[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 123 (Monday, June 26, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39326-39334]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15915]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-6721-7]
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: Supplement to proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action proposes a change to the proposed national 
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for primary 
copper smelters. After our careful review and evaluation of comments 
received on the proposed rule and new emissions data obtained since the 
proposal of the rule, we conclude that a change to the proposed 
standards for the control of process emissions from smelting furnaces, 
slag cleaning vessels, and batch copper converters is warranted. 
Specifically, instead of the equipment standard specified in the 
original proposal, we are proposing a numerical emission standard that 
would limit the maximum concentration of total particulate matter in 
the off-gases discharged from these processes. This action also 
proposes a new requirement for smelters using baghouses that are 
required to use bag leak detector systems. On April 20, 1998 (63 FR 
19592), the EPA proposed the NESHAP for Source Categories: National 
Emission Standards for Primary Copper Smelters. In that proposal the 
EPA estimated that nationwide HAP emissions from the ``Primary Copper 
Smelting'' source category was estimated to be approximately 189 Mg/yr 
(208 tpy). The EPA estimated in the same proposal that implementation 
of the NESHAP, as proposed, would reduce these nationwide HAP emissions 
by approximately 20 percent to 115 Mg/yr (171 tpy).

DATES: Comments. We are requesting comments only on this supplement to 
the proposed rule by August 25, 2000.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing on or before July 17, 2000, a public hearing will be 
held on July 26, 2000 beginning at 10:00 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments on this supplement to the proposed rule 
should be submitted (in duplicate) to Docket No. A-96-22 at the 
following address: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center 
(6102), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20460. We request that a separate copy of the 
comments also be sent to the contact person listed below in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

Docket

    The docket for this rulemaking is Docket No. A-96-22 and is 
available for public inspection between 8 a.m. and

[[Page 39327]]

5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except for Federal holidays, at the 
following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), 401 M Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 260-7548. The docket is located 
at the above address in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor). A 
reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

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 
supplemental 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 supplemental proposal. 
This description identifies the types of entities that we are now aware 
could potentially be regulated by final action on this supplemental 
proposal. To determine whether your facility is regulated by final 
action on this supplemental proposal, you should carefully examine the 
applicability criteria in the proposed rule (63 FR 19582, April 20, 
1998). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this 
action to a particular entity, consult the contact person listed in FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

World Wide Web

    An electronic copy of this document will also be available on the 
Technology Transfer Network (TTN) policy and guidance page for newly 
proposed or promulgated rules (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/). The TTN 
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air 
pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, 
call (919) 541-5384.

Docket

    The supplemental proposal and other information related to the 
proposed rule 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 docket 
materials The docket is intended to be an organized and complete file 
of the administrative records complied by us in the development of 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 regulated industries 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, except for 
certain interagency documents, will serve as the record for judicial 
review. (See CAA section 307(d)(7)(A).)

Public Hearing

    If anyone contacts us and requests to speak at a public hearing by 
July 17, 2000, a public hearing will be held at the U.S. EPA's Office 
of Administration Auditorium, 79 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina. Persons interested in attending the 
hearing or in making an oral presentation should notify Mrs. Mary 
Hinson, Metals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5601.

Electronic Filing

    Electronic comments can be sent directly to U.S. EPA's Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center at: ``[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, 6.1, or Corel 8 file format or ASCII file format. 
All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by the 
docket number (A-96-22). No ``Confidential Business Information'' 
should be submitted through electronic mail. Electronic comments may be 
filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

Confidential Business Information

    If you want to submit proprietary information for consideration, 
you should clearly distinguish such information from your other 
comments and clearly label it ``Confidential Business Information.'' To 
ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the 
docket, comments containing such proprietary information should not be 
sent to the public docket but instead sent directly to Mr. Eugene 
Crumpler, Metals Group, Emission Standards Division, c/o OAQPS Document 
Control Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 411 West Chapel 
Hill Street, Room 740B, Durham, NC 27701. Information covered by such 
claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by us only to the extent 
allowed and by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim 
of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received by us, 
the submission may be made available to the public without further 
notice to the commenter.

Outline

    The information in this preamble is organized as follows.

