[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 12, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40478-40506]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-12773]



[[Page 40477]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Primary 
Copper Smelting; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67 , No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2002 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 40478]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-7214-9]
RIN 2060-AE41


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Primary Copper Smelting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for primary copper smelting. Primary 
copper smelters can potentially emit significant amounts of certain 
toxic metals listed as hazardous air pollutants (HAP) in Clean Air Act 
(CAA) section 112(b)(1). These metals include antimony, arsenic, 
beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel and selenium. 
Exposure to these substances has been demonstrated to cause adverse 
health effects such as diseases of the lung, kidney, central nervous 
system, and cancer. The final rule establishes emissions limitations 
and work practice standards for primary copper smelters that are (or 
are part of) a major source of HAP emissions and that use batch copper 
converters. The standards reflect the application of the maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT). When fully implemented, we 
estimate the rule will reduce annual nationwide HAP emissions from the 
source category by approximately 23 percent or 22 megagrams per year.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 12, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Docket No. A-96-22 contains supporting information used in 
developing the rule. The docket is located at the U.S. EPA, 401 M 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall 
(ground floor), and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Eugene Crumpler, Metals Group, 
Emission Standards Division (C439-02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle 
Park, NC, 27711, telephone number (919) 541-0881, facsimile number 
(919) 541-5450, electronic mail address ``[email protected]''.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Docket. The docket is an organized and 
complete file of all the information considered by the EPA in the 
development of the rule. The docket is a dynamic file because material 
is added throughout the rulemaking process. 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 rules and their preambles, the contents of the docket will 
serve as the record in the case of judicial review. (See CAA section 
307(d)(7)(A).) Other material related to this rulemaking is available 
for review in the docket or copies may be mailed on request from the 
Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged 
for copying docket materials.
    World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of today's final rule will also be available on the 
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, 
a copy of the rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page 
for newly proposed or promulgated rules at 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 the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
    Judicial Review. Today's action constitutes final administrative 
action on the proposed NESHAP for primary copper smelting (63 FR 19582, 
April 20, 1998; 65 FR 39326, June 26, 2000). Under CAA section 
307(b)(1), judicial review of the final rule is available only by 
filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit by August 12, 2002. Under CAA section 
307(b)(2), the requirements that are the subject of this document may 
not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by the 
EPA to enforce these requirements.
    Regulated Entities. Entities potentially regulated by this action 
are primary copper smelters (North American Industry Classification 
System (NAICS) Code 331411 Primary Smelting and Refining of Copper). No 
federal government entities nor State/local/tribal government entities 
are regulated by this rule.
    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 this action. To determine whether your 
facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the 
applicability criteria in Sec. 63.1440 of the final rule. If you have 
any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular entity, consult the appropriate person listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Outline. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background
    A. What Is the Statutory Authority for NESHAP?
    B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
    C. How Did We Develop the Rule?
    D. How Has the Copper Industry Changed Since Rule Proposal?
II. Summary of Final Rule and Changes Since Proposal
    A. Who Must Comply With This Rule?
    B. What Sources at Primary Copper Smelters Are Affected?
    C. When Must an Affected Source Comply With the Standards?
    D. What Are the Emission Limits and Work Practice Standards?
    E. What Are the General Compliance Requirements?
    F. How Is Initial Compliance Demonstrated?
    G. How Is Continuous Compliance Demonstrated?
    H. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?
III. Summary of Health, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
    A. What Are the Health Impacts?
    B. What Are the Air Emission Reduction Impacts?
    C. What the Other Non-air Environmental and Energy Impacts?
    D. What Are the Cost and Economic Impacts?
IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
    A. How Did We Select the Emission Limit for Sulfuric Acid Plant 
Tail Gas?
    B. How Did We Select the Emission Limit for Process Fugitive 
Emissions?
    C. How Did We Select MACT Floor for Pierce-Smith Converters?
    D. Why Did We Modify the Test Protocol Used to Determine Compliance 
With the Opacity Limits for Existing Copper Converter Departments?
    E. How Did We Select the Final Opacity Limits for Existing Copper 
Converter Departments?
    F. Why Did We Change the Compliance Date for Existing Sources?
    G. Why Did We Change the Inspection and Monitoring Requirements?
    H. Is the Kennecott Utah Copper Smelter a Major or Area Source of 
HAP Emissions?
    I. To What Extent Was the Kennecott Utah Copper Smelter Considered 
in the MACT Floor Determinations for

[[Page 40479]]

New and Existing Sources?
V. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    C. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks
    D. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
    I. Congressional Review Act
    J. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

I. Background

A. What is the Statutory Authority for NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and 
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish 
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The category 
of major sources covered by today's final NESHAP, ``primary copper 
smelting,'' was listed on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Major sources of 
HAP are those that have the potential to emit greater than 10 tons per 
year (tpy) of any one HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAP.

B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the 
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA 
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in 
emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly 
referred to as MACT.
    The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and 
is defined under CAA section 112(d)(3). In essence, the MACT floor 
ensures that the standards are set at a level that assures that all 
major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as 
that already achieved by the better controlled and lower emitting 
sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the 
MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is 
achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source. The MACT 
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than 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 in the category or subcategory (or the best performing 
five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 
sources).
    In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent 
than the floor based on the consideration of cost of achieving the 
emissions reductions, any health and environmental impacts, and energy 
requirements.

C. How Did We Develop the Rule?

    We proposed the NESHAP for the primary copper smelting source 
category on April 20, 1998 (63 FR 19582). A 90-day comment period was 
provided for the proposed rule. We received a total of 11 comment 
letters. A copy of each of these comment letters is available in the 
docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. A-96-22).
    After our review and evaluation of the comments and additional 
information we collected after proposal, we decided that several 
changes to our proposed rule were appropriate. On June 26, 2000, a 
supplemental proposal to the rule was published in the Federal Register 
(65 FR 39326). Specifically, we proposed a particulate matter emission 
limit for sulfuric acid plants used at primary copper smelters to 
control the process off-gas discharged from the smelting and converting 
operations. We also proposed a limit on bag leak detector alarms for 
those baghouses used to comply with the particulate emission limit 
standards under the rule. A 60-day comment period was provided for the 
supplemental proposal. We received a total of eight comment letters 
regarding our supplement to the proposed rule. A copy of each of these 
letters also is available in Docket No. A-96-22.
    All of the comments regarding the primary copper smelter NESHAP 
were reviewed and carefully considered. To clarify and obtain 
additional information about some specific comments, we held follow-up 
discussions with individual commenters. The promulgated rule reflects 
our full consideration of all the comments we received on the initial 
and supplemental rule proposals.

D. How Has the Copper Industry Changed Since Rule Proposal?

    Since proposal of the NESHAP for the primary copper smelting source 
category, several changes have occurred in the copper industry in the 
United States. First, corporate ownership has changed for three of the 
primary copper smelters potentially subject to the NESHAP. The smelter 
near Miami, Arizona, owned and operated by the Cyprus Miami Mining 
Corporation during the time we were developing the proposed rule, is 
now owned by the Phelps Dodge Corporation. The name of this smelter is 
now the Phelps Dodge Miami smelter. The smelters located in Hayden, 
Arizona and El Paso, Texas were owned and operated by Asarco 
Incorporated at the time of rule proposal. As a result of a corporate 
merger, Asarco is now a subsidiary of Groupo Mexico, S.A. de C.V., the 
third largest producer of copper in the world.
    Second, since proposal of the rule, four of the smelters 
potentially subject to the NESHAP have suspended operations and are not 
producing copper: the Asarco smelter in El Paso, Texas; the BHP Copper 
smelter near San Manuel, Arizona; and both of the Phelps Dodge smelters 
in New Mexico. At this time, it is unknown when and even if these 
smelters will resume production.

II. Summary of Final Rule and Changes Since Proposal

    After the proposal of the NESHAP for primary copper smelters, the 
EPA adopted a new ``plain language'' format for all rulemakings. 
Accordingly, we have revised the organization, wording style, and 
presentation of the final rule. While these changes to the rule make it 
appear substantially different from the proposed rule, most of the 
technical and administrative requirements remain the same as proposed. 
In addition, for the final rule, we are correcting the name of the 
source category as published in the proposed rule from primary copper 
smelters to primary copper smelting, which is the way the source 
category name appears on the source category list and promulgation 
schedule.

A. Who Must Comply With This Rule?

    The final rule applies to any owner or operator of a primary copper 
smelter that is a major source of HAP emissions and uses batch copper 
converters. A batch converter is a cylindrical vessel in which copper 
matte produced by the flash smelting of copper ore concentrates is 
oxidized in discrete batches following a sequence of steps consisting 
of charging, blowing, skimming, and pouring. Examples of batch 
converters are Pierce-Smith converters and Hoboken converters. A 
smelter that uses batch converters but is not a major source of HAP 
emissions is not subject to the rule.

[[Page 40480]]

    For the final rule, we changed the definition of ``primary copper 
smelter'' to be consistent with the definition that is used in two 
related rules applicable to primary copper smelters. These are 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart P, Standards of Performance for Primary Copper 
Smelters, and 40 CFR part 61, subpart O, National Emission Standard for 
Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Primary Copper Smelters. A primary 
copper smelter is defined as any installation or intermediate process 
engaged in the production of copper from copper sulfide ore 
concentrates through the use of pyrometallurgical techniques.

B. What Sources at Primary Copper Smelters Are Affected?

    The final rule establishes standards for: (1) Copper concentrate 
dryers; (2) smelting furnaces; (3) slag cleaning vessels; (4) batch 
converters; and (5) fugitive dust sources associated with the handling, 
transfer, and storage of copper concentrate, dross, reverts, slag, 
speiss, and other solid copper-bearing materials.

C. When Must an Affected Source Comply With the Standards?

    For the final rule, the compliance date for existing sources is 3 
years from June 12, 2002. An affected source is an existing source if 
its construction began before April 20, 1998. An affected source is a 
new source if its construction or reconstruction began on or after 
April 20, 1998. An affected source has been reconstructed if it meets 
the definition of ``reconstruction'' in 40 CFR 63.2. A new or 
reconstructed source must be in compliance on June 12, 2002, or, if it 
is not yet operational, upon initial startup of the source.

D. What Are the Emission Limits and Work Practice Standards?

1. Copper Concentrate Dryers
    The emission limit for an existing copper concentrate dryer is no 
more than 50 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) of total 
particulate matter, as measured by Method 5--Determination of 
Particulate Emissions From Stationary Sources in 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A. The emission limit for a new copper concentrate dryer is no 
more than 23 mg/dscm of total particulate matter, as measured by Method 
5.
2. Smelting Furnaces
    We changed the proposed emission limit (in the supplemental 
proposal) for the by-product sulfuric acid plant tail gas from a limit 
on total particulate matter to a limit on nonsulfuric acid particulate 
matter. Under the final rule, nonsulfuric acid particulate matter in 
the tail gas discharged to the atmosphere from sulfuric acid plant can 
be no more than 6.2 mg/dscm, as measured by Method 5B--Determination of 
Nonsulfuric Acid Particulate Matter From Stationary Sources in 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A.
    A second revision to the standards for smelting furnaces is the 
particulate matter emission limit for process fugitive emissions from 
matte and slag tapping. The limit has been changed from 16 mg/dscm to 
23 mg/dscm of total particulate matter, as measured by Method 5. The 
value of this emission limit was changed based on our reconsideration 
of the test data.
3. Slag Cleaning Vessels
    The standards for slag cleaning vessels have been revised to be 
consistent with changes discussed above that we made for the process 
off-gas and process fugitive emission limits for smelting furnaces. The 
final standard requires that the process off-gas from slag cleaning 
vessels be vented to a sulfuric acid plant that meets a 6.2 mg/dscm 
emission limit for nonsulfuric acid particulate matter (as measured by 
Method 5B). As an alternative to meeting this standard, an owner or 
operator may choose to vent the process off-gas from the slag cleaning 
vessel to a wet scrubber that meets a 46 mg/dscm emission limit for 
total particulate matter (as measured using Method 5). The particulate 
matter limit for process fugitive emissions generated by tapping molten 
material from the slag cleaning vessel is revised to be consistent with 
the standard for smelting furnaces (23 mg/dscm of total particulate 
matter, as measured by Method 5).
4. Copper Converter Departments
    Where applicable, the standards for batch converters have been 
revised to be consistent with the final particulate matter emission 
limits for process off-gas and process fugitive emissions from smelting 
furnaces. Process off-gas captured during converter blowing must be 
vented to the smelter's sulfuric acid plant that meets the 6.2 mg/dscm 
emission limit for nonsulfuric acid particulate matter. The particulate 
matter limit for process fugitive emissions generated by converter 
operations is set at 23 mg/dscm of total particulate matter, as 
measured by Method 5.
    We also made several revisions to the proposed opacity limit 
requirements for copper converter departments. First, we modified the 
test protocol used to determine compliance with the applicable opacity 
limit. We revised how the field opacity data are compiled and averaged 
in order to reduce the duration of the observation period needed to 
obtain the required number of acceptable opacity readings. The test 
protocol in the final rule requires that the average opacity value for 
the affected source be calculated using a minimum of 120 1-minute 
intervals during which at least one copper converter was blowing and 
there were no visible emission interferences as specified in the rule 
(i.e., during the 1-minute interval, there were no other copper 
production events generating visible emissions inside the converter 
building that potentially could interfere with the visible emissions 
from the converter capture systems as seen by the outside observers).
    Next, considering the above revision to the test protocol, we 
decided it was necessary to reexamine the test data used to establish 
the opacity limit for existing Pierce-Smith converters to determine the 
effect of using the new protocol on the proposed opacity limit. Based 
on this analysis, we changed the opacity limit for existing Pierce-
Smith converter departments to 4 percent opacity. In the final rule, 
the opacity limit for existing Hoboken copper converter departments is 
the same value as proposed, 4 percent opacity.
    Finally, we have reconsidered the selection of new source MACT for 
copper converter departments by applying the level of process fugitive 
emissions control achieved by the best controlled similar source, flash 
converting technology. Based on this new source MACT for copper 
converting operations, we have selected, as the final standard for new 
sources, a work practice standard that prohibits altogether the 
operation of batch copper converters at new copper converter 
departments subject to the rule.
5. Fugitive Dust Sources
    The final standards for fugitive dust sources are the same as 
proposed with one change. We added the requirement that the fugitive 
dust control plan, which the smelter owner or operator is required to 
prepare and adhere to at all times, must be approved by the State with 
delegated authority for enforcement. For the purpose of complying with 
the final rule, an existing fugitive dust control plan may be used, 
provided that this plan addresses the fugitive dust sources and 
includes the information specified in the rule. An existing fugitive 
dust control plan that meets these conditions and also has been 
incorporated into a State implementation plan is considered

