented to one of the air

emission controls specified in

paragraphs (c)(3)(i) or (c)(3)(ii) of this

section, as applicable considering the

sulfur oxide concentration of the

individual gas stream.

(i) A by-product sulfuric acid plant or

a another type of sulfur recovery process

that requires comparable levels of gas

stream pre-cleaning and conditioning to

remove particulate matter. A

performance test is not required for gas

streams that meet the requirements of

this paragraph.

(ii) A control device which does not

exhaust any gases to the atmosphere

that contain particulate matter greater

than 16 mg/dscm as determined by a

performance test conducted in

accordance with the applicable

requirements of § 63.1451 of this

subpart.

§ 63.1447 [Reserved].

§ 63.1448 Standards: Fugitive dust

sources.

(a) The requirements of this section

apply to existing and new affected

sources of fugitive dust emissions at a

primary copper smelter subject to this

subpart.

(b) The owner or operator shall

prepare and implement a written

fugitive dust control plan in accordance

with the requirements specified in

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this

section.

(1) The fugitive dust control plan

shall describe the specific control

measures that are used to reduce

emissions from the individual fugitive

dust sources at the smelter site.

Examples of control measures that may

be used include, but are not limited to:

installing an enclosure, installing and

operating a local hood capture system

vented to a control device, placing

stockpiles below grade, installing wind

screens or wind fences, using water

sprays, applying appropriate dust

suppression agents, or any combination

of these control measures as appropriate

for a given fugitive dust source.

(2) The fugitive dust control plan

shall include a description of the

control measures implemented for each

of the fugitive dust sources listed in

paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(vi) of

this section.

(i) Roads or other areas within the

plant property boundary used by trucks

or other motor vehicles (e.g., front-end

loaders) transporting bulk quantities of

fugitive dust materials. Paved roads and

areas of the smelter site that are not

used by these vehicles are not required

to be included in the plan (e.g.,

employee and visitor parking lots);

(ii) Operations to unload fugitive dust

materials from trucks or railcars;

(iii) Outdoor piles used to store

fugitive dust materials;

(iv) Bedding areas used for blending

copper concentrate and other feed

constituents;

(v) Transfer points in conveying

systems used to convey fugitive dust

materials. These points include, but are

not limited to, those points where the

material is transferred from a conveyor

belt to a second conveyor belt or

discharged from a conveyor to a hopper

or bin; and

(vi) Other fugitive dust sources at a

smelter site as designated by the

Administrator or delegated permitting

authority.

(3) The owner or operator shall

submit a copy of the fugitive dust

control plan to the designated

permitting authority on or before the

applicable compliance date for the

affected source as specified in

§ 63.1450(b) of this subpart. The

requirement for the owner or operator to

operate the smelter according to a

written fugitive dust control plan shall

be incorporated in the operating permit

for the smelter site that is issued by the

designated permitting authority under

part 70 of this chapter.

§ 63.1449 Equivalent standard: combined

exhaust gas streams.

(a) As an alternative to complying

with the individual particulate matter

emission limits specified in this subpart

for affected sources, an owner or

operator may elect to combine two or

more of the affected exhaust gas streams

listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4)

of this section and route the combined

exhaust gas stream to a single control

device that meets the equivalent

particulate emission limit specified in

paragraph (b) of this section.

(1) Exhaust gas stream from a copper

concentrate dryer that would otherwise

be subject to § 63.1443 of this subpart;

(2) Exhaust gas stream from a smelting

vessel capture system that would

otherwise be subject to § 63.1444(c)(2) of

this subpart;

(3) Exhaust gas stream from a slag

cleaning vessel capture system that

would otherwise be subject to

§ 63.1445(c)(2) of this subpart; and

(4) Exhaust gas stream from a copper

converter capture system that would

otherwise be subject to

§§ 63.1446(b)(1)(iii)(B) or (c)(3)(ii) of

this subpart.

(b) An owner or operator shall not

discharge nor cause to be discharged to

the atmosphere a combined exhaust gas

stream that contains particulate matter

greater than the particulate matter

emission limit calculated for the

combined exhaust gas stream using the

procedure specified in paragraphs (b)(1)

and (b)(2) of this section. Particulate

matter emissions in the combined

exhaust gas stream shall be determined

by a performance test conducted in

accordance with the applicable

requirements of § 63.1451 of this

subpart.

(1) The particulate matter emission

limit for the combined exhaust gas

stream shall be calculated using

Equation 1:
19606 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

E E Q E Q E Q E Q

Q Q Q Q Eq d d sv sv scv scv cc cc

d sv scv cc

= + + +

+ + +

( . )1

Where:

E=Particulate matter emission limit for

the combined exhaust gas stream

(mg/dscm);

Ed=Particulate matter emission limit

applicable to copper concentrate

dryer as specified in § 63.1443 of

this subpart (mg/dscm);

Qd=Copper concentrate dryer exhaust

gas stream volumetric flow rate as

determined by the procedure

specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this

section (dscm);

Esv=Particulate matter emission limit for

smelting vessel capture system as

specified in § 63.1444(c)(2) of this

subpart (mg/dscm);

Qsv= Smelting vessel capture system

exhaust gas stream volumetric flow

rate as determined by the procedure

in paragraph (b)(2) of this section

(dscm);

Escv=Particulate matter emission limit

for slag cleaning vessel capture

system as specified in

§ 63.1445(c)(2) of this subpart (mg/

dscm).