I. Summary of Proposed Rule Change
II. Background to Supplemental Proposal
III. Selection of the Proposed Emission Standard
    A. Original Decision to Propose an Equipment Standard
    B. Public Comments on the Proposed Equipment Standard
    C. Why We Decided to Change to an Emission Standard
    D. Why We Selected Particulate Matter as a HAP Surrogate
    E. How We Selected the Numerical Limit for the Emission Standard
IV. Requirements for Alarm Limits on Baghouse Leak Detectors
V. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 
601 et. seq.
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Summary of Proposed Rule Change

    We are proposing an emission standard to control the hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP) emissions from process off-gases discharged from 
smelting furnaces, slag cleaning vessels, and batch copper converters 
operated at primary copper smelters subject to the rule as proposed. 
This emission standard replaces the equipment standard we originally 
proposed for these sources. The emission standard would establish a 
numerical limit for the concentration of total particulate matter 
allowed to be emitted in the process off-gases discharged to the 
atmosphere from an affected source. We

[[Page 39328]]

are proposing that this concentration limit be set at 23 milligrams of 
total particulate matter per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) 
(approximately 0.010 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)). 
Measurement of total particulate matter concentration would be 
performed using either EPA Method 5 or Method 29 in 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A. The average value of the results from three test runs would 
be used to determine compliance with this numerical limit.
    We are also proposing a requirement for the percentage of time that 
bag leak detectors installed on baghouses at primary copper smelters 
detect levels of particulate matter above a set point. A violation of 
the standard will occur when the percentage of time that the alarm on 
the detector is activated exceeds 5 percent of the operating time in 
any 6-month period.

II. Background to Supplemental Proposal

    Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) directs us to establish 
NESHAP to control emissions from major and area stationary sources. The 
source category of ``primary copper smelting'' is one of the 
approximately 170 categories selected for regulation under section 112 
(57 FR 31576, 61 FR 28202). On April 20, 1998, we proposed the NESHAP 
for the primary copper smelting source category (63 FR 19582, April 20, 
1998).
    Following the proposal date, a 90-day comment period (April 20, 
1998 to July 20, 1998) was provided to receive comments from the 
public. A copy of each comment letter that we received has been placed 
in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. A-96-22). Several 
commenters provided new information regarding operations at primary 
copper smelters that caused us to reconsider the equipment standard 
originally proposed for the control of smelter process off-gas streams 
discharged from smelting furnaces, slag cleaning vessels, and batch 
copper converters.
    The supplement also proposes an operating standard that would limit 
the frequency and duration of baghouse leak detector alarms to 5 
percent of the baghouse operating time during any 6-month period. This 
operating standard helps assure that baghouses are in continuous 
compliance with particulate matter standards. The standard will also 
assure that the owner or operator will properly operate and maintain 
the system by responding immediately to alarms and take corrective 
action.
    Discussions on the purpose and bases of these proposed changes to 
the original proposal are contained in the following sections of this 
preamble.

III. Selection of the Proposed Emission Standard

A. Original Decision To Propose an Equipment Standard

    Process HAP emissions are the HAP contained in the primary exhaust 
gas stream (i.e., off-gases) discharged from a process unit or vessel. 
Process HAP emissions at primary copper smelters include metal HAP 
contained in the off-gases exhausted from flash smelting furnaces and 
from batch copper converters (when the converter vessels are positioned 
and operated in either the slag or copper blowing mode). At those 
smelters that perform an additional slag cleaning process step, a third 
source of metal HAP emissions is the off-gases exhausted from the slag 
cleaning vessels. All three of these process off-gas streams share a 
common characteristic. They all contain substantial quantities of 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) at high concentrations ranging from 4 
percent to as much as 80 percent for some smelting furnaces. At all 
existing smelters using these processes, the process off-gas streams 
are vented to by-product sulfuric acid plants for SO2 
control. These sulfuric acid plants were installed at the smelters to 
comply with Federal and State regulations limiting emissions of 
SO2 to the atmosphere.
    When we were developing the proposed NESHAP, we determined that the 
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) floor for controlling 
metal HAP emissions in the process off-gases vented from existing 
smelting furnaces, slag cleaning vessels, and batch copper converters 
is to vent these off-gases to a by-product sulfuric acid plant with its 
ancillary particulate matter pre-cleaning and conditioning systems (63 
FR 19594). Recognizing that an emission standard is the preferred 
approach for standards established under section 112 of the CAA, we 
nevertheless proposed an equipment standard pursuant to section 112(h).
    Our decision to propose an equipment standard was based on the 
inherent design and operation of the sulfuric acid plants used to treat 
the off-gases discharged from the smelting furnaces, slag cleaning 
vessels, and batch copper converters in order to comply with the 
existing, federally-enforceable SO2 emission standards. By 
operating these plants, the smelters also achieve effective control of 
the metal HAP contained in the process off-gases discharged from the 
smelting and converting operations. Rigorous pre-cleaning and 
conditioning of these process off-gases to remove metals and other 
particulate matter upstream of the acid plant catalyst beds are 
mandatory to optimize the acid plant performance and to prevent 
expensive damage to the catalysts and other critical plant equipment. 
Consequently, the metal HAP concentrations in the tail gases exiting 
the sulfuric acid plants at primary copper smelters are controlled to 
very low, if not, trace levels. We concluded that compliance with the 
existing federally-enforceable SO2 emission limits would 
ensure good metal HAP emission control for the SO2 rich 
process off-gases discharged to the smelter's sulfuric acid plant. 
Therefore, we proposed an equipment standard for the primary copper 
smelter NESHAP that would require that the process off-gases from 
smelting furnaces, slag cleaning vessels, and batch copper converters 
be discharged through 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). No 
numerical emission limits for either individual HAP metals or 
particulate matter were proposed.