[[Page 40481]]

to be approved for the purpose of complying with this requirement.
6. Alternative Emission Limit for Combined Gas Streams
    The equation in the final rule that an owner or operator can elect 
to use to determine an alternative or equivalent particulate matter 
emission limit for gas streams combined from two or more affected 
sources has been corrected to include a potential control situation 
that was inadvertently omitted at proposal. For the final rule, the 
equation includes a component to address the situation where the off-
gas stream exhausted from a slag cleaning vessel is not vented to the 
sulfuric acid plant or a dedicated wet scrubbing system, but instead is 
combined with other gas streams and vented to a common particulate 
control device.
E. What Are the General Compliance Requirements?
    A new section is added to the final rule listing the general 
requirements for complying with the rule. The owner or operator must be 
in compliance with each applicable particulate matter emission limit 
and work practice standard at all times, except during periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Each smelter owner or operator must 
develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan 
for the smelter according to the general provisions of 40 CFR part 63 
and the additional requirements specified in the rule.
    Compliance with the opacity limits for copper converter departments 
is determined using the test protocol and requirements specified in the 
rule. The general provision requirements for compliance with opacity 
and visible emission standards under 40 CFR 63.6(h) do not apply to the 
opacity limit standards for copper converter departments.

F. How Is Initial Compliance Demonstrated?

    Initial compliance with each of the particulate matter emission 
limits is to be determined by a performance test conducted according to 
40 CFR 63.7 of the general provisions and specific EPA reference test 
methods. The average of three test runs is to be used to determine 
compliance with each of the applicable emission limits specified in the 
rule. During each initial performance test, the owner or operator is 
also required to establish limits for appropriate control device 
operating parameters based on the actual values recorded during the 
performance test.
    We reconsidered our proposed requirements for when an owner or 
operator must conduct a performance test and decided it is appropriate 
to require periodic testing beyond the initial performance test to 
reaffirm compliance with the applicable emission limitation. Under the 
final rule, compliance with each applicable particulate matter emission 
limit must be demonstrated initially and, thereafter, at least once per 
year.
G. How Is Continuous Compliance Demonstrated?
    To demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable emission 
limitations and work practice standards under the final rule, an owner 
or operator must perform periodic inspections and continuous monitoring 
of air pollution control devices used to comply with the rule. In those 
situations when a deviation from the operating limits specified for a 
control device or capture system is indicated by the monitoring system, 
or when a damaged or defective component is detected during an 
inspection, the owner or operator must implement the appropriate 
corrective actions. Monthly visual inspections of all capture systems 
used to comply with the rule are required. Minor revisions to the 
procedures for these inspections were made for the final rule.
    Each baghouse used to comply with a total particulate matter 
emission limit must be operated according to written operating and 
maintenance procedures that describe in detail the procedures to be 
used for inspection, maintenance, bag leak detection, and corrective 
action for the baghouse. The final rule includes the requirement as 
proposed in the supplemental proposal for an alarm operating limit on 
baghouse leak detectors. We have made minor revisions to the procedures 
used for inspection, maintenance, bag leak detection, and corrective 
action for baghouses so that the rule is consistent with the 
requirements for baghouses in other NESHAP.

H. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?

    The final rule requires the notification, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements in the general provisions to 40 CFR part 63 with 
one exception. The notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements in the general provisions related directly to compliance 
with opacity and visible emission standards as specified in 40 CFR 
63.6(h) do not apply to this rule. The specific recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements for documenting compliance with the opacity 
limit provisions are specified in the rule. The dates by which the 
notifications and reports must be submitted to us (or the applicable 
delegated State authority) are specified in the rule.
    Each affected owner or operator must submit a semiannual compliance 
report containing the information specified in the rule. The final rule 
requires that this report be submitted whether a deviation has or has 
not occurred during the reporting period. However, only summary 
information is required if no deviation occurred. The rule does not 
require emergency reports if actions taken are consistent with the 
smelter's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. If actions taken are 
not consistent with this plan, the events and the response are to be 
included in the semiannual compliance report.

III. Summary of Health, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

A. What Are the Health Impacts?

    The HAP emitted from primary copper smelters include compounds of 
antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel, 
and selenium. The HAP metal compounds controlled by this rule are 
associated with a variety of adverse health effects. These adverse 
health effects include chronic health disorders (e.g., diseases of the 
lung, kidney, central nervous system), and acute health disorders 
(e.g., lung irritation and congestion, alimentary effects such as 
nausea and vomiting, and effects on the central nervous system). 
Arsenic and nickel compounds have been classified by the EPA as human 
carcinogens, and compounds formed from four other HAP metals 
(beryllium, cadmium, lead, and nickel) have been classified as probable 
carcinogens.
    Emission data collected during development of the rule indicate 
that the HAP emitted in the largest quantities are arsenic and lead 
compounds. Exposure of humans to arsenic by inhalation or by ingestion 
has been shown to be associated with forms of lung, bladder, liver, and 
other cancers. Brain damage, kidney damage, and gastrointestinal 
distress may occur from acute exposure to high levels of lead in 
humans. Chronic exposure to lead by humans results in effects on the 
central nervous system, blood, blood pressure, and kidneys.
    We do not have the detailed data on each of the primary copper 
smelters potentially subject to this rule or the people living around 
the facilities

[[Page 40482]]

necessary to determine the actual population exposures to the HAP 
emitted from these smelters and the potential for resultant health 
effects. Therefore, we do not know the extent to which the adverse 
health effects occur in the populations surrounding these facilities. 
However, to the extent the adverse effects do occur, the rule will 
reduce emissions and subsequent exposures.

B. What Are the Air Emission Reduction Impacts?

    Current nationwide HAP emissions from the three currently operating 
primary copper smelters potentially subject to the final rule are 
estimated to be about 96 megagrams per year (Mg/yr). We estimate that 
implementation of the final rule will reduce these nationwide HAP 
emissions by approximately 23 percent or 22 Mg/yr.

C. What Are Other Non-air Environmental and Energy Impacts?

    With only three of the potentially regulated smelter operating at 
this time, one of the affected smelters will need to install additional 
air pollution control equipment to meet the copper converter department 
standards. The additional controls at this smelter consists of doubling 
the converter secondary hood ventilation rate and venting the secondary 
hoods to a new baghouse (fabric filter). The non-air environmental 
impacts associated with operating these new controls will be a small 
increase in the amount of solid waste generated at each smelter from 
the particulate matter collected in the new baghouse. Operation of the 
fans used to increase the converter secondary hood ventilation rates 
will result in a small increase in overall smelter electricity usage. 
No significant adverse solid waste or energy impacts are expected as a 
result of operating these additional air pollution controls.

D. What Are the Cost and Economic Impacts?

    Costs to smelter owners and operators for complying with the final 
rule were estimated. As noted above, one smelters will need to install 
additional air pollution control equipment to meet the copper converter 
department standards. The total capital costs for the purchase and 
installation of this additional control is estimated to be $4.1 
million. Total annual costs of meeting all of the requirements of the 
rule, including operating and maintenance costs, are estimated to be 
$860,000 per year.
    The economic impact of the rule is determined by comparing the 
annualized costs incurred by each smelter to their estimated annual 
copper production revenues. The share of costs to estimated revenues 
for the affected smelters range from a low of 0.004 percent to a high 
of 0.2 percent. Thus, compared to the estimated production revenues for 
each affected smelter, the total annualized costs are minimal. Based on 
the smelter-specific total annual cost to sales ratios, impacts of the 
final rule on the companies owning the facilities are anticipated to be 
negligible. The economic impact analysis we prepared to support this 
finding is available in Docket No. A-96-22.

IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments

    A summary of our responses to selected major comments received on 
the proposed rule (including the supplemental proposal) is presented 
below. Our responses to all of the substantive public comments on the 
proposal are presented in the document titled National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant (NESHAP) for Primary Copper 
Smelters: Background Information Document for Promulgated Standards 
(BID). The BID is available in Docket No. A-96-22.

A. How Did We Select the Emission Limit for Sulfuric Acid Plant Tail 
Gas?

    Comment. Seven commenters disagreed with our proposal to establish 
a particulate emission limit for the tail gas exhaust from the by-
product sulfuric acid plants used to treat the process off-gases 
discharged from smelting furnaces, slag cleaning vessels, and batch 
converters. Reasons cited include: (1) Method 5 is an inappropriate 
test method for measuring HAP concentrations in acid plant tail gas 
because Method 5 measures as particulate matter material that is not 
HAP (i.e., sulfuric acid mist and waters of hydration); and (2) the 
proposed numerical limit is based on data for only four sources not the 
five best performing sources as is required by CAA section 112 for 
establishing MACT.
    Response. For the process off-gases discharged from smelting 
furnaces, slag cleaning vessels, and batch converters, we originally 
proposed an equipment standard that would require these sulfur dioxide 
rich process off-gases to be vented to a by-product sulfuric acid plant 
with its ancillary particulate matter precleaning and conditioning 
systems, or other type of sulfur recovery process unit capable of 
achieving comparable levels of particulate matter removal. At the time 
of proposal, all six smelters in the source category operated by-
product sulfuric acid plants.
    After careful review and evaluation of comments received objecting 
to our use of an equipment standard rather than a numerical emission 
limit and new emissions data obtained since proposal, we concluded that 
a change in the proposed standards for process off-gas emissions was 
warranted. As a result, we issued a supplement to the proposed rule (65 
FR 39326, June 26, 2000) in which we proposed a numerical emission 
standard that would limit the concentration of total particulate matter 
in the off-gases discharged. Specifically, we proposed to set a total 
particulate matter emission limit for acid plant tail gas of 23 mg/dscm 
based on Method 5 measurements.
    In response to the commenters' concerns regarding the use of total 
particulate matter as the surrogate for HAP and the use of Method 5 for 
determining compliance, we examined more closely the suitability of 
Method 5 for measuring particulate matter in tail gas from sulfuric 
acid plants at primary copper smelters. Method 5 is the basic reference 
test method used for determining particulate matter emissions from 
stationary sources. The sampling probe and filter temperature specified 
for Method 5 (250 deg.F) is below the acid dewpoint for sulfuric acid. 
Consequently, when sampling sulfuric acid plant tail gas by Method 5, 
condensed sulfuric acid mist and waters of hydration not driven off at 
the sampling temperature are included in the probe wash and filter 
catch, along with any metal HAP contained in the tail gas. Thus, we 
agree that establishing and determining compliance with a total 
particulate matter emission limit based on Method 5 may include 
sulfuric acid mist condensables not related to the control or emissions 
of metal HAP. Based on some limited test data obtained using Arizona 
Method A1 (a test method adopted by the State of Arizona for measuring 
particulate matter in sulfur containing gas streams that excludes acid 
condensate), the condensate may account for as much as 12 percent of 
the total particulate catch.
    Method 5B was developed specifically to measure nonsulfuric acid 
particulate matter in circumstances when appreciable quantities of 
condensable sulfuric acid are present in the stack exhaust to be 
tested. The procedure is identical to Method 5 except that the front-
half of the Method 5 sampling train is maintained at 320 deg.F instead 
of 250 deg.F, and the probe and filter samples are to be heated in a 
oven to 320 deg.F for 6 hours prior to weighing. At the higher sampling 
temperature, most of the sulfuric acid mist and waters of hydration 
present pass