Qscv=Slag cleaning vessel capture

system exhaust gas stream

volumetric flow rate as determined

by the procedure specified in

paragraph (b)(2) of this section

(dscm);

Ecc=Particulate emission limit for

copper converter capture system as

specified in § 63.1446(b)(1)(iii)(B) or

§ 63.1446(c)(iii) of this subpart as

applicable to the copper converter

department (mg/dscm); and

Qcc=Copper converter capture system

exhaust gas stream volumetric flow

rate as determined by the procedure

specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this

section (dscm).

(2) The volumetric flow rate of each

individual exhaust gas stream used for

the calculation specified in paragraph

(b)(1) of this section shall be the average

of the volumetric flow rates measured

during each performance test run

performed in accordance with the

requirements of § 63.1451(b) of this

subpart and used to determine

compliance with the applicable

particulate matter emission limits

specified in §§ 63.1443 through 63.1446

of this subpart.

§ 63.1450 Compliance with standards and

maintenance requirements.

(a) General. The requirements of this

section apply to an owner or operator of

an affected source required to comply

with applicable standards under this

subpart.

(b) Compliance dates. (1) The owner

or operator of an affected source for

which construction or reconstruction

commences on or after April 20, 1998

shall achieve compliance with the

applicable requirements of this subpart

upon initial startup or [date of

publication of the final rule in the

Federal Register], whichever date is

later.

(2) The owner or operator of an

affected source that commenced

construction or reconstruction before

April 20, 1998 shall achieve compliance

with the applicable requirements of this

subpart as expeditiously as practical,

but no later than [date 2 years after date

of publication of final rule in the

Federal Register].

(c) Operation and maintenance

requirements. (1) At all times, including

periods of startup, shutdown, and

malfunction, the owner or operator shall

operate and maintain each affected

source, including associated air

pollution control equipment, in

accordance with the requirements of

§ 63.6 of the general provisions in

subpart A of this part.

(2) The owner or operator shall

develop and implement a written

startup, shutdown, and malfunction

plan in accordance with the

requirements to § 63.6(e)(3) of the

general provisions in subpart A of this

part that describes the specific

procedures to be followed for operating

and maintaining each affected source

and its associated air pollution control

equipment during periods of startup,

shutdown, and malfunction. In addition

to the information required in

§ 63.6(e)(3) of this part, the information

specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through

(c)(2)(iii) of this section shall be

included in each plan.

(i) For the copper converter

department capture system required by

§ 63.1446 of this subpart, a description

of the corrective actions to be

implemented by the owner or operator

in the event that the operating

parameter monitoring system measures

a value for an operating parameter that

exceeds the limit established for the

parameter under § 63.1452(c)(1) of this

subpart.

(ii) For each baghouse that is used to

comply with a particulate matter

emission limit under §§ 63.1442 through

63.1446 of this subpart, a standard

operating procedures (SOP) manual that

specifies, in detail, the procedures to be

used by the owner or operator for

inspection, maintenance, bag leak

detection, and corrective action. The

procedures specified in the SOP manual

for inspections and routine maintenance

of the baghouse shall, at a minimum,

include the requirements in § 63.1452(d)

of this subpart. The requirements of this

paragraph do not apply to a baghouse

used exclusively for the control of

fugitive dust emissions in accordance

with the requirements under § 63.1448

of this subpart.

(iii) For each control device other

than a baghouse that is used to comply

with a particulate matter emission limit

under §§ 63.1442 through 63.1446 of

this subpart, a description of the

corrective actions to be implemented by

the owner or operator in the event that

the operating parameter monitoring

system measures a value for an

operating parameter that exceeds the

limit established for the parameter

under § 63.1452(e)(1) of this subpart.

§ 63.1451 Performance testing

requirements.

(a) General. The requirements of this

section apply to an owner or operator

required to conduct performance tests to

demonstrate compliance by an affected

source with applicable emission limits

under §§ 63.1442 through 63.1446 of

this subpart.

(b) Conduct of particulate matter

emission limit performance tests. The

owner or operator shall conduct each

performance test required under this

subpart to determine compliance with

the applicable particulate matter

emission limits specified in §§ 63.1443

through 63.1446 of this subpart in

accordance with applicable

requirements in § 63.7 of the general

provisions in subpart A of this part and

shall use reference methods specified in

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this

section.

(1) Method 1 in appendix A of part 60

of this chapter shall be used to select the

sampling port location and the number

or traverse points;

(2) Method 2 in appendix A of part 60

of this chapter shall be used to measure

the volumetric flow rate;

(3) Method 3 in appendix A of part 60

of this chapter shall be used for gas

analysis;

(4) Method 4 in appendix A of part 60

of this chapter shall be used to

determine stack gas moisture; and

(5) Method 5 in appendix A to part 60

of this chapter shall be used for

measurement of particulate matter
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19607

emissions from sources other than

positive pressure baghouses. Method 5D

in appendix A of part 60 of this chapter

shall be used for measurement of

particulate matter emissions from

positive pressure baghouses. The

minimum sampling time for each run

shall be 60 minutes and the minimum

sampling volume for the run shall be

0.85 dscm. Three runs shall be

performed and the average of the three

runs shall be used to determine

compliance.