B. Public Comments on the Proposed Equipment Standard

    One commenter disagreed with our decision to propose an equipment 
standard instead of an emission standard for control of metal HAP 
emissions from smelting furnaces, slag cleaning vessels, and batch 
copper converters at the affected primary copper smelters. The 
commenter argued that we are required by the CAA to establish an 
emission standard for these sources unless it can be demonstrated that 
prescribing and enforcing a numerical limit is not feasible. In the 
case of the proposed NESHAP for primary copper smelters, the commenter 
stated that we provided no documentation to support a determination 
that it is not feasible to prescribe a numerical limit for the metal 
HAP emissions from sulfuric acid plants operated at primary copper 
smelters.

C. Why We Decided To Change to an Emission Standard

    Since proposal, we have learned that source tests using EPA 
reference test methods have been routinely performed at primary copper 
smelters to measure the content of total particulate matter and 
individual HAP metal constituents in the tail gas streams vented from 
the sulfuric acid plants operating at these smelters. After our careful 
review and evaluation of the comments received on the proposed 
equipment standard and

[[Page 39329]]

the newly obtained source test data, we have now changed our opinion 
regarding the application of a numerical emission limit to these 
sources.
    We have compiled a data base that includes metal HAP and total 
particulate matter emission data from source tests of the sulfuric acid 
plants operated at four of the six primary copper smelters using batch 
copper converters. Many source tests have been conducted at primary 
copper smelters since 1996 to measure the concentrations of total 
particulate matter and individual metal HAP in the tail gases exiting 
the smelter sulfuric acid plants. The majority of these tests were 
performed using EPA reference test methods.
    At two smelters, source tests were repeated on a monthly basis for 
a 3-year period. The demonstrated capability of the smelter owners and 
operators to conduct these source tests clearly supports a conclusion 
that this type of source testing is not only feasible but is practical 
and not overly burdensome to perform. Furthermore, given the data base 
that has been compiled using the source test results, we now conclude 
that a numerical emission limit on the tail gases exiting the sulfuric 
acid plants operated at primary copper smelters can readily be 
prescribed and effectively enforced.