[[Page 40483]]

through the probe and filter without condensing. Heating the probe wash 
residues and sample filter in an oven before weighing volatilizes any 
condensed sulfuric acid that may have collected in the front-half. 
Because sulfuric acid mist and waters of hydration are not counted as 
part of the total particulate catch, the total particulate matter 
concentration value measured in the front-half by Method 5B will be 
lower than the concentration value that would have been measured on the 
filter using Method 5. Given the gas stream characteristics of sulfuric 
acid plant tail gas, it is our conclusion that Method 5B is the 
appropriate test method to use for setting a particulate matter 
concentration limit that serves as a surrogate for metal HAP emissions 
contained in the tail gas from sulfuric acid plants.
    Lacking any available Method 5B emissions test data to set an 
emission limit, we convened a meeting with company representatives of 
each of the six smelters potentially subject to the NESHAP. Two options 
were considered: (1) Derive an emission limit based on the available 
Method 5 test data and a conversion factor inferred from the limited 
Arizona Method 1A test data; or (2) gather actual Method 5B test data 
by testing each of the operating by-product sulfuric acid plants. The 
consensus view was that Method 5B testing was needed to establish a 
credible emission limit.
    A test program was planned and implemented jointly by us and the 
companies owning the three copper smelters currently producing copper. 
The source tests were conducted by an independent consultant hired by 
the smelter companies. Four individual test runs were conducted at each 
of the three smelters. To our best knowledge, all of the tests were 
conducted at normal smelter production levels and under normal acid 
plant operating conditions.
    We considered two approaches in selecting the level of the 
standard: (1) Base the emission limit on the highest credible 
individual run measured at the three smelters; or (2) base the limit on 
the highest three-run average measured at the highest emitting smelter. 
If we base the emission limit on the highest individual run, the 
standard expressed in concentration units would be 6.2 mg/dscm. If we 
base the emission limit using the highest three-run average (highest 
single performance test), the standard would be 5.0 mg/dscm.
    In selecting the appropriate level for the emission limit, 
consideration was given to the full range of smelter process and acid 
plant operating conditions which could reasonably be foreseen to recur, 
under which the standard is to be achieved. This is especially 
important where the emission limit is applied to a gas stream in which 
the outlet loading will typically fluctuate within a range of values 
during the course of normal operations. After examining the design and 
operating conditions of the three acid plants tested, we can find no 
discernible differences among the three plants which would lead us to 
conclude that one is superior or inferior to another. In addition, we 
believe that each test run was conducted under conditions 
representative of acceptable sulfuric acid plant performance.
    Based on the above considerations, we believe that the performance 
of the sulfuric acid plant under a reasonable worst case circumstance 
is best represented by the single highest individual run, and that 
selecting this highest value will ensure that the standard will be met 
under all foreseeable acceptable operating conditions. Therefore, we 
are selecting 6.2 mg/dscm of nonsulfuric acid particulate matter based 
on measurements using Method 5B as the emission limit for the sulfuric 
acid plant tail gas.

B. How Did We Select the Emission Limit for Process Fugitive Emissions?

    Comment. Four commenters stated that the proposed emission limit of 
16 mg/dscm for the process fugitive emissions from smelting furnaces, 
slag cleaning vessels, and batch converters is overly stringent and is 
not representative of the MACT floor. The commenters claimed that the 
source test data we used to select the value consisted of only a few 
source tests, and that these tests do not account for the range of 
variability in emissions associated with normal operating conditions. 
The commenters recommended that the value of the standard be increased 
to 50 mg/dscm which is consistent with the particulate matter emission 
limit we proposed for existing copper concentrate dryers.
    Response. We selected the application of baghouses as MACT for 
controlling process fugitive HAP emissions based on the control devices 
used to control fugitive emissions (i.e., secondary emissions) from 
batch converters (63 FR 19595 and 19597, April 20, 1998). Four of the 
five smelters that use secondary hoods to capture the converter 
fugitive emissions vent the captured gas stream to a baghouse for 
control. The fifth smelter employs an electrostatic precipitator (ESP). 
Because the common practice at the smelters is to vent the emissions 
captured by the hoods over the smelting and slag cleaning vessel 
tapping ports to the same control device used to control converter 
secondary emissions, we also selected use of baghouses as the MACT 
floor for controlling process fugitive emissions from the matte and 
slag tapping operations at the smelting furnaces and slag cleaning 
vessels. Consistent with other NESHAP based on application of baghouses 
as MACT for control of particulate matter emissions, we selected 
concentration units as the format of the standard.
    The data used to select the proposed emission limit consist of 
results from four performance tests, one test for each of the four 
smelters employing baghouses for the control of converter secondary 
emissions. Each test is comprised of three test runs conducted at the 
baghouse outlets using Method 5.
    For the proposed emission limit, we selected the highest average 
concentration (16 mg/dscm) measured among the four performance tests. 
Since proposal, we have reexamined the data and our approach to setting 
the standard. A close review of each of the performance tests shows a 
high degree of variability and imprecision among individual test runs 
within a performance test, with the highest measured values ranging 
from 1\1/2\ to 4\1/2\ times the lowest measured values. Given the lack 
of precision among the test results, we reconsidered whether relying on 
the highest three-run average measured at one smelter truly accounts 
for the full range of acceptable process and control device operating 
conditions which could be reasonably foreseen to recur. We believe that 
a more conservative and, perhaps, better approach in this case is to 
set the standard based on the highest single credible test run. This 
will provide better assurance that the standard is achievable under 
reasonable worst case circumstances. Of the 12 individual test runs, 
the value of the highest run and the value selected for the final 
standard is 23 mg/dscm.

C. How Did We Select MACT Floor for Pierce-Smith Converters?

    Comment. Several commenters disagreed with our MACT floor 
determination for existing Pierce-Smith converters. The commenters 
claimed that CAA section 112(d)(3) requires us to determine the MACT 
floor for existing sources based on applicable ``emissions 
limitations'' rather than relying on actual emissions data as we did 
for the proposed rule. Using an emissions limitations approach based on 
application of existing State regulations, the commenters concluded 
that the opacity limit for existing Pierce-

[[Page 40484]]

Smith converters should be established at a value of 40 percent 
opacity.
    Response. We disagree with the commenters' assertion that CAA 
section 112(d)(3) requires us to establish MACT floors for existing 
sources based on applicable ``emissions limitations.'' We have and 
continue to use several approaches to establishing MACT floors, 
depending on the type and quality of the available information. 
Typically, we examine several approaches and rely on the one best 
suited for each particular circumstance. The approaches include: (1) 
Reliance on information such as test data on actual emissions from the 
pool of sources (the best five sources or best 12 percent) that 
comprise the best performers; (2) information on applicable emissions 
limitations or standards specified in State and local regulations and/
or operating permits; or (3) a technology approach based on the 
application of a specific control technology and accompanying 
performance data. We believe that each of these approaches has merit, 
and we have relied on using each to various degrees throughout the MACT 
program.
    The emissions limitations approach to establish the MACT floor for 
Pierce-Smith converters was examined at proposal and dismissed. Of the 
five smelters in the source category that operate Pierce-Smith 
converters, only three are subject to an emissions limitation. The 
converter building at one smelter is subject to a zero percent opacity 
limit specified in the facility's operating permit. The converter 
buildings at the two smelters located in Arizona are arguably subject 
to the State's general 40 percent opacity limit applicable to process 
fugitive emissions from any source. The converter buildings at the 
remaining two smelters, both located in New Mexico, are not subject to 
an opacity limit. Then and now, the commenters supported establishing 
the MACT floor based on the median or third most stringent emissions 
limitation. Using this approach, the MACT floor would be 40 percent 
opacity.
    The emissions limitation approach advanced by the commenters is 
workable only when the outcome produces a realistic inference of actual 
performance of the best performing sources. This has been affirmed 
unequivocally by the DC Circuit Court in Sierra Club vs. EPA, 167F.3d. 
in which the court opined that to comply with the statute, the EPA's 
method of setting emissions floors must reasonably estimate the 
performance of the relevant best performing sources. Observations made 
by us and the industry at all five of the smelters operating Pierce-
Smith converters indicate that actual visible emissions from the 
converter buildings are typically in the range of zero percent to 10 
percent opacity, well below the 40 percent opacity value supported by 
the commenters. Consequently, we believe that the use of the emissions 
limitation approach in this case is not appropriate.
    Comment. The same commenters making the above comment further 
stated that if test data on actual emissions is used for determining 
the MACT floor for Pierce-Smith converters, then the average emissions 
limitation should be represented by the emissions data for the median 
performing source of the five best performing sources rather than the 
average of the emissions data for all five sources as was done for the 
proposed standard. In this case, the commenters claimed that the median 
technology for Pierce-Smith converters is the use of primary and 
secondary ventilation systems for the prevention and capture of 
emissions coupled with air pollution control devices for sulfur dioxide 
and particulate matter control. The commenters identified the controls 
used at the Hayden and Hidalgo smelters as the median technology for 
Pierce-Smith converters.
    Response. We assessed how using the median technology approach 
would affect the selection of the MACT floor for Pierce-Smith 
converters. To do so, we evaluated each of the five smelters operating 
Pierce-Smith converters to determine the median performing source based 
on both performance data and engineering design. Using either approach, 
our assessment shows that the Chino Mines smelter is the median 
performing source of the five smelters that operate Pierce-Smith 
converters, not the Hayden or Hidalgo smelters as suggested by the 
commenters. In addition, the opacity value prescribed to the Chino 
Mines smelter is 3 percent, the same as the value we proposed for the 
opacity limit for Pierce-Smith converters based on averaging opacity 
data for all five sources.
    To select the median technology based on source performance data, 
we ranked the converter capture systems used at the five smelters in 
order of decreasing performance using the average overall opacity value 
for each smelter. This ranking assumes that the average opacity value 
is indicative of the overall capture efficiency of the control system 
(i.e., the lower the opacity, the higher the capture efficiency). For 
our assessment, we used the overall average opacity values rounded to 
the next highest whole percent for the five smelters used for the MACT 
floor determination at proposal. The results of this ranking show that 
the best performing source is the El Paso smelter (zero percent 
opacity) followed by, in decreasing order, the San Manuel smelter (1 
percent opacity), the Chino Mines smelter (3 percent), the Hidalgo 
smelter (5 percent), and the Hayden smelter (8 percent opacity). The 
median performing smelter of the five smelters that operate Pierce-
Smith converters is the third best performer, the Chino Mines smelter.
    For the engineering design assessment, we first assembled pertinent 
information on the primary and secondary capture systems used at each 
of the five affected smelters. The information included hood 
ventilation rates (both primary and secondary), converter blowing rates 
(amount of air blown through the tuyeres into the molten bath), and 
detailed information on the design and physical configurations of each 
secondary hood.
    Each of the five smelters uses the same basic approach to capturing 
emissions from their Pierce-Smith converter during slag and copper 
blows. Specifically, a retractable primary hood for capturing the 
voluminous process emissions generated during blowing and a fixed or 
sliding secondary hood for capturing the secondary or fugitive 
emissions that escape capture by the primary hood. Although the basic 
approach used at each smelter is fundamentally the same, there are, 
however, differences among the smelters in both the design and 
operation of their primary and secondary capture systems that affect 
performance.
    The El Paso smelter uses a converter capture system design that is 
unique compared to the designs used at any of the other smelters. 
Instead of the fixed or sliding secondary hood designs used by other 
four smelters, each converter at the El Paso smelter is equipped with 
an air curtain secondary hood. The air curtain hood encloses the sides 
and back area around the converter mouth. During converter blowing 
operations, a horizontal jet of air flows across the open top of the 
enclosure to provide a continuous sheet or curtain of air that sweeps 
the process fugitive emissions into an exhaust hood, and subsequently a 
particulate control device. Capture efficiencies in excess of 90 
percent are achieved using air curtain hood systems. Also at the El 
Paso smelter, any process fugitive emissions that escape capture by the 
air curtain hoods are further controlled by evacuating the entire 
converter building to a particulate control device. Thus, effectively 
100 percent of the process fugitive emissions from converter operations 
at the El Paso smelter are captured. Clearly, the use of

