[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 75 (Monday, April 20, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19582-19612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10142]



[[Page 19581]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source 
Categories: National Emission Standards for Primary Copper Smelters; 
Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 19582]]



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 
``[email protected].''.

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 Sec. 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: ``A-and-R-D[email protected].'' 
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

[[Page 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

[[Page 19584]]

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 deg.C (1,830 deg.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 on-site 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 by-products 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 oxygen-
enriched 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 off-gases 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

[[Page 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 fire-refined 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 
copper-concentrate and other materials containing HAP in dump trucks, 
front-end 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 off-gases 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.

[[Page 19586]]

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-by-pollutant 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 best-controlled 
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

[[Page 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 by-product 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

[[Page 19588]]

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 Pierce-Smith converters require that SO2 rich off-
gases generated during blowing be captured by a primary hood 
ventilation system 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. 
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.

[[Page 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 Sec. 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

[[Page 19590]]

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

[[Page 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 
semi-annually 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).

[[Page 19592]]

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

[[Page 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 Sec. 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.

[[Page 19594]]

    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 off-
gases 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 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. 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 off-gases 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 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. 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

[[Page 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 
Pierce-Smith 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 off-gases 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 off-gases 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 Pierce-Smith 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

[[Page 19596]]

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

[[Page 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 off-gases 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 by-product sulfuric acid plant), it follows that 
the MACT floor for the converters should be the same as the MACT 
selected for the smelting furnace off-gases. 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 by-product 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 
Pierce-Smith 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 well-controlled 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

[[Page 19598]]

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 Pierce-
Smith 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 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.
    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 Pierce-Smith 
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 
best-controlled 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 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 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 19600]]

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

[[Page 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 cost-
benefit 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

[[Page 19602]]

to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives 
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, 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


Sec. 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 Sec. 63.1441 of this subpart.
    (2) The facility is a major source as defined in Sec. 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 Sec. 63.1441 of this 
subpart.
    (2) Smelting vessels. The affected source is each individual 
smelting vessel as defined in Sec. 63.1441 of this subpart.
    (3) Slag cleaning vessels. The affected source is each individual 
slag cleaning vessel as defined in Sec. 63.1441 of this subpart.
    (4) Batch copper converters. The affected source is the copper 
converter department as defined in Sec. 63.1441 of this subpart.
    (5) Fugitive dust sources. The affected source is the entire group 
of all fugitive dust sources, as defined in Sec. 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.


Sec. 63.1441  Definitions.

    All terms used in this subpart shall have the meaning given to them 
in this section, Sec. 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.

[[Page 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 
copper-bearing 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 copper-bearing 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 matte-grade 
copper, the conversion of matte-grade 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.


Sec. 63.1442  [Reserved].


Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 63.1451 of this 
subpart.


Sec. 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 pre-cleaning 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

[[Page 19604]]

applicable requirements of Sec. 63.1451 of this subpart.


Sec. 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 pre-cleaning 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 63.1451 of this subpart.


Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 63.1452(c)(1) of this subpart. The requirements for compliance 
with opacity and visible emission limits specified in Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 63.1452(c)(1) of this subpart. The requirements 
for compliance with opacity and visible emission limits specified in 
Sec. 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

[[Page 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 63.1451 of this subpart.


Sec. 63.1447  [Reserved].


Sec. 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 
Sec. 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.


Sec. 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 Sec. 63.1443 of this subpart;
    (2) Exhaust gas stream from a smelting vessel capture system that 
would otherwise be subject to Sec. 63.1444(c)(2) of this subpart;
    (3) Exhaust gas stream from a slag cleaning vessel capture system 
that would otherwise be subject to Sec. 63.1445(c)(2) of this subpart; 
and
    (4) Exhaust gas stream from a copper converter capture system that 
would otherwise be subject to Secs. 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 Sec. 63.1451 of this subpart.
    (1) The particulate matter emission limit for the combined exhaust 
gas stream shall be calculated using Equation 1:

[[Page 19606]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20AP98.000


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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 63.1446(b)(1)(iii)(B) or 
Sec. 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 
Sec. 63.1451(b) of this subpart and used to determine compliance with 
the applicable particulate matter emission limits specified in 
Secs. 63.1443 through 63.1446 of this subpart.


Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 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 
Sec. 63.1452(c)(1) of this subpart.
    (ii) For each baghouse that is used to comply with a particulate 
matter emission limit under Secs. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Secs. 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 Sec. 63.1452(e)(1) of this subpart.


Sec. 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 
Secs. 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 Secs. 63.1443 through 
63.1446 of this subpart in accordance with applicable requirements in 
Sec. 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

[[Page 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 Sec. 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.

[[Page 19608]]

    (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:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20AP98.001
    
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 Sec. 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.


Sec. 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

[[Page 19609]]

applicable standards under Secs. 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 Sec. 63.1044 through Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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

[[Page 19610]]

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 
Secs. 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 shaker-type 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 Secs. 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

[[Page 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 Secs. 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.


Sec. 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 Sec. 63.9 of the 
general provisions in subpart A of this part.


Sec. 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 Sec. 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 
Sec. 63.6 of the general provisions in subpart A of this part.;

[[Page 19612]]

    (5) Information necessary to demonstrate compliance with the 
affected source's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (prepared in 
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 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 
Sec. 63.1452 of this subpart.
    (9) Documentation supporting notifications submitted under 
Sec. 63.1453 of this subpart.
    (c) Reporting requirements. The owner or operator shall prepare and 
submit written reports to the Administrator in accordance with 
Sec. 63.10 of the general provisions in subpart A of this part.


Sec. 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 Sec. 63.1451 of this subpart.

Appendix A to Subpart QQQ--Applicability of General Provisions (40 
CFR part 63, subpart A) to Subpart QQQ

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Applies to subpart                    
            Citation                      QQQ               Comment     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1............................  yes...............  ..................
63.2............................  yes...............  ..................
63.3............................  yes...............  ..................
63.4............................  yes...............  ..................
63.5............................  yes...............  ..................
63.6 (a)-63.6 (g)...............  yes...............  ..................
63.6 (h)........................  no for existing     Subpart QQQ       
                                   sources.            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     Subpart QQQ       
                                   sources.            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                                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                         Continuous 6-  
                                                 Number of                                        1-minute average   Blowing without     minute average 
                 Clock time                      converters         Converter aisle activity     opacity (percent)    Interferences         opacity     
                                                  blowing                                                              (yes or no)         (percent)    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 98-10142 Filed 4-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P