D. Why We Selected Particulate Matter as a HAP Surrogate

    The HAP emissions from primary copper smelters originate primarily 
from metal impurities (e.g., arsenic, lead, cadmium, antimony, and 
other heavy metal species that have been listed as HAP) that naturally 
occur in copper ore concentrates. During the smelting process of the 
copper ore concentrates and the subsequent converting process to 
produce blister copper, these HAP metal species either are eliminated 
in the molten slag tapped from the process vessels or are vaporized and 
discharged in the process vessel off-gases. Upon cooling of the process 
off-gases, the volatilized HAP metal species condense, form aerosols, 
and behave as particulate matter.
    The composition and amounts of metal HAP in the copper ore 
concentrates can vary from one smelter to another as well as over time 
at individual smelters depending on the ore deposit from which the 
copper ore concentrate is derived. This inherent variability and 
unpredictability of the metal HAP compositions and amounts in copper 
ore concentrates have a material effect on the composition and amount 
of HAP metals in the process off-gas emissions. As a result, 
prescribing individual numerical emission limits for each HAP metal 
species (e.g., a specific emission limit for arsenic, a specific 
emission limit for lead, etc.) is difficult, if not impossible, to do.
    Given that prescribing individual numerical emission limits for HAP 
metal is not a practicable approach in this case, an alternative 
approach is to use total particulate matter as a surrogate pollutant 
for the metal HAP emitted from primary copper smelters. An emission 
characteristic common to all primary copper smelters and similar source 
categories is the fact that the metal HAP are a component of the 
particulate matter contained in the process off-gases discharged from 
smelting and converting operations. Strong direct correlations exist 
between the emissions of total particulate matter and metal HAP 
compounds. Emission limits established to achieve good control of total 
particulate matter will also achieve good control of metal HAP. 
Adopting particulate matter as a surrogate pollutant for these sources 
provides the added benefit of consistency with the format and test 
procedures we are using for the other primary copper smelter sources 
for which we have proposed numerical emission limits (i.e., 
specifically the proposed numerical emission limit standards for 
exhaust gas streams from copper concentrate dryers and for captured 
process fugitive gas streams from smelting and converting vessels).

E. How We Selected the Numerical Limit for the Emission Standard

    We prepared a data base from which we could select a numerical 
limit for total particulate matter contained in the tail gases exiting 
the sulfuric acid plants operated at primary copper smelters. This data 
base is derived from the results of field source tests performed 
between 1996 and 1999 by the primary copper smelter companies using EPA 
test methods. Most of the tests included in our data base were 
performed using EPA Method 29 (in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60) which 
can measure both particulate matter and individual metal emissions from 
stationary sources. The remaining tests were performed using EPA Method 
5 (also in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60) which is used to measure 
particulate matter emissions from stationary sources. The test protocol 
for these EPA methods requires that three test runs be completed to be 
considered a valid compliance test.
    The data base includes results for particulate matter emissions 
from the sulfuric acid plants operated at four of the six primary 
copper smelters that would potentially be subject to this supplemental 
proposal. All the tested sulfuric acid plants are double-contact plant 
designs with sulfuric acid production capacities ranging from 
approximately 2,200 to 4,000 tons per day. One of the smelters tested 
operates two sulfuric acid plants, and the data base includes test 
results for both plants. The two other smelters for which we do not 
have source test results also operate double-contact sulfuric acid 
plants. The design and sulfuric acid production capacities of the 
sulfuric acid plants for which we do not have data are similar to the 
five plants included in the data base. A summary of results for each of 
the individual source tests included in the data base is available in 
the docket for this rulemaking (Docket A-96-22).
    For one smelter located in Arizona, the company provided us with 
the results from six additional source tests for their facility's 
sulfuric acid plant conducted using the Arizona Method A1. This is a 
test method adopted by the State of Arizona for measuring total 
particulate matter emissions in gas streams containing sulfur. Arizona 
Method A1 uses a different protocol than EPA Methods 5 and 29. The 
temperature specified by Arizona Method A1 for the sample collection 
filter is in the range of 350 deg.F versus 250 deg.F for EPA Methods 5 
and 29. At the filter temperature used for the EPA methods, sulfuric 
acid mist and waters of hydration are condensed and counted as part of 
the total particulate catch on the filter. Sulfuric acid mist and 
waters of hydration do not condense at the higher filter temperature 
used for Arizona Method A1 and pass through the filter (i.e., do not 
collect on the filter). Consequently, for a given sulfuric acid plant 
tail gas stream, a total particulate matter concentration value 
measured on the filter using Arizona Method A1 will be lower than the 
concentration value measured on the filter using either EPA Method 5 or 
29. The test results obtained using Arizona Method A1 cannot be 
directly compared to the test results obtained using the EPA test 
methods. Therefore, we decided not to mix incompatible test results in 
our data base, and we included only those individual source tests 
conducted using EPA Methods 5 or 29.
    In addition, we excluded from further consideration in our 
selection of a numerical emission limit the results of three source 
tests that were obtained from the smelter companies. Although these 
tests were conducted using EPA test methods, our review of the tests 
showed that the documentation of the