[[Page 40485]]

air curtain secondary hoods in combination with a tertiary building 
evacuation system represents the best capture system technology used at 
any of the five smelters that operate Pierce-Smith converters.
    We believe that the second best performer is the San Manuel smelter 
which relies primarily on primary hood ventilation to effect capture. 
The San Manuel smelter is unique in that it has surplus by-product acid 
plant capacity which allows each of the converter primary hoods to 
operate at a substantially higher ventilation rate than is usual for 
other smelters. The primary hoods at the San Manuel smelter are 
operated at a primary hood ventilation rate to converter blowing rate 
ratio of 3.8. In contrast, for the converter primary hoods at other 
smelters, the ratios range from 2.2 to 2.6. As evidenced by the 
building opacity data for the San Manuel smelter, operation of the 
primary hoods at a substantially higher ventilation rate results in 
enhanced capture efficiency and minimal fugitive emissions due to 
leakage about the primary hood.
    Our assessment of the remaining three smelters supports our earlier 
finding using the performance data approach; the median or third best 
performing smelter is the Chino Mines smelter. All three smelters 
operate their primary hoods similarly and each converter is equipped 
with a secondary hood. Each of the secondary hoods are, with minor 
variations, similar in design. The principal difference is that the 
ventilation rate during converter blowing used for the secondary hoods 
at the Chino Mines smelter 120,000 standard cubic feet per minute 
(scfm) is approximately twice that used at the Hayden or Hidalgo 
smelters (50,000 scfm and 60,000 scfm, respectively). We believe that 
by operating at this substantially higher ventilation rate, the 
secondary hood system operated at the Chino Mines smelter is more 
effective at capturing the process fugitive emissions that escape from 
the converter primary hood during blowing compared to the secondary 
capture systems used at the other two smelters. It is, thus, our 
conclusion that the emissions capture system applied at the Chino Mines 
smelter is the third best among the five smelters that operate Pierce-
Smith converters.
    Regardless of whether we base our assessment of performance on 
average opacity or on engineering design, the smelter that uses the 
third best performing or median control technology is the Chino Mines 
smelter. If we had used the median technology approach at proposal to 
select the opacity limit for smelters that operate Pierce-Smith 
converters, we would have selected 3 percent, the same value we 
proposed.

D. Why Did We Modify the Test Protocol Used To Determine Compliance 
with the Opacity Limits for Existing Copper Converter Departments?

    We received no comments on the duration of the observation period 
needed to obtain the required number of acceptable opacity readings 
specified by the proposed test protocol for determining compliance with 
the opacity limits for existing copper converter departments. However, 
based on our experience using the protocol in the field and further 
analysis of the data that we collected using the protocol, we decided 
to revise the test protocol for the final rule with respect to how the 
opacity data are compiled and averaged in order to reduce the duration 
of the observation period needed to obtain the required number of 
acceptable opacity readings for a compliance determination.
    The proposed test protocol specified making opacity readings using 
Method 9 over an observation period sufficient to obtain a minimum of 
20 continuous 6-minute average opacity values during times when at 
least one converter is blowing and none of the specific visible 
emissions interferences listed in the test protocol has occurred. Our 
experience indicates that to obtain the minimum 20 continuous 6-minute 
averages required by the proposed test protocol, an observation period 
lasting 4 to 5 days or longer would be needed. This occurs for two 
reasons. First, Method 9 requires an observer when making opacity 
readings to be positioned with the sun to the observer's back and at a 
position from the source such that the observer's line-of-sight is 
approximately perpendicular to the longer axis of the converter 
building. This generally limits the window for observation at a smelter 
to 4 to 5 hours on any given day. Second, many of the continuous 6-
minute periods are invalidated due to unavoidable, normal production 
events that occur inside the converter building that are unrelated to 
the converter blowing operations but also generate visible emissions. 
These visible emissions can potentially interfere with the visible 
emissions from the converter capture systems as seen by the outside 
observers. Because such interferences may misrepresent the actual 
performance of the converter capture system at a given smelter, the 
opacity readings made during these periods are invalidated and excluded 
from the compliance determination.
    We have decided to revise the test protocol to allow for a shorter, 
more reasonable observation period to obtain the required number of 
acceptable opacity readings (i.e., opacity readings when there is at 
least one converter blowing without any visible emissions 
interferences). We are revising the test protocol to require averaging 
a minimum of 120 acceptable 1-minute average opacity values in place of 
the proposed 20 acceptable 6-minute average opacity values. Under the 
final test protocol, compliance will be demonstrated against the 
average opacity recorded for a minimum of 120 1-minute averages of 
eight readings per minute (a team of two opacity observers, each making 
four readings at 15-second intervals). This revision provides the same 
minimum number of opacity values for a performance test (a minimum 
total of 120 minutes of acceptable opacity readings) as the proposed 
procedure, without the additional restriction that the acceptable 
readings also must be made in continuous 6-minute blocks. With this 
change, smelter owners and operators should be able to obtain the 
required number of acceptable opacity readings in a more reasonable 1- 
to 2-day observation period.

E. How Did We Select the Final Opacity Limits for Existing Copper 
Converter Departments?

1. Pierce-Smith Converters
    Because of our decision to change the test protocol to facilitate 
compliance determinations, we concluded that a reexamination of the 
proposed opacity limit for existing Pierce-Smith converters using the 
new protocol was warranted to determine whether using the protocol 
affected the proposed, and ultimately, the final opacity limit. As 
specified by the new protocol, we considered all 1-minute average 
opacity values recorded during the field observations when at least one 
converter was blowing, and there were no visible emissions 
interferences from other copper production activities or malfunctions 
inside the copper converter building. Consistent with the MACT floor 
approach we used at proposal, we based our selection of the MACT floor 
on the average of the test data for the five best performing sources 
(in this case, all five smelters in the source category that operate 
Pierce-Smith converters).
    The field data considered at proposal and reexamined include a 
compilation of visible emission observations and process data gathered 
in the spring of 1997 at each of the smelters operating

[[Page 40486]]

Pierce-Smith or Hoboken converters. A description of the field data 
collection and analysis procedures used to compile the data is 
available in the preamble to the proposed rule (63 FR 19596). In 
general, a sufficient number of opacity observations were obtained 
during the site visits to compile a data base that included for each 
smelter a total of 400 to 500 minutes of 1-minute average opacity 
readings. Not included in these data are any opacity readings made at a 
smelter during periods when the converter operations were judged not to 
be representative of normal operations (e.g., during a converter 
capture system malfunction) or when the opacity observation conditions 
did not meet Method 9 criteria (e.g., improper sun angle).
    For each smelter, we prepared a data summary that listed the 
average opacity values for only those 1-minute intervals during which 
at least one of the converters was blowing, and there were no visible 
emissions interferences as defined by the test protocol. For four of 
the smelters, there are a sufficient number of acceptable 1-minute 
intervals to simulate two performance tests as specified by the test 
protocol (the total number of acceptable 1-minute intervals can be 
divided into two blocks with at least 120 1-minute average opacity 
values in each block). For the fifth smelter, we have a total of 167 
minutes of acceptable 1-minute average opacity values which we treated 
as a single performance test. The individual performance test results 
are presented in the BID.
    Next, we calculated the average percent opacity for each 
performance test for a given smelter. Each of the calculated averages 
that includes a fraction of a percent opacity was then rounded up to 
the next whole number. For the smelters having two performance tests, 
we selected the higher of the two recorded values as the indicator of 
performance for the smelter. Following this procedure, the average 
opacity values for the five individual smelters are, in order of 
increasing value, zero percent, 1 percent, 3 percent, 5 percent, and 10 
percent. The arithmetic average of these five opacity values is 3.8 
percent which rounds to 4 percent opacity. Therefore, we selected the 
MACT floor for Pierce-Smith converters to be 4 percent opacity.
    In response to comments received since proposal, we have evaluated 
two possible beyond-the-floor alternatives for the control of Pierce-
Smith converters: Alternative 1--retrofit of air curtain secondary 
hoods on each converter at each affected smelter to complement the 
primary and secondary capture systems; and Alternative 2--installation 
of a converter building evacuation system. Total annual costs to 
implement these options were estimated assuming that each of the five 
smelters with Pierce-Smith converters would be subject to the rule 
(i.e., each smelter is a major source of HAP emissions). Total capital 
costs for implementing Alternative 1 at the five smelters are estimated 
to be $41 million. Implementing Alternative 1 is estimated to reduce 
HAP emissions beyond the floor by 29 tpy at a total annual cost of $12 
million per year or about $430,000 per ton of HAP reduction. Total 
capital costs for implementing Alternative 2 at the five smelters are 
estimated to be $93 million. Implementing Alternative 2 is estimated to 
reduce HAP emissions beyond the floor by 34 tpy at a total annual cost 
of $32 million per year or about $910,000 per ton of HAP reduction. 
Taking into consideration the costs of implementing either of the 
beyond-the-floor alternatives against the level of additional emission 
reduction estimated to be achieved, we concluded that neither of these 
beyond-the-floor alternatives is reasonable. Therefore, MACT for 
Pierce-Smith converters is 4 percent opacity, and we chose this value 
for the final standard.
2. Hoboken Converters
    Comment. One commenter stated that the proposed opacity limit for 
existing Hoboken converters was based on a set of opacity readings that 
was too small to adequately reflect an achievable emission limit. 
Furthermore, the commenter stated that these data are not 
representative of normal operating conditions at the one existing 
smelter using Hoboken converters. The commenter submitted additional 
opacity data for the existing Hoboken converters. The commenter stated 
that these data were more representative of a two-converter operation 
which is typical at the smelter and requested that the data be used to 
recalculate the opacity limit.
    Response. We examined the new data submitted by the commenter 
according to the revised test protocol. It is important to remember 
that the test protocol allows consideration of only those opacity 
readings that are taken during converter blowing and when no visible 
emissions interferences occur (as defined in the test protocol). 
Opacity readings during periods when visible emissions interferences 
occur are excluded from the calculation. Our analysis of the new data 
provided by the commenter yields an average opacity value of 3.8 
percent which supports the 4 percent opacity limit proposed for Hoboken 
converters.

F. Why Did We Change the Compliance Date for Existing Sources?

    Comment. Three commenters requested that the compliance date for 
existing sources be extended to the full 3 years allowed under the CAA. 
The commenters, all companies operating primary copper smelters 
potentially subject to the NESHAP, claimed that the control measures 
required to meet the requirements of the proposed rule cannot be 
readily implemented within the proposed 2-year period. The principal 
reason expressed by the commenters for extending the compliance period 
to 3 years is the rule will require smelters to plan and implement 
several significant changes, some of which cannot be completed within a 
2-year period.
    Response. Section 112(i)(3) of the CAA directs us to establish a 
compliance date for existing sources which provides for compliance with 
the applicable standards as expeditiously as practicable but no later 
than 3 years after the effective date of the standards. For the final 
rule, we reconsidered our proposed compliance date for existing sources 
subject to the primary copper smelter NESHAP. We expect that many of 
the existing sources that could be subject to the rule already have the 
type of controls in place that are needed to comply with the standards. 
However, we also recognize that the control systems for some existing 
sources subject to the rule will likely need to be upgraded to meet the 
standards. To allow smelter owners and operators a reasonable period of 
time to design, procure, install, and startup these control upgrades, 
we decided to establish the compliance date for existing sources under 
the final rule at no later than 3 years after promulgation.