(c) Conduct of existing copper

converter department visible emissions

performance tests. The owner or

operator shall determine compliance of

an existing copper converter department

with the applicable visible emission

limit specified in § 63.1446(b) of this

subpart by using the procedure

specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through

(c)(7) of this section.

(1) Test conditions. The opacity

observations shall be made during the

period when the primary copper smelter

is operating under conditions

representative of the smelter’s normal

blister copper production rate. Before

conducting the opacity observations, the

owner or operator shall prepare a

written test plan specifying the copper

production conditions to be maintained

throughout the opacity observation

period. A copy of the test plan shall be

submitted for review and approval by

the Administrator or delegated

authority. During the observation

period, the owner or operator shall

collect appropriate process information

to prepare sufficient documentation to

verify that all opacity observations were

made during the conditions specified in

the approved test plan.

(2) Test notification. The owner or

operator shall notify the Administrator

or delegated authority before conducting

the opacity observations to allow the

Administrator or delegated authority the

opportunity to have authorized

representatives attend the test. Written

notification of the location and

scheduled date for conducting the

opacity observations shall be received

by the Administrator on or before 30

calendar days before this scheduled

date.

(3) Opacity observation period. The

total time that opacity observations are

made shall be of sufficient duration to

obtain a minimum of 20 uninterrupted

6-minute intervals during which opacity

readings in accordance with Method 9

in appendix A of part 60 of this chapter

(i.e., 24 opacity readings, each reading

made at a 15-second interval) are

recorded for those conditions when at

least one copper converter is operating

in the blowing mode and no

interferences occur as specified in

paragraph (c)(6) of this section. The total

observation period may be divided into

two or more segments performed on

different days if changes in outdoor

conditions (e.g., position of sun relative

to observers does meet the Method 9

criteria) or copper production

conditions (e.g., equipment malfunction

or process upset) prevent the required

number of opacity readings from being

obtained during one continuous period.

If the total observation period is divided

into two or more segments, all opacity

observations shall be made during the

same set of copper production

conditions specified in the approved

test plan.

(4) Conduct of opacity observations.

All opacity observations shall be made

using Method 9 in appendix A to part

60 of this chapter and the procedures

specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through

(c)(4)(iv) of this section.

(i) The opacity observations shall be

performed by a team of qualified visible

emission observers. A sufficient number

of observers shall be used to obtain two

complete concurrent sets of 24 opacity

readings for each of the required 6-

minute observation intervals. All

concurrent sets of 24 opacity readings

need not be made by the same two

observers; observer substitutions are

allowed to provide observer rest breaks.

(ii) Each visible emission observer

shall be certified as a qualified observer

by the procedure specified in section 3

of Method 9 in appendix A of part 60

of this chapter. The owner or operator

shall obtain proof of current visible

emission reading certification for each

observer.

(iii) Before beginning the opacity

readings, all of the outdoor opacity

observers shall identify and designate

using a common identification code

(e.g., consecutive numbers, alphabetic

letters) each of the copper converter

department visible emission points on

the building for which opacity readings

are to be made. The copper converter

department visible emission points are

those sections of the building roof

monitor or those roof exhaust fan outlets

that are positioned over the location of

the copper converters inside the

building.

(iv) Each observer shall take a

position that meets the criteria specified

in section 2.1 of Method 9 in appendix

A of part 60 of this chapter and provides

the observer with an unobstructed view

of the designated converter department

visible emission points. For each

opacity reading, the observer shall

record the identification code for the

converter department visible emission

point for which the reading was made.

When during an individual opacity

reading it is possible for an observer to

distinguish two or more visible

emission plumes from the designated

converter department visible emission

points, the observer shall identify, to the

extent feasible, the plume having the

highest opacity and record his or her

opacity reading for that plume.

(5) Process information gathering.

Throughout the opacity observation

period, one or more persons familiar

with the primary copper smelter

operations shall be stationed inside the

building housing the copper converters

to visually monitor the copper converter

operations. Each indoor process monitor

shall record all observations in an

operating log using the procedure

specified in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) and

(c)(5)(ii) of this section.

(i) Before beginning the opacity

readings, the actions specified in

paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(A) and (c)(5)(i)(B) of

this section.

(A) An identification code (e.g., a

number, a letter) shall be assigned to

each copper converter in the copper

converter department; and

(B) The clock time setting on the

watch or clock to be used by the indoor

process monitor shall be synchronized

with the clock times settings for the

timepieces to be used by the outdoor

opacity observers.

(ii) During all periods when opacity

readings are being made by the outdoor

opacity observers, the indoor process

monitor shall record in the operating log

the information specified in paragraphs

(c)(5)(ii)(A) and (c)(5)(ii)(B) of this

section.

(A) When a copper converter is

positioned in the blowing mode, the

operating log entry for each activity

shall include, but is not limited to, the

following information:

(1) The copper converter

identification code;

(2) The clock times for when blowing

begins and when blowing ends; and

(3) The converter blowing rate. This

information may be recorded by a

separate computer data system.

(B) When an activity related to

operating the copper converters or

occurring in a converter aisle is

observed by an indoor process monitor

to generate visible emissions inside the

building housing the copper converters,

the operating log entry for each activity

shall include, but is not limited to, the

following information:

(1) A description of the activity;

(2) The clock times when the activity

begins and when the activity ends; and

(3) If the activity pertains to a specific

copper converter, the copper converter

identification code.
19608 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

(6) Data reduction. Using the

information recorded in opacity field

data sheets prepared by the outdoor

opacity observers and the indoor

process operating logs prepared by the

indoor process monitor, data summary

sheets for the entire observation period

shall be prepared using the procedure

specified in paragraphs (c)(6)(i) and

(c)(6)(ii) of this section.