[[Page 39330]]

test results was either incomplete or that the test was not conducted 
under normal representative operating conditions. The first test 
reported results for only two test runs; this is fewer than the minimum 
number of three runs required by EPA test method protocol to be a valid 
compliance test. A second test was excluded because the smelter company 
reported to us that, based on the results of that test, the sulfuric 
acid plant was subsequently shut down to make repairs to catalyst beds. 
We do not consider this test to be representative of normal sulfuric 
acid plant performance at the smelter. Our review of the third test 
shows that there exists a substantial inconsistency in the measured 
particulate matter concentrations between the first test run as 
compared to the second and third runs conducted on the same day. An 
extraordinarily large value of 0.075 gr/dscf was reported for the first 
run versus more credible values of 0.004 and 0.005 gr/dscf reported for 
the second and third runs, respectively. These results clearly indicate 
that the first run result is an outlier due to either a sampling or 
analytical error. We have, therefore, decided to exclude the results 
for that source test from further consideration.
    Our data base for selecting the numerical limit for the emission 
standard is comprised of a total of 78 particulate matter concentration 
values. Each of these values represents the total particulate matter 
concentration in the tail gas stream exiting the sulfuric acid plant 
and is calculated by averaging the results for the three individual 
test runs conducted for a given source test. These 3-run averages range 
from 0.001 gr/dscf to 0.015 gr/dscf of total particulate matter emitted 
in the sulfuric acid plant tail gas streams. All but two of these 3-run 
averages are less than 0.010 gr/dscf (one facility reported a 3-run 
average value of 0.011 gr/dscf, and another a 3-run average value of 
0.015 gr/dscf). For each of the five sulfuric acid plants represented 
in our data base, we also computed the overall average total 
particulate matter concentration from all of the 3-run averages 
included in our data base for a given sulfuric acid plant. These 
overall average particulate concentration values are presented in the 
following Table 1. (Note that sulfuric acid plants A and B are located 
at the same primary copper smelter.) Also shown are the number of 3-run 
tests used to compute the overall average for each sulfuric acid plant.

   Table 1.--Particulate Matter Emissions From Sulfuric Acid Plants at
                         Primary Copper Smelters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Overall average total     Number of
      Sulfuric   acid plant         particulate matter     source tests
                                      concentration          averaged
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 A.............................  0.004 gr/dscf                        34
B..............................  0.004 gr/dscf                        38
 C.............................  0.007 gr/dscf                         1
 D.............................  0.008 gr/dscf                         2
 E.............................  0.010 gr/dscf                         3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A review of the five sulfuric plant designs supports a finding that 
all of the plants provide a comparable level of particulate matter pre-
cleaning. Each process off-gas stream from the smelting and converting 
operations passes through a series of particulate control devices 
before the gases enter the sulfuric acid plant catalyst beds. For most 
of the process gas streams, the particulate matter cleaning sequence 
begins with an electrostatic precipitator (ESP), followed by a wet 
scrubber system, and finally a wet ESP and mist eliminator. Variations 
of this sequence are used for a few of the process off-gas streams. For 
example, at one smelter, the smelting furnace off-gases pass through 
two separate wet scrubbing systems before entering the wet ESP. 
However, regardless of the specific design configuration used for pre-
cleaning the process off-gases, all of the process off-gasses pass 
through a series of either ESP or wet scrubber control devices and then 
a wet ESP before the gas stream enters the catalyst bed. Therefore, we 
conclude that all five sulfuric acid plants represent the MACT floor 
level of control, and that the variation of the particulate matter 
concentrations reported in the data base for the tail gases exiting 
from these plants reflect normal and unavoidable variability.
    Given the above finding and our evaluation of the available test 
results, we are proposing 0.010 gr/dscf as the numerical limit for 
total particulate matter contained in the tail gases exiting the 
sulfuric acid plants operated at primary copper smelters. In our 
judgment, this value reflects a level of total particulate matter 
emissions that can be achieved consistently by a properly operated and 
maintained sulfuric acid plant used to control process off-gases from 
primary copper smelting and converting operations. Converting the value 
of 0.010 gr/dscf to the equivalent metric units, the numerical emission 
limit we are proposing for the concentration of total particulate 
matter allowed to be emitted in the process off-gases discharged to the 
atmosphere from smelting furnaces, slag cleaning vessels, and batch 
copper converters is 23 mg/dscm.