G. Why Did We Change the Inspection and Monitoring Requirements?

1. Batch Converter Capture System Inspection Requirements
    Comment: Three commenters stated that the requirement to inspect 
the batch converter capture systems on a monthly basis should be 
limited to those components of the converter capture system that are 
readily accessible during normal operations. The proposed requirement 
to visually inspect each month all of the capture system components is 
not practical, if not impossible to achieve. For example, the fan blade 
inspection that would be required under the proposed rule can only be 
performed when the fan housing

[[Page 40487]]

is opened, and operations must be shutdown to do this. Another example 
is the practicality of inspecting duct components that are covered with 
insulation.
    Response. The intended purpose of the monthly inspection is to 
visually check the accessible components of the capture system for any 
defects or damage that could diminish or impair capture system 
performance from the level that the capture system is capable of 
achieving when it is properly operated and maintained. We also 
recognize that certain components of the capture system, such as the 
examples cited by the commenters, cannot be inspected by workers 
without shutdown of the process or disassembling components. It would 
be impractical to inspect these components on a monthly basis. In the 
final rule, we have revised the wording of the visual inspection 
requirement for capture systems to clarify which capture system 
components are to be inspected on a monthly basis. The final rule 
specifies that the owner or operator inspect those components of the 
capture system that can affect the performance of the system to collect 
the gases and fumes emitted from the affected source (e.g., hoods, 
exposed ductwork, dampers, pressure senors, damper switches). During 
each inspection, the inspector must visually check the physical 
appearance of the equipment (e.g., presence of holes, dents, or other 
damage in hoods or ductwork) and check the settings for each damper and 
other devices which can be adjusted to control flow in the capture 
system.
2. Operating Limit for Baghouse Leak Detector Alarms
    Comment. Six commenters objected to our proposed 5 percent limit on 
baghouse leak detector alarms during each 6-month reporting period. 
Reasons cited included: (1) The use of baghouse leak detectors for 
baghouses operated at copper smelters is unproven technology; (2) the 
selection of the proposed alarm time limit is arbitrary; (3) experience 
of commenters has shown that the detectors are subject to false alarms; 
(4) any limit on baghouse leak detector time should not include alarms 
during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction; and (5) what the 
EPA means by ``initiation of corrective action'' is not clear for the 
purpose of counting the elapsed alarm time.
    Response. The use of baghouse leak detectors is a proven technology 
that can provide an effective means for early detection of bag failures 
allowing the baghouse operator to take timely action to correct the 
problem and minimize excessive particulate matter emissions that would 
result if the problem was not promptly addressed. These detectors 
currently are used for baghouse applications at primary lead smelters 
and other metallurgical facilities with gas stream characteristics and 
operating conditions similar to those control situations at primary 
copper smelters for which an owner or operator also may choose to use a 
baghouse to comply with the rule requirements. We believe that there is 
no reason why baghouse leak detectors cannot similarly be used on 
baghouses at primary copper smelters.
    The selection of the limit value for alarm time is not arbitrary. 
We selected this value based on our judgement of an upper limit to the 
number of alarms that can reasonably be expected to occur (excluding 
false alarms) over a 6-month period for a baghouse for which the owner 
or operator implements good inspection and maintenance practices.
    We reviewed the proposed language for use of baghouse leak 
detectors with respect to concerns raised by the commenters about false 
alarms. For the final rule, we have revised the requirements for 
baghouse leak detectors to be consistent with the requirements we 
promulgated for the Primary Lead Smelting NESHAP under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart TTT. These requirements include provisions which address the 
concerns raised by the commenters about counting false alarms and 
alarms during startup, shutdown, or malfunctions in the alarm time 
limit compliance calculation. Under the Primary Copper Smelting NESHAP, 
alarms are not included in the sum of alarm times for purposes of 
calculating the percentage of time the alarm on the bag leak detection 
system sounds if it is determined that an alarm sounds solely as the 
result of a malfunction of the bag leak detection system, or if the 
alarm sounds as result of a condition that is described in the 
smelter's startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) and the 
procedures in the plan described to respond to this condition are 
implemented.
    Finally, when an alarm first sounds from the bag leak detector, we 
recognize that there are situations when the cause of the alarm cannot 
be corrected or fixed immediately or within a short period of a few 
hours. The correction of a torn bag or other problem which can trip the 
alarm may require that the baghouse be shutdown to allow facility 
personnel to enter the baghouse when it is safe to do so. We revised 
the language for the final rule to clarify that alarm time is counted 
as the time elapsed from when the alarm first sounds until the owner or 
operator acknowledges the alarm and determines the cause of the alarm. 
Alarm time is not the total time until the problem which tripped the 
alarm is corrected.

H. Is the Kennecott Utah Copper Smelter a Major or Area Source of HAP 
Emissions?

    Comment. We received two comments challenging our conclusions that 
the Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation smelter located near Garfield, 
Utah, does not emit HAP at major source levels and is, therefore, an 
area source. The Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 
commented that the information that we used to characterize the 
emissions potential of the smelter is incorrect or outdated. Data in 
the smelter's emission inventory report for the year 1997 indicate that 
the smelter did emit and has the potential to emit HAP at major source 
levels. The Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation (hereafter referred to as 
``Kennecott''), owner and operator of the smelter, commented and 
acknowledged that the HAP emissions from its smelter in 1997 exceeded 
the major source threshold levels, but that the company planned to 
install new air pollution control equipment in the anode furnace and 
casting departments that will reduce HAP emissions, especially 
emissions of lead compounds, to well below major source levels.
    Response. The proposed rule was developed before any HAP emissions 
data were available based on the fulltime operation of the Kennecott 
smelter. At the time, all the available evidence indicated that the 
smelter would not be a ``major source'' of HAP emissions because of the 
smelter's unique design and anticipated level of emission control.
    In their comments on the proposed rule, the Utah DEQ presented HAP 
emissions data obtained in 1997, the first full year of operation of 
the new smelter. Contrary to the company's, the State's, and our 
expectations, total annual HAP emissions from the smelter in 1997 
exceeded the major source threshold level. Specifically, lead 
emissions, the most prominent HAP emitted, were reported to exceed 23 
tpy. This level is well above the 10 tpy single HAP threshold level for 
major sources and exceeds substantially the smelter's title V permitted 
lead emission rate of 1.3 pounds per hour, which is equivalent to about 
6 tpy.
    Extensive in-plant testing by Kennecott determined that the primary 
source of the excess lead emissions was the two anode furnaces used to 
refine the blister copper flowing from the flash converting furnace 
prior to anode

[[Page 40488]]

casting. At the time, the combined off-gas from both furnaces was 
treated in two high-energy wet scrubbers installed in series and 
designed to achieve both sulfur dioxide and particulate matter control. 
Testing of the anode furnace off-gas and the scrubber system outlet gas 
stream showed much higher levels of fine particulate and lead emissions 
than originally anticipated. Results of particle size measurements 
performed on the anode furnace off-gas indicated that more than half of 
the particulate matter was less than 1 micron in diameter with 
significant portions less than 0.3 microns.
    During 1999 and 2000, Kennecott installed additional air pollution 
control equipment to better control the fine particulate and lead 
compounds in the anode furnace process off-gas. A quench tower, a lime 
injection system, and a baghouse were installed upstream of the two wet 
scrubbers. With the installation and startup of the new controls, the 
levels of fine particulate matter and HAP metal compounds emitted in 
the anode furnace off-gas have been significantly reduced. Based on 
results from a month-long test program conducted in January 2001, total 
annual lead emissions from the smelter were determined to be 
approximately 1.75 tpy, and the emissions of all metals to be 
approximately 2.6 tpy. These annual HAP emissions levels are well below 
the 10 tpy major source threshold level for a single HAP and 25 tpy 
major source threshold level for total HAP. Consequently, the smelter 
is no longer a major source of HAP emissions.
    On February 15, 2001, Kennecott submitted to the Utah DEQ a 
notification of compliance with all title V operating permit limits and 
conditions including its lead limit of 1.3 pounds per hour. The 
requirements of the smelter's title V operating permit are federally 
enforceable, and both the State of Utah and the EPA have authority to 
take enforcement action should Kennecott fail to continue to operate 
the smelter in compliance with its permitted emission limits.

I. To What Extent Was the Kennecott Utah Copper Smelter Considered in 
the MACT Floor Determinations for New and Existing Sources?

    Comment. Two commenters objected to the exclusion of the Kennecott 
smelter from the primary copper smelter source category definition and 
from consideration as part of the MACT floor determination for new and 
existing sources. Both commenters argued for a broader definition than 
that contained in the April 1998 proposal. They supported a definition 
similar to that used in the new source performance standard (NSPS) and 
Inorganic Arsenic NESHAP that would include smelters using continuous 
flash converters like that used at the rebuilt Kennecott smelter. Both 
commenters also argued for the need to include the Kennecott smelter 
and its continuous flash converter in the MACT floor determination for 
the six smelters that employ the more conventional batch converters 
(Pierce-Smith and Hoboken). In addition, one of the commenters 
suggested that Kennecott's continuous flash converter should be 
considered the best controlled similar source and, thus, new source 
MACT for the primary copper smelting source category.
    Response. At the time we initiated work on the NESHAP, the primary 
copper smelting source category was comprised of seven smelters, all of 
which were engaged in the production of anode copper from copper ore 
concentrates by first smelting the concentrates to obtain molten copper 
matte in a flash smelting furnace, and then converting the molten matte 
to blister copper using batch converters followed by fire refining and 
anode casting. Consequently, every smelter that potentially could be a 
major HAP source used either Pierce-Smith converters (five smelters) or 
Hoboken converters (one smelter).
    In the intervening years, Kennecott shutdown its existing smelter 
at Garfield, Utah, that had used batch converters. The company built a 
new smelter at the same location that uses a flash smelting furnace 
similar to that used at the other smelters, and a new continuous flash 
converter. The Kennecott smelter is the only domestic smelter that does 
not use batch converters, either Pierce-Smith or Hoboken designs, to 
produce blister copper.
    From the perspective of raw materials processed and final product 
shipped, a smelter using batch-converting technology and a smelter 
using continuous flash-converting technology would appear to be 
similar, both process copper sulfide ore concentrate and produce anode 
copper for shipment to a electrolytic refining facility. We agree that, 
in general, the overall function of both of these smelters is to 
produce anode copper from copper ore concentrates. However, there are 
significant dissimilarities between how the anode copper is produced at 
the smelter using continuous flash converters compared with the 
smelters using batch converters.
    The use of a continuous flash converter allows blister copper to be 
produced in a continuous process at the Kennecott smelter instead of a 
batch process as is required at the other smelters. At the Kennecott 
smelter, molten copper matte tapped from the continuous flash smelting 
furnace is first granulated by quenching with water to form solid 
granules of copper matte. These matte granules are then ground to a 
fine texture and fed to the continuous flash converter. Slag and 
blister copper produced are tapped from ports near the bottom of the 
furnace. Molten slag is transferred from the furnace to a slag hauler 
for subsequent disposal. Molten blister copper is transferred in heated 
launders directly to the anode furnace for further refining into anode 
copper.
    Due to its unique design and operation, most of the process 
fugitive emission sources associated with smelters using batch 
converting are eliminated at the Kennecott smelter. There are no 
transfers of molten material in open ladles between the smelting, 
converting, and anode refining departments at the Kennecott smelter. In 
addition, there are no fugitive emissions associated with the repeated 
rolling-out of converters for charging, skimming, and pouring. Also, 
only one continuous flash converter is needed at the Kennecott smelter 
compared with the need for three or more batch copper converters at the 
other smelters.
    Another difference between continuous flash converters versus batch 
converters is that blister copper produced by the continuous flash 
converter at the Kennecott smelter contains higher levels of residual 
sulfur and metal HAP impurities than levels seen in blister copper 
produced by batch converters. As a result, the anode furnace and 
casting departments at the Kennecott smelter use emission controls for 
sulfur dioxide and metal HAP emissions that are not needed at smelters 
using batch converters.
    These differences aside, we have reconsidered whether the source 
category definition included in the April 1998 proposal should be 
broadened to include smelters using continuous flash-converting 
technology like the Kennecott smelter. We have concluded that the 
definition should be broadened and made consistent with that used to 
define primary copper smelters pursuant to both the primary copper 
smelter NSPS and Inorganic Arsenic NESHAP. We are changing the 
definition of primary copper smelters to mean ``any installation or any 
intermediate process engaged in the production of copper from copper 
sulfide ore concentrates through the use of pyrometallurgical 
techniques.''

[[Page 40489]]

    Relative to the inclusion of the Kennecott smelter in the MACT 
floor determination, we disagree with the commenters that primary 
copper smelters using continuous flash converting should be grouped 
with primary copper smelters using batch converting for the existing 
source MACT floor determination. Section 112 of the CAA provides the 
Administrator the discretion to divide categories of sources into 
subcategories where appropriate. In establishing such subcategories for 
other source categories in the NESHAP program, we have considered 
factors such as differences in process operations (including 
differences between batch and continuous operation), emission 
characteristics, control device applicability, and opportunities for 
pollution prevention.
    We believe that the design and operating differences between these 
two classes of copper converters make these sources so dissimilar with 
respect to HAP emission sources, level of HAP emissions, and the 
subsequent control measures required to control HAP emissions from 
these sources as to warrant the creation of two separate subcategories 
of primary copper smelters: primary copper smelters using batch 
converters, and primary copper smelters using continuous flash 
converters. Thus, we conclude that consideration of the Kennecott 
smelter in the MACT floor determinations for existing sources within 
the subcategory of primary copper smelters using batch converters is 
inappropriate since it is not among the pool of sources that comprises 
the subcategory.
    Regarding the comment on new source MACT, we believe that there is 
merit to the commenter's position that for the purpose of selecting new 
source MACT for copper converter operations, the best controlled 
similar source uses flash converting. This is especially true 
considering our decision to change the source category definition to 
include all smelters engaged in the production of copper from copper 
sulfide ore concentrates regardless of the pyrometallurgical (smelting) 
techniques used. The practical effect of a decision to base new source 
MACT on flash converting would be a ban on the construction of a new 
converter department employing batch converters, which would lead to 
the virtual elimination of process fugitive emissions discharged from 
new copper converter departments. This would be best accomplished 
through a work practice standard that would expressly prohibit the 
construction of a new copper converter department employing batch 
copper converters. Consequently, we have selected as the final standard 
a work practice standard that prohibits altogether the operation of 
batch copper converters at new copper converter departments. We believe 
that the impact of this decision on the industry is none, given both 
the availability of newer and cleaner converting technologies, and the 
rigor of the new source review permitting process to which a new source 
would be subject.