(i) Prepare data summary sheets for

the entire observation period that lists

by the clock time at 1-minute intervals

the average of the opacity values read by

the two observers during each 1-minute

interval. [see Figure 1 of this subpart for

an example of the format to use for the

data summary sheets.] The average

opacity value to be recorded on the data

summary sheet for each 1-minute

interval shall be calculated as an

average of the eight 15-second interval

readings recorded on the field data

sheets by the two observers during a

given clock time minute interval (add

the four consecutive 15-second interval

opacity readings made by Observer A

during the specified clock time minute

plus the four consecutive 15-second

interval opacity readings made by

Observer B during the same clock time

minute, and divide this resulting total

by eight).

(ii) Using the complete set of data

summary sheets prepared in accordance

with paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section,

identify on each data summary sheet

those 1-minute intervals when one or

more converters are operating in the

blowing mode and no interferences

occur. An ‘‘interference’’ is a period

composed of consecutive clock time

minutes during which one or more of

the interference activities listed in

paragraph (c)(6)(ii)(A) of this section

occurs plus an appropriate time delay

factor to account for the time lag

between when the visible emissions

generated by this activity are seen by the

indoor process monitor and when these

emissions impact the opacity recorded

by the outdoor opacity observers. The

time delay factor shall be determined on

a site-specific basis as specified in

paragraph (c)(6)(ii)(B) of this section.

(A) Interference activities. For the

purpose of identifying ‘‘interferences’’,

only the activities listed in paragraphs

(c)(6)(ii)(A)(1) through (c)(6)(ii)(A)(6) of

this section are considered to be

interference activities. Other ancillary

activities that are conducted in or

adjacent to the copper converter aisle

during the opacity observations that

could potentially cause higher opacity

readings from the designated converter

department visible emission points are

not considered to be interference

activities (e.g., converter aisle cleaning,

placement of smoking ladles or skulls

on the copper converter aisle floor). The

following activities are interference

activities:

(1) Charging of copper matte, reverts,

or other materials to a copper converter;

(2) Skimming slag or other molten

materials from a copper converter;

(3) Pouring of blister copper or other

molten materials from a copper

converter;

(4) Return of slag or other molten

materials to the flash smelting furnace

or slag cleaning vessel;

(5) Roll-out or roll-in of the copper

converter; or

(6) Presence of smoke or fumes

generated in the smelting vessel, slag

cleaning vessel, or anode refining areas

that drifts into the copper converter

department.

(B) Time delay factor. The

interference period may be extended

beyond the clock time recorded for

cessation of the interference activity by

adding a time delay factor. This time

delay factor shall be a constant number

of minutes not to exceed 5 minutes that

is added to the clock time recorded

when cessation of the interference

activity occurs. The number of minutes

to be used for the time delay factor shall

be determined based on the information

in the data file. An explanation of the

rationale for selecting the value used for

the time delay factor shall be prepared

and included in the test report.

(7) Calculation of average opacity for

determination of compliance with

opacity standard. Compliance shall be

determined using only those opacity

readings listed in the complete set of

data summary sheets prepared in

accordance with paragraph (c)(6) of this

section that are identified as occurring

during a period when one or more

converters are operating in the blowing

mode with no interferences.

(i) Beginning at the first clock minute

listed on the data summary sheets

prepared in accordance with paragraph

(c)(6) of this section, calculate 6-minute

average opacity values for those periods

composed of six consecutive minutes of

blowing with no interferences. A

minimum of 20 6-minute periods is

required for the compliance calculation.

If more than twenty 6-minute periods

are included in the set of data summary

sheets, then all of the 6-minute periods

included in the set of data summary

sheets shall be used for the compliance

calculation.

(ii) Average opacity shall be

calculated using Equation 2:

VE

n

ave i VE Eq

i

n

=

=

∑

1 2

1

( . )

where

VEave=Average opacity to be used for

compliance determination

(percent);

n=Number of 6-minute opacity averages

in the data set (at least 20);

i=Period ‘‘i’’ composed of 6 consecutive

minutes with at least one converter

blowing and no interferences; and

VEi=6-minute average opacity

calculated for period ‘‘i’’ (percent).

(d) Conduct of new copper converter

department visible emission

performance tests. The owner or

operator shall determine compliance

with the visible emission limit for new

copper converter departments specified

in § 63.1446(c) of this subpart by using

the procedure specified in paragraphs

(d)(1) through (d)(3) of this section.

(1) Test conditions. The test shall be

made during the period when the

primary copper smelter is operating

under conditions representative of the

smelter’s normal blister copper

production rate. Before conducting the

opacity observations, the owner or

operator shall prepare a written test

plan specifying the copper production

conditions to be maintained throughout

the visible emission observation period.

A copy of the test plan shall be

submitted for review and approval by

the Administrator or delegated

authority. During the observation

period, the owner or operator shall

collect appropriate process information

to prepare sufficient documentation to

verify that all visible emission

observations were made during the

conditions specified in the approved

test plan.