IV. Requirements for Alarm Limits on Baghouse Leak Detector Alarms

    Today's action also proposes additional requirements for owners or 
operators of baghouses with bag leak detection systems. This supplement 
to the proposed rule would enhance the requirements regarding bag leak 
detection systems in Sec. 63.1452 of the proposed rule to include an 
enforceable operating limit, such that the owner or operator would be 
in violation of the standards operating limit if the alarm on a bag 
leak detection system sounds for more than 5 percent of the total 
operating time in each 6-month reporting period. This supplementary 
proposal also specifies that each time the alarm sounds and the owner 
or operator initiates corrective actions within 1 hour of the alarm, 1 
hour of alarm time would be counted. If the owner or operator takes 
longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective actions, the EPA proposes 
that alarm time would be counted as the actual amount of time taken by 
the owner or operator to initiate corrective actions. If inspection of 
the baghouse system demonstrates that no corrective actions are 
necessary, no alarm time would be counted. This supplementary proposal 
also proposes that owners and operators be required to continuously 
record the output from a bag leak detection system and to maintain 
these records as specified in Sec. 63.10 of the general provisions.
    By requiring sources controlled by baghouses to continuously 
monitor their compliance with specific control devices, and by making 
deviations from such operating parameters for more than 5 percent of 
the total operating time in each 6-month reporting period a violation 
of the operating limit, the monitoring requirements help assure 
continuous compliance with the emission limits through continuous 
emissions reductions. Likewise, the continuous monitoring of the 
baghouse using a bag leak detection system, and the enforceable 5 
percent threshold level, will help ensure that the baghouse is being 
operated and maintained properly and thereby helps assure continuous 
compliance with the emission limit through continuous emissions 
reductions. The EPA is proposing the requirement to continuously record 
bag leak detection system output to ensure that data necessary to 
assess compliance with the newly proposed operating limit for bag

[[Page 39331]]

leak detection system alarms would be available. In the absence of such 
information, enforcement personnel would be unable to determine whether 
the operating limit is being met. The output records would also provide 
data necessary to assess the magnitude of the output level above the 
alarm set point, and would assist owners and operators in properly 
operating and maintaining the baghouse and in diagnosing baghouse 
upsets. As proposed, an alarm simply indicates that the set point was 
exceeded, but it does not relate to the deviation or magnitude of the 
output level above the set point.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    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.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
because none of the listed criteria apply to this action. Consequently, 
this action was not submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 
12866.

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, the EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or the EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State 
law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in 
the process of developing the proposed regulation.
    This supplement to the proposed rule does not have federalism 
implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. No 
State or local governments own or operate primary copper smelters. 
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply 
to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, the EPA may not issue a regulation 
that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects 
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the 
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or the EPA 
consults with those governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, 
Executive Order 13084 requires the EPA to provide to OMB, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of the EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires the EPA to 
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' This 
supplement to the proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely 
affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. No tribal 
governments own or operate primary copper smelters. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
this action.

D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has 
the potential to influence the regulation. This supplement to the 
proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
based on technology performance and not on health or safety risks. No 
children's risk analysis was performed because no alternative 
technologies exist that would provide greater stringency at a 
reasonable cost. Furthermore, this rule has been determined not to be 
``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 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,

[[Page 39332]]

and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for 
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally 
requires the EPA 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 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 the 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 supplement to the proposed 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 1 year. The maximum total 
annual cost of the requirements by this supplement to the proposed for 
any year has been estimated to be less than $50,000. Thus, today's 
supplement to the proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the EPA has determined 
that this supplement to the proposed 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 
supplement to the proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of 
section 203 of the UMRA.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute 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 organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's supplemental 
proposal on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small 
business that is a business having less than 500 employees; (2) a small 
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 
school district or special district with a population of less than 
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's supplement to the 
proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. This supplement to the proposed rule will not impose any 
requirements on small entities. No small businesses, small government 
jurisdictions, nor small organizations own or operate primary copper 
smelters potentially subject to the proposed rule.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The EPA submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR)(EPA ICR 
No. 1850.01) for the proposed rule to OMB for approval under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. That ICR has been 
revised to add the estimated burden for the emission standard proposed 
by this supplement to the proposal. No other changes were made to the 
burden estimates presented in ICR 1850.01. The revised ICR document for 
the supplemental proposal will be submitted to OMB (EPA ICR No. 
1850.02). Public and OMB comments made previously on ICR 1850.01 have 
not been addressed to date and are not reflected in this revision. All 
comments, new and old, will be addressed in the ICR for the final rule. 
A copy of this revised ICR document may be obtained from Sandy Farmer 
by mail at the Office of Environmental Information, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Collection Strategies Division (2822), 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, by email at 
[email protected], or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be 
downloaded off the internet at 
http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information requirements are not effective 
until OMB approves them.
    The information requirements for the proposed rule are based on 
notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP 
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for 
all operators subject to national emission standards. These 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by 
section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to 
the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for 
which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to 
Agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The emission standard proposed by this supplement to the proposal 
would not require any notifications or reports beyond those required by 
the General Provisions for performance testing under 40 CFR 63.7. The 
recordkeeping requirements require only the specific information needed 
to determine compliance with the proposed emission standard by 
performance testing. Adding the burden estimates for the performance 
testing required by the supplement to the proposed rule, the revised 
total annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for the 
rule (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the 
rule) is estimated to be 11,980 labor hours per year at a total annual 
cost of $624,000. 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;