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.
    It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866, and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review.

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 final 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 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 rule is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it is based on control technology 
performance and not on health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with

[[Page 40490]]

Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires 
EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    Under section 5(b) of Executive Order 13175, the EPA may not issue 
a regulation that has tribal 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 tribal governments, or the EPA consults 
with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed 
regulation. Under section 5(c) of Executive Order 13175, the EPA may 
not issue a regulation that has tribal implications and that preempts 
tribal law, unless the Agency consults with tribal officials early in 
the process of developing the proposed regulation.
    This final 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 
Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this action.

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 to State, local, and tribal 
governments, in aggregate, or to 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 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. In addition, the EPA has determined that this 
final 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 final 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 rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is a 
business having less than 1,000 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.
    Based on the Small Business Administration's NAICS-based size 
definitions and reported employment data for the affected companies, 
the Agency identified no small businesses in the Primary Copper 
Smelting and Refining industry (NAICS code 331411). After considering 
the economic impacts of today's final rule on small entities, it has 
been determined that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. All smelters 
potentially subject to the rule are owned by international corporations 
and employ more than 1,000 employees. This 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 rule.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this final rule are 
being submitted for approval to 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. 
1850.03), and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, Office of 
Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
    The information collection requirements in the final rule include 
mandatory notifications, records, and reports required by the NESHAP 
general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). These information 
requirements are needed to confirm the compliance status of major 
sources, to identify any nonmajor sources not subject to the standard 
and any new or reconstructed sources subject to the standards to 
confirm that emission control devices are being properly operated and 
maintained and to ensure that the standards are being achieved. Based 
on the recorded and reported information, the EPA can decide which 
facilities, records, or processes should be inspected. These 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized 
under CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to 
EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded 
according to EPA policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection

[[Page 40491]]

of information (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective 
date of this rule and assuming that all six smelters with batch 
converters are operating and subject to the rule) is estimated to total 
20,500 labor hours per year at a total annual cost of $923,800. This 
estimate includes initial notifications, preparation of a SSMP, 
preparation of a fugitive dust control plan, annual performance 
testing, semiannual compliance reports, and recordkeeping. Total 
capital costs associated with the monitoring equipment over the 3-year 
period of the ICR is estimated at $276,000. The total annualized cost 
of the monitoring equipment is estimated at $98,000. This estimate 
includes the capital, operating, and maintenance costs associated with 
the installation and operation of the monitoring equipment.
    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 purposes 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 be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search 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 number for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 
the EPA to use voluntary consensus 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., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, or business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide 
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency does not use 
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This rulemaking involves technical standards. The Agency conducted 
a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus 
standards. However, we identified no such standards, and none were 
brought to our attention in comments. Therefore, we have decided to use 
EPA Reference Methods 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5B, and 29 of 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A.

I. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller of the United 
States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

J. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

    This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: May 15, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 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.

    2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart QQQ to read as follows:

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

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

63.1440   What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.1441   Am I subject to this subpart?
63.1442   What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.1443   When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

63.1444   What emissions limitations and work practice standards 
must I meet for my copper concentrate dryers, smelting furnaces, 
slag cleaning vessels, and copper converter departments?
63.1445   What work practice standards must I meet for my fugitive 
dust sources?
63.1446   What alternative emission limitation may I meet for my 
combined gas streams?

Operation and Maintenance Requirements

63.1447   What are my operation and maintenance requirements?

General Compliance Requirements

63.1448   What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

Initial Compliance Requirements

63.1449   By what date must I conduct performance tests or other 
initial compliance demonstrations?
63.1450   What test methods and other procedures must I use to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations?
63.1451   How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 
limitations, work practice standards, and operation and maintenance 
requirements that apply to me?

Continuous Compliance Requirements

63.1452   What are my monitoring requirements?
63.1453   How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations, work practice standards, and operations and 
maintenance requirements that apply to me?

Notifications, Reports and Records

63.1454   What notifications must I submit and when?
63.1455   What reports must I submit and when?
63.1456   What records must I keep and how long must I keep my 
records?

Other Requirements and Information

63.1457   What part of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.1458   Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.1459   What definitions apply to this subpart?
Table 1 to Subpart QQQ of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart QQQ.

[[Page 40492]]

Figure 1 to Subpart QQQ of Part 63--Data Summary Sheet for 
Determination of Average Opacity.

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

What This Subpart Covers


Sec. 63.1440  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for primary copper smelters. This subpart also 
establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous 
compliance with all applicable emission limitations, work practice 
standards, and operation and maintenance requirements in this subpart.


Sec. 63.1441  Am I subject to this subpart?

    You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a primary 
copper smelter that is (or is part of) a major source of hazardous air 
pollutant (HAP) emissions on the first compliance date that applies to 
you, and your primary copper smelter uses batch copper converters as 
defined in Sec. 63.1459. Your primary copper smelter is a major source 
of HAP if it emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at the 
rate of 10 tons or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 
25 tons or more per year.


Sec. 63.1442  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

    (a) This subpart applies to each new and existing affected source 
at your primary copper smelter. The affected sources are each copper 
concentrate dryer, each smelting furnace, each slag cleaning vessel, 
each copper converter department, and the entire group of fugitive 
emission sources, as defined in Sec. 63.1459.
    (b) An affected source at your primary copper smelter is existing 
if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source 
before April 20, 1998.
    (c) An affected source at your primary copper smelter is new if you 
commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source on or 
after April 20, 1998. An affected source is reconstructed if it meets 
the definition of ``reconstruction'' in Sec. 63.2.


Sec. 63.1443  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with 
each emission limitation, work practice standard, and operation and 
maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies to you no later 
than June 13, 2005.
    (b) If you have a new affected source and its initial startup date 
is on or before June 12, 2002, you must comply with each emission 
limitation, work practice standard, and operation and maintenance 
requirement in this subpart that applies to you by June 12, 2002.
    (c) If you have a new affected source and its initial startup date 
is after June 12, 2002, you must comply with each emission limitation, 
work practice standard, and operation and maintenance requirement in 
this subpart that applies to you upon initial startup.
    (d) If your primary copper smelter is an area source that becomes a 
major source of HAP, the compliance dates listed in paragraphs (d)(1) 
and (2) of this section apply to you.
    (1) Any portion of the existing primary copper smelter that is a 
new affected source or a new reconstructed source must be in compliance 
with this subpart upon startup.
    (2) All other parts of the primary copper smelter must be in 
compliance with this subpart no later than 3 years after it becomes a 
major source.
    (e) You must meet the notification and schedule requirements in 
Sec. 63.1454. Several of these notifications must be submitted before 
the compliance date for your affected source.

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards


Sec. 63.1444  What emissions limitations and work practice standards 
must I meet for my copper concentrate dryers, smelting furnaces, slag 
cleaning vessels, and copper converter departments?

    (a) Copper concentrate dryers. For each copper concentrate dryer, 
you must comply with the emission limitation in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) 
of this section that applies to you.
    (1) For each existing copper concentrate dryer, you must not cause 
to be discharged to the atmosphere from the dryer vent any gases that 
contain total particulate matter in excess of 50 milligrams per dry 
standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) as measured using the test methods 
specified in Sec. 63.1450(a).
    (2) For each new copper concentrate dryer, you must not cause to be 
discharged to the atmosphere from the dryer vent any gases that contain 
total particulate matter in excess of 23 mg/dscm as measured using the 
test methods specified in Sec. 63.1450(a).
    (b) Smelting furnaces. For each smelting furnace, you must comply 
with the emission limitations and work practice standards in paragraphs 
(b)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) For each smelting furnace, you must not cause to be discharged 
to the atmosphere any process off-gas that contains nonsulfuric acid 
particulate matter in excess of 6.2 mg/dscm as measured using the test 
methods specified in Sec. 63.1450(b). Process off-gas from a smelting 
furnace is generated when copper ore concentrates and fluxes are being 
smelted to form molten copper matte and slag layers.
    (2) For each smelting furnace, you must control the process 
fugitive emissions released when tapping copper matte or slag from the 
smelting furnace according to paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this 
section.
    (i) At all times when copper matte or slag is tapped from the 
smelting furnace, you must operate a capture system that collects the 
gases and fumes released from the tapping port in use. The design and 
placement of this capture system must be such that the tapping port 
opening, launder, and receiving vessel (e.g., ladle, slag pot) are 
positioned within the confines or influence of the capture system's 
ventilation draft during those times when the copper matte or slag is 
flowing from the tapping port opening.
    (ii) You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere from the 
capture system used to comply with paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section 
any gases that contain total particulate matter in excess of 23 mg/dscm 
as measured using the test methods specified in Sec. 63.1450(a).
    (c) Slag cleaning vessels. For each slag cleaning vessel, you must 
comply with the emission limitations and work practice standards in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section that apply to you.
    (1) For each slag cleaning vessel, except as provided for in 
paragraph (c)(2) of this section, you must not cause to be discharged 
to the atmosphere any process off-gas that contains nonsulfuric acid 
particulate matter in excess of 6.2 mg/dscm as measured using the test 
methods specified in Sec. 63.1450(b).
    (2) As an alternative to complying with the emission limit for 
nonsulfuric acid particulate matter in paragraph (c)(1) of this 
section, for each existing slag cleaning vessel you may choose to 
comply with the emission limit for total particulate matter specified 
in this paragraph (c)(2). You must not cause to be discharged to the 
atmosphere any process off-gas that contains total particulate matter 
in excess of 46 mg/dscm as measured using the test methods specified in 
Sec. 63.1450(a).

[[Page 40493]]

    (3) For each slag cleaning vessel, you must control process 
fugitive emissions released when tapping copper matte or slag from the 
slag cleaning vessel according to paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this 
section.
    (i) At all times when copper matte or slag is tapped from the slag 
cleaning vessel, you must operate a capture system that collects the 
gases and fumes released from the tapping port in use. The design and 
placement of this capture system must be such that the tapping port 
opening, launder, and receiving vessel (e.g., ladle, slag pot) are 
positioned within the confines or influence of the capture system's 
ventilation draft during those times when the copper matte or slag is 
flowing from the tapping port opening.
    (ii) You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere from the 
capture system used to comply with paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section 
any gases that contain total particulate matter in excess of 23 mg/dscm 
as measured using the test methods specified in Sec. 63.1450(a).
    (d) Existing copper converter departments. For each existing copper 
converter department, you must comply with the emission limitations and 
work practice standards in paragraphs (d)(1) through (6) of this 
section that apply to you.
    (1) You must operate a capture system that collects the process off 
gas vented from each batch copper converter. At all times when one or 
more batch copper converters are blowing, you must operate the capture 
system according to the written operation and maintenance plan that has 
been prepared according to the requirements in Sec. 63.1447(b).
    (2) If your copper converter department uses Pierce-Smith 
converters, the capture system design must include use of a primary 
hood that covers the entire mouth of the converter vessel when the 
copper converter is positioned for blowing. Additional hoods (e.g., 
secondary hoods) or other capture devices must be included in the 
capture system design as needed to achieve the opacity limit in 
paragraph (d)(4) 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.
    (3) If your copper converter department uses Hoboken converters, 
the capture system must collect all process off-gas vented during 
blowing through the side-flue intake on each converter vessel.
    (4) You must operate the capture system such that any visible 
emissions exiting the roof monitors or roof exhaust fans on the 
building housing the copper converter department meet the opacity limit 
as specified in paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) The opacity of any visible emissions exiting the roof monitors 
or roof exhaust fans on the building housing the copper converter 
department must not exceed 4 percent as determined by a performance 
test conducted according to Sec. 63.1450(c).
    (ii) The opacity limit in paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section 
applies only at those times when a performance test is conducted 
according to Sec. 63.1450(c). The requirements for compliance with 
opacity and visible emission standards specified in Sec. 63.6(h) do not 
apply to this opacity limit.
    (5) You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere from any 
Pierce-Smith converter primary hood capture system or Hoboken converter 
side-flue intake capture system any process off-gas that contains 
nonsulfuric acid particulate matter in excess of 6.2 mg/dscm as 
measured using the test methods specified in Sec. 63.1450(b).
    (6) You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere from any 
secondary capture system any gases that contain total particulate 
matter in excess of 23 mg/dscm as measured using the test methods 
specified in Sec. 63.1450(a).
    (e) New copper converter departments. For each new copper converter 
department for which construction commenced on or after April 20, 1998, 
the use of batch copper converters is prohibited.
    (f) Baghouses. For each baghouse applied to meet any total 
particulate matter emission limit in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this 
section, you must operate the baghouse such that the bag leak detection 
system does not alarm for more than 5 percent of the total operating 
time in any semiannual reporting period.
    (g) Venturi wet scrubbers. For each venturi wet scrubber applied to 
meet any total particulate matter emission limit in paragraphs (a) 
through (d) of this section, you must maintain the hourly average 
pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate at or above the minimum 
levels established during the initial or subsequent performance test.
    (h) Other control devices. For each control device other than a 
baghouse or venturi wet scrubber applied to meet any total particulate 
matter emission limit in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, 
you must operate the control device as specified in paragraphs (h)(1) 
and (2) of this section.
    (1) You must select one or more operating parameters, as 
appropriate for the control device design, that can be used as 
representative and reliable indicators of the control device operation.
    (2) You must maintain the hourly average value for each of the 
selected parameters at or above the minimum level or at or below the 
maximum level, as appropriate for the selected parameter, established 
during the initial or subsequent performance test.