(2) Test notification. The owner or

operator shall notify the Administrator

or delegated authority before conducting

the test to allow the Administrator or

delegated authority the opportunity to

have authorized representatives attend

the test. Written notification of the

location and scheduled date for

conducting the visible emission

observations shall be received by the

Administrator on or before 30 calendar

days before this scheduled date.

(3) Test procedure. The visible

emissions from the building housing the

copper converter department shall be

determined using Method 22 in

appendix A of part 60 of this chapter,

with an observation period of no less

than 2 hours.

§ 63.1452 Inspection and monitoring

requirements.

(a) General. The requirements of this

section apply to an owner or operator of

an affected source required to install

and operate air emission control

equipment in accordance with
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19609

applicable standards under §§ 63.1442

through 63.1446 of this subpart.

(b) Capture system inspection

requirements. The owner or operator

shall inspect each capture system

operated to meet applicable standards

under § 63.1044 through § 63.1046 of

this subpart in accordance with the

requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)

through (b)(4) of this section.

(1) Each inspection shall include

visually checking all of the capture

system components to detect any

defects or damage that could diminish

or impair capture system performance

from the level that the capture system

achieves when it is properly operated

and maintained. Examples of such

defects or damage include, but are not

limited to, openings through which

gases can escape as indicated by the

presence of cracks, holes, or gaps in

hoods or ductwork; flow constrictions

caused by dents or accumulated dust in

ductwork; and reduced fan performance

as indicated by fan blade erosion.

(2) An inspection of each capture

system shall be conducted at least once

every month.

(3) In the event a defect or damaged

component is detected, the owner or

operator shall replace or repair the

component consistent with the

corrective action procedures identified

in the startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan. The owner or

operator shall complete the repair as

soon as practicable but no later than 30

calendar days after the date of detection

except under the special circumstances

described in paragraph (b)(4) of this

section.

(4) Delay of repair of a capture system

defect beyond 30 calendar days is

allowed when the repair cannot be

completed within the 30-day period

because of factors beyond the direct

control of the owner or operator (e.g.,

time required to obtain a critical

replacement part from the

manufacturer). In this case, the repair

shall be completed as soon as

practicable, consistent with the

corrective action procedures identified

in the startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan. For each repair delay,

the owner or operator shall maintain a

record describing the work required to

complete the repair, the reason for the

repair delay, and the date that

completion of the repair is planned.

(c) Copper converter department

capture system monitoring

requirements. The owner or operator

shall ensure that each copper converter

department capture system required

under § 63.1446 of this subpart is

properly operated and maintained by

monitoring the operation of the capture

system as required in paragraphs (c)(1)

through (c)(5) of this section.

(1) During each performance test

conducted to demonstrate compliance

with a visible emission limit under

§ 63.1446 of this subpart, a range of

operating values shall be established for

the copper converter department

capture system that is a representative

and reliable indicator that the capture

system is being properly operated and

maintained (i.e., operating within the

same range of conditions used to

demonstrate compliance of the capture

system with the applicable visible

emission limit specified in § 63.1446 of

this subpart). This range of operating

values shall be established for the

capture system using the procedure in

paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(iv) of

this section.

(i) The owner or operator shall select

a set of operating parameters

appropriate for the capture system

design that the owner or operator

determines to be a representative and

reliable indicator of the capture system

performance. Appropriate capture

system operating parameter sets

include, but are not limited to:

(A) Capture system fan motor amperes

with all duct damper position settings;

or

(B) Volumetric flow rate through each

separately ducted hood.

(ii) The owner or operator shall

measure and record each of the selected

operating parameters during all visible

emission observations conducted for the

capture system performance test. At a

minimum, a value for each selected

parameter shall be recorded at least

once every 15 minutes.

(iii) For each selected operating

parameter monitored in accordance

with the requirements of paragraph

(c)(1)(ii) of this section, the owner or

operator shall establish a minimum

operating parameter limit or a maximum

operating parameter limit, as

appropriate for the parameter, to define

the operating limits within which the

capture system can operate and still

continuously achieve the same

operating conditions used to

demonstrate compliance of the capture

system with the applicable visible

emission limit specified in § 63.1446 of

this subpart.

(iv) The owner or operator shall

prepare written documentation to

support the operating parameter limits

established for the capture system. This

documentation shall include a

description for each selected parameter

and the operating range and monitoring

frequency required to ensure the capture

system is being properly operated and

maintained.

(2) The owner or operator shall

monitor the selected operating

parameters in accordance with the

requirements of either paragraph

(c)(2)(i) or (c)(2)(ii) of this section, as

applicable.

(i) Except in those cases when the

owner or operator elects to monitor the

operating parameter set specified in

paragraph (c)(1)(i)(A) of this section, the

owner or operator shall install, calibrate,

operate, and maintain a device

equipped with a recorder to measure the

values for each operating parameter

selected in accordance with the

requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this

section. The monitoring equipment

shall be installed, calibrated, and

maintained in accordance with the

equipment manufacturer’s

specifications. The recorder shall be a

data recording device that either records

an instantaneous data value for the

operating parameter at least once every

15 minutes or records 15-minute or

more frequent block average values.

(ii) In those cases when the owner or

operator elects to monitor the operating

parameter set specified in paragraph

(c)(1)(i)(A) of this section, the owner or

operator shall develop and implement a

written procedure for the converter

operator or other appropriate worker to

check at least once per shift that fan

amperage and damper positions are

within the operating parameter limits

established for the capture system.