[[Page 39333]]

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 on the estimated burden for the emission standard proposed 
by this supplement to the proposal 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, Regulatory Information Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (2137), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 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 June 26, 2000, comment 
to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by 
July 26, 2000. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public 
comments on the information collection requirements contained in this 
proposal.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 
272 note), directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus 
standards instead of government-unique standards in their regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., material specifications, test method, sampling and 
analytical procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or 
adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standards bodies. Examples 
of organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards 
bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 
the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and the Society of 
Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA requires Federal agencies like 
the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations when an 
agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    In developing this supplement to the proposal, the EPA searched for 
voluntary consensus standards that might be applicable. The search has 
identified no applicable voluntary standards. Accordingly, the NTTAA 
requirement to use applicable voluntary consensus standards does not 
apply to this rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Copper, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 19, 2000.
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, as proposed to be 
amended at 63 FR 19602 on April 20, 1998, is proposed to be further 
amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart QQQ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants From Primary Copper Smelters

    2. Section 63.1444 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 63.1444  Standards: Smelting vessels.

* * * * *
    (b) The owner or operator shall not discharge nor cause to be 
discharged to the atmosphere any off-gases from the smelting vessel 
that contain total particulate matter greater than 23 milligrams per 
dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) as determined by an emission test 
conducted in accordance with the applicable requirements of 
Sec. 63.1451. Off-gases from the smelting vessel are generated when 
copper ore concentrate and fluxes are being smelted to form copper 
matte and slag.
* * * * *
    3. Section 63.1445 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 63.1445  Standards: Slag cleaning vessels.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) The owner or operator shall not discharge nor cause to be 
discharged to the atmosphere any off-gases from the slag cleaning 
vessel that contain total particulate matter greater than 23 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. Off-gases from the slag cleaning vessel are generated 
when molten copper-bearing material is processed to separate this 
material into molten copper matte and slag layers
* * * * *
    4. Section 63.1446 is amended by revising paragraphs 
(b)(1)(iii)(A), (b)(2)(ii), and (c)(3)(i) to read as follows:


Sec. 63.1446  Standards: Copper converters.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (A) The owner or operator shall not discharge nor cause to be 
discharged to the atmosphere any primary hood exhaust stream that 
contains total particulate matter greater than 23 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.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) The owner or operator shall not discharge nor cause to be 
discharged to the atmosphere any side flue exhaust stream that contains 
total particulate matter greater than 23 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.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) The owner or operator shall not discharge nor cause to be 
discharged to the atmosphere any side flue exhaust stream that contains 
total particulate matter greater than 23 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.
* * * * *
    5. Section 63.1452 is amended by adding a new paragraph (d)(5)(iii) 
to read as follows:


Sec. 63.1452  Inspection and monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (iii) (A) The owner or operator shall operate and maintain the 
baghouse so

[[Page 39334]]

that the alarm on the bag leak detection system does not sound for more 
than 5 percent of the total operating time in each 6-month reporting 
period. Each time the alarm sounds and the owner or operator initiates 
corrective actions within 1 hour of the alarm, 1 hour of alarm time 
will be counted. If the owner or operator takes longer than 1 hour to 
initiate corrective actions, alarm time will be counted as the actual 
amount of time taken by the owner or operator to initiate corrective 
actions. If inspection of the baghouse system demonstrates that no 
corrective actions are necessary, no alarm time will be counted.
    (B) The owner or operator shall continuously record the output from 
the bag leak detection system.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-15915 Filed 6-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P