Sec. 63.1445  What work practice standards must I meet for my fugitive 
dust sources?

    (a) You must control particulate matter emissions from fugitive 
dust sources at your primary copper smelter by operating according to a 
written fugitive dust control plan that has been approved by the 
designated authority. For the purpose of complying with this paragraph 
(a) you may use an existing fugitive dust control plan provided that 
the plan complies with the requirements of this section. A fugitive 
dust control plan is considered to be approved if the plan has been 
incorporated in your applicable State implementation plan, and the 
document addresses the fugitive dust sources specified in paragraph (b) 
of this section and includes the information specified in paragraph (c) 
of this section.
    (b) Your fugitive dust control plan must address each of the 
fugitive dust emission sources listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) 
of this section that are located at your primary copper smelter.
    (1) On-site roadways used by trucks or other motor vehicles (e.g., 
front-end loaders) when transporting bulk quantities of fugitive dust 
materials. Paved roads and parking areas that are not used by these 
vehicles do not need to be included in the plan (e.g., employee and 
visitor parking lots).
    (2) Unloading of fugitive dust materials from trucks or railcars.
    (3) Outdoor piles used for storage of fugitive dust materials.
    (4) Bedding areas used for blending copper concentrate and other 
feed constituents.
    (5) Each transfer point in conveying systems used to transport 
fugitive dust materials. These points include, but are not limited to, 
transfer of material from one conveyor belt to another and transfer of 
material to a hopper or bin.
    (6) Other site-specific sources of fugitive dust emissions that the 
Administrator or delegated permitting authority designate to be 
included in your fugitive dust control plan.
    (c) Your fugitive dust control plan must describe the control 
measures you use to control fugitive dust emissions

[[Page 40494]]

from each source addressed in the plan, as applicable and appropriate 
for your site conditions. Examples of control measures include, but are 
not limited to, locating the source inside a building or other 
enclosure, installing and operating a local hood capture system over 
the source and venting the captured gas stream to a control device, 
placing material stockpiles below grade, installing wind screens or 
wind fences around the source, spraying water on the source as weather 
conditions require, applying appropriate dust suppression agents on the 
source, or combinations of these control measures.
    (d) The requirement for you to operate according to a written 
fugitive dust control plan must be incorporated in your operating 
permit that is issued by the designated permitting authority under part 
70 of this chapter. A copy of your fugitive dust control plan must be 
sent to the designated permitting authority on or before the compliance 
date for your primary copper smelter, as specified in Sec. 63.1443.


Sec. 63.1446  What alternative emission limitation may I meet for my 
combined gas streams?

    (a) For situations where you combine gas streams from two or more 
affected sources for discharge to the atmosphere through a single vent, 
you may choose to meet the requirements in paragraph (b) of this 
section as an alternative to complying with the individual total 
particulate matter emission limits specified in Sec. 63.1444 that apply 
to you. This alternative emission limit for a combined gas stream may 
be used for any combination of the affected source gas steams specified 
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) Gas stream discharged from a copper concentrate dryer vent that 
would otherwise be subject to Sec. 63.1444(a)(1) or (2);
    (2) Gas stream discharged from a smelting furnace capture system 
that would otherwise be subject to Sec. 63.1444(b)(2)(ii);
    (3) Process off-gas stream discharged from a slag cleaning vessel 
that would otherwise be subject to Sec. 63.1444(c)(2);
    (4) Gas stream discharged from a slag cleaning vessel capture 
system that would otherwise be subject to Sec. 63.1444(c)(3)(ii); and
    (5) Gas stream discharged from a batch copper converter secondary 
capture system that would otherwise be subject to Sec. 63.1444(d)(5).
    (b) You must meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(1) 
and (2) of this section for the combined gas stream discharged through 
a single vent.
    (1) For each combined gas stream discharged through a single vent, 
you must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that 
contain total particulate matter in excess of the emission limit 
calculated using the procedure in paragraph (b)(2) of this section and 
measured using the test methods specified in Sec. 63.1450(a).
    (2) You must calculate the alternative total particulate matter 
emission limit for your combined gas stream using Equation 1 of this 
section. The volumetric flow rate value for each of the individual 
affected source gas streams that you use for Equation 1 (i.e., the flow 
rate of the gas stream discharged from the affected source but before 
this gas stream is combined with the other gas streams) is to be the 
average of the volumetric flow rates measured using the test method 
specified in Sec. 63.1450(a)(1)(ii):

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JN02.025

Where

EAlt = Alternative total particulate matter emission limit 
for the combined gas stream discharged to atmosphere through a single 
vent (mg/dscm);
Ed = Total particulate matter emission limit applicable to 
copper concentrate dryer as specified in Sec. 63.1444(a)(1) or (2) (mg/
dscm);
Qd = Copper concentrate dryer exhaust gas stream volumetric 
flow rate before being combined with other gas streams (dscm);
Esv = Total particulate matter emission limit for smelting 
furnace capture system as specified in Sec. 63.1444(b)(2)(ii) (mg/
dscm);
Qsv = Smelting furnace capture system exhaust gas stream 
volumetric flow rate before being combined with other gas streams 
(dscm);
Escvp = Total particulate matter emission limit for slag 
cleaning vessel process off-gas as specified in Sec. 63.1444(c)(2) (mg/
dscm);
Qscvp = Slag cleaning vessel process off-gas volumetric flow 
rate before being combined with other gas streams (dscm);
Escvf = Total particulate matter emission limit for slag 
cleaning vessel capture system as specified in Sec. 63.1444(c)(3)(ii) 
(mg/dscm);
Qscvf = Slag cleaning vessel capture system exhaust gas 
stream volumetric flow rate before being combined with other gas 
streams (dscm);
Ecc = Total particulate emission limit for the batch copper 
converter secondary capture system as specified in Sec. 63.1544(d)(5) 
(mg/dscm); and
Qcc = Batch copper converter capture system exhaust gas 
stream volumetric flow rate before being combined with other gas 
streams (dscm).

    (c) For each baghouse applied to meet any total particulate matter 
emission limit in paragraph (b) of this section, you must operate the 
baghouse such that the bag leak detection system does not alarm for 
more than 5 percent of the total operating time in any semiannual 
reporting period.
    (d) For each venturi wet scrubber applied to meet any total 
particulate matter emission limit in paragraph (b) of this section, you 
must maintain the hourly average pressure drop and scrubber water flow 
rate at or above the minimum levels established during the initial or 
subsequent performance test.
    (e) For each control device other than a baghouse or venturi wet 
scrubber applied to meet any total particulate matter emission limit in 
paragraph (b) of this section, you must operate the control device as 
specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) You must select one or more operating parameters, as 
appropriate for the control device design, that can be used as 
representative and reliable indicators of the control device operation.
    (2) You must maintain the hourly average value for each of the 
selected parameters at or above the minimum level or at or below the 
maximum level, as appropriate for the selected parameter, established 
during the initial or subsequent performance test.

[[Page 40495]]

Operation and Maintenance Requirements


Sec. 63.1447  What are my operation and maintenance requirements?

    (a) As required by Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i), you must always operate and 
maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and 
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution 
control practices for minimizing emissions at least to the levels 
required by this subpart.
    (b) You must prepare and operate at all times according to a 
written operation and maintenance plan for each capture system and 
control device subject to standards in Sec. 63.1444 or Sec. 63.1446. 
The plan must address the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) 
of this section as applicable to the capture system or control device.
    (1) Preventative maintenance. You must perform preventative 
maintenance for each capture system and control device according to 
written procedures specified in your operation and maintenance plan. 
The procedures must include a preventative maintenance schedule that is 
consistent with the manufacturer's instructions for routine and long-
term maintenance.
    (2) Capture system inspections. You must conduct monthly 
inspections of the equipment components of the capture system that can 
affect the performance of the system to collect the gases and fumes 
emitted from the affected source (e.g., hoods, exposed ductwork, 
dampers, fans) according to written procedures specified in your 
operation and maintenance plan. The inspection procedure must include 
the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section 
as applicable to the capture system or control device.
    (i) Observations of the physical appearance of the equipment to 
confirm the physical integrity of the equipment (e.g., verify by visual 
inspection no holes in ductwork or hoods, no flow constrictions caused 
by dents, or accumulated dust in ductwork).
    (ii) Inspection, and if necessary testing, of equipment components 
to confirm that the component is operating as intended (e.g., verify by 
appropriate measures that flow or pressure sensors, damper plates, 
automated damper switches and motors are operating according to 
manufacture or engineering design specifications).
    (iii) In the event that a defective or damaged component is 
detected during an inspection, you must initiate corrective action 
according to written procedures specified in your operation and 
maintenance plan to correct the defect or deficiency as soon as 
practicable.
    (3) Copper converter department capture system operating limits. 
You must establish, according to the requirements in paragraph 
(b)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section, operating limits for the 
capture system that are representative and reliable indicators of the 
performance of capture system when it is used to collect the process 
off-gas vented from batch copper converters during blowing.
    (i) Select operating limit parameters appropriate for the capture 
system design that are representative and reliable indicators of the 
performance of the capture system when it is used to collect the 
process off-gas vented from batch copper converters during blowing. At 
a minimum, you must use appropriate operating limit parameters that 
indicate the level of the ventilation draft and the damper position 
settings for the capture system when operating to collect the process 
off-gas from the batch copper converters during blowing. Appropriate 
operating limit parameters for ventilation draft include, but are not 
limited to, volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood, 
total volumetric flow rate at the inlet to control device to which the 
capture system is vented, fan motor amperage, or static pressure. Any 
parameter for damper position setting may be used that indicates the 
duct damper position relative to the fully open setting.
    (ii) For each operating limit parameter selected in paragraph 
(b)(3)(i) of this section, designate the value or setting for the 
parameter at which the capture system operates during batch copper 
converter blowing. If your blister copper production operations allow 
for more than one batch copper converter to be operating simultaneously 
in the blowing mode, designate the value or setting for the parameter 
at which the capture system operates during each possible batch copper 
converter blowing configuration that you may operate at your smelter 
(i.e., the operating limits with one converter blowing, with two 
converters blowing, with three converters blowing, as applicable to 
your smelter).
    (iii) Include documentation in the plan to support your selection 
of the operating limits established for the capture system. This 
documentation must include a description of the capture system design, 
a description of the capture system operation during blister copper 
production, a description of each selected operating limit parameter, a 
rationale for why you chose the parameter, a description of the method 
used to monitor the parameter according to the requirements in 
Sec. 63.1452(a), and the data used to set the value or setting for the 
parameter for each of your batch copper converter configurations.
    (4) Baghouse leak detection corrective actions. In the event a bag 
leak detection system alarm is triggered, you must initiate corrective 
action according to written procedures specified in your operation and 
maintenance plan to determine the cause of the alarm within 1 hour of 
the alarm, initiate corrective action to correct the cause of the 
problem within 24 hours of the alarm, and complete the corrective 
action as soon as practicable. Corrective actions may include, but are 
not limited to, the activities listed in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through 
(vi) of this section.
    (i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken bags or 
filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in 
emissions.
    (ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
    (iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise 
repairing the control device.
    (iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment.
    (v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise 
repair the bag leak detection system.
    (vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.