(3) The owner or operator shall

regularly inspect the data recorded by

the operating parameter monitoring

system at a sufficient frequency to

ensure the capture system is operating

properly. An excursion is determined to

have occurred any time that the actual

value of a selected operating parameter

is less than the minimum operating

limit (or, if applicable, greater than the

maximum operating limit) established

for the parameter in accordance with the

requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this

section.

(4) Whenever an excursion occurs, the

owner or operator shall initiate within

one hour of detecting the excursion the

corrective action procedures identified

in the startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan as necessary to restore

the operation of the capture system to

the proper operating settings. Failure to

initiate the corrective action procedures

within one hour of detecting an

excursion or to take the necessary

corrective actions to remedy the

problem is a violation of the standard in

this subpart.

(5) For a given operating parameter, if

an excursion occurs six or more times

in any semi-annual reporting period,

then any subsequent excursion of that
19610 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

operating parameter during the

reporting period is a violation of the

standard in this subpart. For the

purpose of determining the number of

excursions in a semi-annual reporting

period, only one excursion shall be

counted in any given 24-hour period.

(d) Baghouse inspection and

monitoring requirements.

(1) The owner or operator shall

prepare and at all times operate

according to a standard operating

procedures (SOP) manual for

inspection, maintenance, and bag leak

detection, and corrective action plans

for each baghouse used to comply with

applicable standards under §§ 63.1442

through 63.1446 of this subpart. The

requirements of this paragraph do not

apply to a baghouse that is operated

exclusively to control fugitive dust

emissions.

(2) The procedures specified in the

SOP manual for inspections and routine

maintenance of a baghouse shall, at a

minimum, include the requirements of

paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (d)(2)(ix) of

this section.

(i) Daily monitoring of pressure drop

across each baghouse cell;

(ii) Weekly confirmation that dust is

being removed from hoppers through

visual inspection, or equivalent means

of ensuring the proper functioning of

removal mechanisms;

(iii) Daily check of compressed air

supply for pulse-jet baghouses;

(iv) An appropriate methodology for

monitoring cleaning cycles to ensure

proper operation;

(v) Monthly check of bag cleaning

mechanisms for proper functioning

through visual inspection or equivalent

means;

(vi) Quarterly check of bag tension on

reverse air and shaker-type baghouses.

Such checks are not required for shakertype baghouses using self-tensioning

(spring loaded) devices;

(vii) Quarterly confirmation of the

physical integrity of the baghouse

through visual inspection of the

baghouse interior for air leaks;

(viii) Quarterly inspection of fans for

wear, material buildup, and corrosion

through visual inspection, vibration

detectors, or equivalent means; and

(ix) Continuous operation of a bag

leak detection system.

(3) The procedures for maintenance

specified in the SOP manual shall, at a

minimum, include a preventative

maintenance schedule that is consistent

with the baghouse manufacturer’s

instructions for routine and long-term

maintenance.

(4) The bag leak detection system

required by paragraph (d)(1) of this

section, shall meet the specifications

and requirements of paragraphs (d)(3)(i)

through (d)(3)(viii) of this section.

(i) The bag leak detection system must

be certified by the manufacturer to be

capable of detecting particulate matter

emissions at concentrations of 10 mg/

acfm or less;

(ii) The bag leak detection system

sensor must provide output of relative

particulate matter loadings;

(iii) The bag leak detection system

must be equipped with an alarm system

that will sound an audible alarm when

an increase in relative particulate

loadings is detected over a preset level;

(iv) The bag leak detection system

shall be installed and operated in a

manner consistent with available

written guidance from the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency or, in

the absence of such written guidance,

the manufacturer’s written

specifications and recommendations for

installation, operation, and adjustment

of the system;

(v) The initial adjustment of the

system shall, at a minimum, consist of

establishing the baseline output by

adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the

averaging period of the device, and

establishing the alarm set points and the

alarm delay time;

(vi) Following initial adjustment, the

owner or operator shall not adjust the

sensitivity or range, averaging period,

alarm set points, or alarm delay time,

except as detailed in the SOP manual

required under paragraph (d)(1) of this

section. In no event shall the sensitivity

be increased by more than 100 percent

or decreased more than 50 percent over

a 365 day period unless such

adjustment follows a complete baghouse

inspection which demonstrates the

baghouse is in good operating condition;

(vii) For negative pressure or induced

air baghouses, and positive pressure

baghouses that are discharged to the

atmosphere through a stack, the bag leak

detector must be installed downstream

of the baghouse and upstream of any

wet acid gas scrubber; and

(viii) Where multiple detectors are

required, the system’s instrumentation

and alarm system may be shared among

the detectors.

(5) The SOP manual required by

paragraph (d)(1) of this section shall

include a corrective action plan that

specifies the procedures to be followed

in the case of a bag leak detection

system alarm. The corrective action plan

shall include, at a minimum, the

procedures used to determine and

record the time and cause of the alarm

as well as the corrective actions taken to

correct the control device malfunction

or minimize emissions as specified in

paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (d)(4)(ii) of this

section. Failure to initiate the corrective

action required by this paragraph is a

violation of the standard in this subpart.

(i) The procedures used to determine

the cause of the alarm must be initiated

within 30 minutes of the time the alarm

first sounds; and

(ii) The cause of the alarm must be

alleviated by taking the necessary

corrective action(s) which may include,

but are not to be limited to, the actions

in paragraphs (d)(5)(ii)(A) through

(d)(5)(ii)(F) of this section.

(A) Inspecting the baghouse for air

leaks, torn or broken filter elements, or

any other malfunction that may cause

an increase in emissions;

(B) Sealing off defective bags or filter

media;

(C) Replacing defective bags or filter

media, or otherwise repairing the

control device;

(D) Sealing off a defective baghouse

compartment;

(E) Cleaning the bag leak detection

system probe, or otherwise repairing the

bag leak detection system; or

(F) Shutting down the process

producing the particulate emissions.

(e) Monitoring of venturi wet

scrubbers. For each venturi wet scrubber

operated to comply with applicable

particulate matter emission limits in

§§ 63.1442 through 63.1446 of this

subpart, the owner or operator shall

ensure that the venturi wet scrubber is

properly operated and maintained by

monitoring the operation of the wet

control device as required in paragraphs

(e)(1) through (e)(3) of this section.

(1) During each performance test

conducted to demonstrate compliance

of a venturi wet scrubber outlet gas

stream with the applicable particulate

matter emission limit, minimum

operating values shall be established for

the scrubber pressure drop and the

scrubber water flow rate. These

operating values shall be established for

the venturi wet scrubber using the

procedure in paragraphs (e)(1)(i)

through (e)(1)(iii) of this section.

(i) The owner or operator shall

measure and record values for the

scrubber pressure drop and scrubber

water flow rate during each test run

conducted for a performance test to

demonstrate compliance with the

applicable standard. At a minimum, a

value for each operating parameter shall

be recorded at least once every 15

minutes during the test run.

(ii) For each operating parameter

measured in accordance with the

requirements of paragraphs (e)(1)(i) of

this section, the owner or operator shall

establish an operating parameter limit to

define the minimum scrubber pressure

drop and minimum scrubber water flow
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19611

rate at which the scrubber can operate

and still continuously achieve the

applicable particulate matter emission

limit.

(iii) The owner or operator shall

prepare written documentation to

support the minimum operating

parameter limits established for the

scrubber.

(2) The owner or operator shall

install, calibrate, operate, and maintain

monitoring devices equipped with a

recorder to measure the values for

scrubber pressure drop and scrubber

water flow rate. The monitoring

equipment shall be installed, calibrated,

and maintained in accordance with the

equipment manufacturer’s

specifications. The recorder shall be a

data recording device that either records

an instantaneous data value for the

operating parameter at least once every

15 minutes or records 15-minute or

more frequent block average values.

(3) The owner or operator shall

regularly inspect the data recorded by

the operating parameter monitoring

system at a sufficient frequency to

ensure the scrubber is operating

properly. An excursion is determined to

have occurred any time that the actual

value of the scrubber pressure drop or

water flow rate is less than the

minimum limit established for the

parameter in accordance with the

requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this

section. Any excursion recorded for the

venturi wet scrubber shall be a violation

of the standard in this subpart.

(f) Monitoring of control devices other

than baghouses or venturi wet

scrubbers. For each control device that

is not a baghouse or venturi wet

scrubber but is operated to comply with

applicable particulate matter emission

limits in §§ 63.1442 through 63.1446 of

this subpart, the owner or operator shall

ensure that the control device is

properly operated and maintained by

monitoring the operation of the control

device as required in paragraphs (f)(1)

through (f)(4) of this section.

(1) During each performance test

conducted to demonstrate compliance

of a control device outlet gas stream

with the applicable particulate matter

emission limit, a range of operating

values shall be established for the

control device that is a representative

and reliable indicator that the control

device is operating within the same

range of conditions used to demonstrate

compliance of the control device with

the applicable particulate matter

emission limit. This range of operating

values shall be established for the

control device using the procedure in

paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(iv) of

this section.

(i) The owner or operator shall select

a set of operating parameters

appropriate for the control device

design that the owner or operator

determines to be a representative and

reliable indicator of the control device

performance.

(ii) The owner or operator shall

measure and record values for each of

the selected operating parameters

during each test run conducted for the

performance test to demonstrate

compliance with the applicable

standard. At a minimum, a value for

each selected parameter shall be

recorded at least once every 15 minutes.

(iii) For each selected operating

parameter measured in accordance with

the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1)(ii)

of this section, the owner or operator

shall establish a minimum operating

parameter limit or a maximum operating

parameter limit, as appropriate for the

parameter, to define the operating limits

within which the control device can

operate and still continuously achieve

the same operating conditions used to

demonstrate compliance of the control

device with the applicable particulate

matter emission limit.

(iv) The owner or operator shall

prepare written documentation to

support the operating parameter limits

established for the control device. This

documentation shall include a

description for each selected parameter

and the operating range and monitoring

frequency required to ensure the control

device is being properly operated and

maintained.

(2) The owner or operator shall

install, calibrate, operate, and maintain

a monitoring device equipped with a

recorder to measure the values for each

operating parameter selected in

accordance with the requirements of

paragraph (f)(1) of this section. The

monitoring equipment shall be

installed, calibrated, and maintained in

accordance with the equipment

manufacturer’s specifications. The

recorder shall be a data recording device

that either records an instantaneous data

value for the operating parameter at

least once every 15 minutes or records

15-minute or more frequent block

average values.

(3) The owner or operator shall

regularly inspect the data recorded by

the operating parameter monitoring

system at a sufficient frequency to

ensure the control device is operating

properly. An excursion is determined to

have occurred any time that the actual

value of a selected operating parameter

is less than the minimum operating

limit (or, if applicable, greater than the

maximum operating limit) established

for the parameter in accordance with the

requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this

section.

(4) Whenever an excursion occurs, the

owner or operator shall initiate within

one hour of detecting the excursion the

corrective action procedures identified

in the startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan as necessary to restore

the operation of the control device to

the proper operating settings. Failure to

initiate the corrective action procedures

within one hour of detecting an

excursion or to take the necessary

corrective actions to remedy the

problem is a violation of the standard in

this subpart.

§ 63.1453 Notification requirements.

(a) The requirements of this section

apply to the owner and operator of a

primary copper smelter that is subject to

the requirements of this subpart.

(b) The owner or operator shall

prepare and submit written notifications

to the Administrator in accordance with

§ 63.9 of the general provisions in

subpart A of this part.

§ 63.1454 Recordkeeping and reporting

requirements.

(a) General. The requirements of this

section apply to the owner and operator

of a primary copper smelter that is

subject to the requirements of this

subpart.

(b) Recordkeeping requirements. The

owner or operator shall prepare and

maintain, in accordance with the

requirements in § 63.10(b)(1) of the

general provisions in subpart A of this

part, files of information specified in

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(9) of this

section. The owner or operator shall

maintain records for a least 5 years from

the date of each record. The records for

the most recent 2 years of operation

shall be maintained at the smelter site.

Records for previous years may be

maintained at an off-site location.

(1) The occurrence and duration of

each startup, shutdown, or malfunction

of operation (i.e., process equipment);

(2) The occurrence and duration of

each malfunction of the air pollution

control equipment;

(3) All maintenance performed on the

air pollution control equipment;

(4) Actions taken during periods of

startup, shutdown, and malfunction

(including corrective actions to restore

malfunctioning process and air

pollution control equipment to its

normal or usual manner of operation)

when such actions are different from the

procedures specified in the affected

source’s startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan prepared in

accordance with the requirements of

§ 63.6 of the general provisions in

subpart A of this part.;
19612 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

(5) Information necessary to

demonstrate compliance with the

affected source’s startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan (prepared in

accordance with the requirements of

§ 63.6 of this part) when all actions

taken during periods of startup,

shutdown, and malfunction (including

corrective actions to restore

malfunctioning process and air

pollution control equipment to its

normal or usual manner of operation)

are consistent with the procedures

specified in such plan. (The information

needed to demonstrate conformance

with the startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan may be recorded using

a ‘‘checklist,’’ or another effective form

of recordkeeping, to reduce the

recordkeeping burden for conforming

events);

(6) Measurements and other

supporting documentation needed to

demonstrate compliance with a relevant

standard (including, but not limited to,

raw performance testing measurements,

and raw performance evaluation

measurements, that support data that

the source is required to report);

(7) Results of all performance tests

and opacity observations performed in

accordance with the requirements of

this subpart;

(8) Data recorded to meet the

applicable monitoring requirements of

§ 63.1452 of this subpart.

(9) Documentation supporting

notifications submitted under § 63.1453

of this subpart.

(c) Reporting requirements. The

owner or operator shall prepare and

submit written reports to the

Administrator in accordance with

§ 63.10 of the general provisions in

subpart A of this part.

§ 63.1455 State authority and delegations.

(a) In delegating implementation and

enforcement authority to a State under

section 112(d) of the Act, the authority

listed in paragraph (b) of this section

shall be retained by the Administrator

and not transferred to a State.

(b) Authority will not be delegated to

States for approval of alternative test

methods under § 63.1451 of this

subpart.

Appendix A to Subpart QQQ—

Applicability of General Provisions (40

CFR part 63, subpart A) to Subpart

QQQ

Citation

Applies to

subpart

QQQ

Comment

63.1 ......... yes ..........

63.2 ......... yes ..........

Citation

Applies to

subpart

QQQ

Comment

63.3 ......... yes ..........

63.4 ......... yes ..........

63.5 ......... yes ..........

63.6 (a)–

63.6 (g).

yes ..........

63.6 (h) ... no for existing

sources.

Subpart QQQ specifies requirements

to be used for

compliance with

the visible emission limits.

63.6 (i)–

63.6 (j).

yes ..........

63.7 ......... yes ..........

63.8 ......... yes ..........

63.9 (a)–

163.9

(e).

yes ..........

63.9 (f) .... no for existing

sources.

Subpart QQQ specifies notification requirements for

visible emission

limit compliance

test.

63.9 (g)–

63.9 (j).

yes ..........

63.10 ....... yes ..........

63.11 ....... no ........... Flares not used to

comply with Subpart QQQ standards.

63.12–

63.15.

yes ..........

FIGURE 1.—OF SUBPART QQQ DATA SUMMARY SHEET FOR DETERMINATION OF AVERAGE OPACITY

Clock time Number of converters blowing Converter aisle activity

1-minute average

opacity

(percent)

Blowing without

Interferences

(yes or no)

Continuous 6-

minute average

opacity

(percent)

[FR Doc. 98–10142 Filed 4–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P