General Compliance Requirements


63.1448  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

    (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations, work 
practice standards, and operation and maintenance requirements in this 
subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction as defined in Sec. 63.2.
    (b) During the period between the compliance date specified for 
your affected source in Sec. 63.1443, and the date upon which 
continuous monitoring systems have been installed and certified and any 
applicable operating limits have been set, you must maintain a log 
detailing the operation and maintenance of the process and emissions 
control equipment.
    (c) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3).

Initial Compliance Requirements


Sec. 63.1449  By what dates must I conduct performance tests or other 
initial compliance demonstrations?

    (a) As required in Sec. 63.7(a)(2), you must conduct a performance 
test within

[[Page 40496]]

180 calendar days of the compliance date that is specified in 
Sec. 63.1443 for your affected source to demonstrate initial compliance 
with each emission and opacity limit in Sec. 63.1443 and Sec. 63.1446 
that applies to you.
    (b) For each work practice standard and operation and maintenance 
requirement that applies to you where initial compliance is not 
demonstrated using a performance test or opacity observation, you must 
demonstrate initial compliance within 30 calendar days after the 
compliance date that is specified for your affected source in 
Sec. 63.1443.


Sec. 63.1450  What test methods and other procedures must I use to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations?

    (a) Total particulate matter emission limits. You must conduct each 
performance test to determine compliance with the total particulate 
matter emission limits in Sec. 63.1444 or Sec. 63.1446 that apply to 
you according to the requirements for representative test conditions 
specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1) and using the test methods and procedures 
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) Determine the concentration of total particulate matter 
according to the test methods in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter 
as specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) Method 1 to select sampling port locations and the number of 
traverse points. Sampling ports must be located at the outlet of the 
control device and prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
    (ii) Method 2, 2F, or 2G to determine the volumetric flow rate of 
the stack gas.
    (iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of 
the stack gas.
    (iv) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
    (v) Method 5, 5D, or 17, as applicable, to determine the 
concentration of total particulate matter. You can also use ASTM D4536-
96 incorporated by reference in Sec. 63.14 as an alternative to the 
sampling equipment and operating procedures in Method 5 or 17 when 
testing a positive pressure baghouse, but you must use the sample 
traverse location and number of sampling points described in Method 5D.
    (2) As an alternative to using the applicable method specified in 
paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section, you may determine total 
particulate matter emissions from the control device using Method 29 in 
appendix A of part 60 of this chapter provided that you follow the 
procedures and precautions prescribed in Method 29. If the control 
device is a positive pressure baghouse, you must also follow the 
measurement procedure specified in sections 4.1 through 4.3 of Method 
5D.
    (3) You must conduct three separate test runs for each performance 
test. Each test run must have a minimum sampling time of 60 minutes and 
a minimum sampling volume of 0.85 dscm. For the purpose of determining 
compliance with the applicable total particulate matter emission limit, 
the arithmetic mean of the results for the three separate test runs is 
used.
    (4) For a venturi wet scrubber applied to emissions from an 
affected source and subject to operating limits in Sec. 63.1444(g) or 
Sec. 63.1446(d) for pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate, you 
must establish site-specific operating limits according to the 
procedures in paragraph (a)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) Using the continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) 
required in Sec. 63.1452, measure and record the pressure drop and 
scrubber water flow rate during each run of the particulate matter 
performance test.
    (ii) Compute and record the hourly average pressure drop and 
scrubber water flow rate for each individual test run. Your operating 
limits are the lowest average pressure drop and scrubber water flow 
rate value in any of the three runs that meet the applicable emission 
limit.
    (5) For a control device other than a baghouse or venturi wet 
scrubber applied to emissions from an affected source and subject to 
site-specific operating limit(s) in Sec. 63.1444(h) or Sec. 63.1446(e) 
for appropriate, site-specific operating parameters that are 
representative and reliable indicators of the control device 
performance, you must establish a site-specific operating limit(s) 
according to the procedures in paragraph (a)(5)(i) through (iv) of this 
section.
    (i) Select one or more operating parameters, as appropriate for the 
control device design, that can be used as representative and reliable 
indicators of the control device operation.
    (ii) Using the CPMS required in Sec. 63.1452, measure and record 
the selected operating parameters for the control device during each 
run of the total particulate matter performance test.
    (iii) Compute and record the hourly average value for each of the 
selected operating parameters for each individual test run. Your 
operating limits are the lowest value or the highest value, as 
appropriate for the selected operating parameter, measured in any of 
the three runs that meet the applicable emission limit.
    (iv) You must prepare written documentation to support your 
selection of the operating parameters used for the control device. This 
documentation must include a description of each selected parameter, a 
rationale for why you chose the parameter, a description of the method 
used to monitor the parameter, and the data recorded during the 
performance test and used to set the operating limit(s).
    (b) Nonsulfuric acid particulate matter emission limits. You must 
conduct each performance test to determine compliance with the 
nonsulfuric acid particulate matter emission limits in Sec. 63.1444 
that apply to you according to the requirements for representative test 
conditions specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1) and using the test methods and 
procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Determine the concentration of nonsulfuric acid particulate 
matter according to the test methods in appendix A to part 60 of this 
chapter as specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of this 
section.
    (i) Method 1 to select sampling port locations and the number of 
traverse points. Sampling ports must be located at the outlet of the 
control device and prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
    (ii) Method 2, 2F, or 2G to determine the volumetric flow rate of 
the stack gas.
    (iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of 
the stack gas.
    (iv) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
    (v) Method 5B to determine the nonsulfuric acid particulate matter 
emissions.
    (2) You must conduct three separate test runs for each performance 
test. Each test run must have a minimum sampling time of 240 minutes 
and a minimum sampling volume of 3.4 dscm. For the purpose of 
determining compliance with the nonsulfuric acid particulate matter 
emission limit, the arithmetic mean of the results for the three 
separate test runs is used.
    (c) Copper converter department capture system opacity limit. You 
must conduct each performance test to determine compliance with the 
opacity limit in Sec. 63.1444 using the test methods and procedures in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (9) of this section.
    (1) You must conduct the performance test during the period when 
the primary copper smelter is operating under conditions representative 
of the smelter's normal blister copper production rate. You may

[[Page 40497]]

not conduct a performance test during periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction. Before conducting the performance test, you must prepare a 
written test plan specifying the copper production conditions to be 
maintained throughout the opacity observation period and including a 
copy of the written documentation you have prepared according to 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section to support the established operating 
limits for the copper converter department capture system. You must 
submit a copy of the test plan for review and approval by the 
Administrator or delegated authority. During the observation period, 
you must collect appropriate process information and copper converter 
department capture system operating information to prepare 
documentation sufficient to verify that all opacity observations were 
made during the copper production and capture system operating 
conditions specified in the approved test plan.
    (2) You must 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 must be received by the 
Administrator on or before 30 calendar days before this scheduled date.
    (3) You must gather the data needed for determining compliance with 
the opacity limit using qualified visible emission observers and 
process monitors as described in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this 
section.
    (i) Opacity observations must be performed by a sufficient number 
of qualified visible emission observers to obtain two complete 
concurrent sets of opacity readings for the required observation 
period. Each visible emission observer must 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 entire set of readings 
during the required observation period does not need to be made by the 
same two observers. More than two observers may be used to allow for 
substitutions and provide for observer rest breaks. The owner or 
operator must obtain proof of current visible emission reading 
certification for each observer.
    (ii) A person (or persons) familiar with the copper production 
operations conducted at the smelter must serve as the indoor process 
monitor. The indoor process monitor is stationed at a location inside 
the building housing the batch copper converters such that he or she 
can visually observe and record operations that occur in the batch 
copper converter aisle during the times that the visible emission 
observers are making opacity readings. More than one indoor process 
monitor may be used to allow for substitutions and provide for rest 
breaks.
    (4) You must make all opacity observations using Method 9 in 
appendix A to part 60 of this chapter and following the procedures 
described in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) Each visible emission observer must make his or her readings at 
a position from the outside of the building that houses the copper 
converter department such that the observer's line-of-sight is 
approximately perpendicular to the longer axis of the converter 
building, and the observer has an unobstructed view of the building 
roof monitor sections or roof exhaust fan outlets that are positioned 
over each of the batch copper converters inside the building. Opacity 
readings can only be made during those times when the observer's 
position meets the sun orientation and other conditions specified in 
section 2.1 of Method 9.
    (ii) At 15-second intervals, each visible emission observer views 
the building roof monitor sections or roof exhaust fan outlets that are 
positioned over each of the batch copper converters inside the building 
and reads the opacity of the visible plumes. If no plume is visible, 
the observer records zero as the opacity value for the 15-second 
interval. In situations when it is possible for an observer to 
distinguish two or more visible emission plumes from the building roof 
monitor sections or roof exhaust fan outlets, the observer must 
identify, to the extent feasible, the plume having the highest opacity 
and record his or her opacity reading for that plume as the opacity 
value for the 15-second interval.
    (5) You must make opacity observations for a period of sufficient 
duration to obtain a minimum of 120 1-minute intervals during which at 
least one copper converter is blowing and no interferences have 
occurred from other copper production events, as specified in paragraph 
(c)(7) of this section, which generate visible emissions inside the 
building that potentially can interfere with the visible emissions from 
the converter capture systems as seen by the outside observers. To 
obtain the required number of 1-minute intervals, the observation 
period may be divided into two or more segments performed on the same 
day or on different days if conditions prevent the required number of 
opacity readings from being obtained during one continuous time period. 
Examples of these conditions include, but are not limited to, changes 
in the sun's orientation relative to visible emission observers' 
positions such that the Method 9 conditions are no longer met or an 
unexpected thunder storm. If the total observation period is divided 
into two or more segments, all opacity observations must be made during 
the same set of copper production conditions described in your approved 
test plan as required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (6) You must gather indoor process information during all times 
that the visible emission observers are making opacity readings outside 
the building housing the copper converter department. The indoor 
process monitor must continually observe the operations occurring in 
the copper converter department and prepare a written record of his or 
her observations using the procedure specified in paragraphs (c)(6)(i) 
through (iv) of this section.
    (i) At the beginning of each observation period or segment, the 
clock time setting on the watch or clock to be used by the indoor 
process monitor must be synchronized with the clock time settings for 
the timepieces to be used by the outdoor opacity observers.
    (ii) During each period or segment when opacity readings are being 
made by the visible emission observers, the indoor process monitor must 
continuously observe the operations occurring in the copper converter 
department and record his or her observations in a log book, on data 
sheets, or other type of permanent written format.
    (iii) When a batch copper converter is blowing, a record must be 
prepared for the converter that includes, but is not limited to, the 
clock times for when blowing begins and when blowing ends and the 
converter blowing rate. This information may be recorded by the indoor 
process monitor or by a separate, automated computer data system.
    (iv) The process monitor must record each event other than 
converter blowing that occurs in or nearby the converter aisle that he 
or she observes to generate visible emissions inside the building. The 
recorded entry for each event must include, but is not limited to, a 
description of the event and the clock times when the event begins and 
when the event ends.
    (7) You must prepare a summary of the data for the entire 
observation period using the information recorded during the 
observation period by the outdoor visible emission observers and the 
indoor process monitor and the

[[Page 40498]]

procedure specified in paragraphs (c)(7)(i) through (iv) of this 
section.
    (i) Using the field data sheets, identify the 1-minute clock times 
for which a total of eight opacity readings were made and recorded by 
both observers at 15-second intervals according to the test procedures 
(i.e., a total of four opacity values have been recorded for the 1-
minute interval by each of the two observers). Calculate the average of 
the eight 15-second interval readings recorded on the field data sheets 
by the two observers during the 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 the resulting total by eight). Record the 
clock time and the opacity average for the 1-minute interval on a data 
summary sheet. Figure 1 of this subpart shows an example of the format 
for the data summary sheet you may use, but are not required to use.
    (ii) Using the data summary sheets prepared according to paragraph 
(c)(7)(i) of this section and the process information recorded 
according to paragraph (c)(6)(iii) of this section, identify those 1-
minute intervals for which at least one of the batch copper converters 
was blowing.
    (iii) Using the data summary sheets prepared according to paragraph 
(c)(7)(ii) of this section and the process information recorded 
according to paragraph (c)(6)(iv) of this section, identify the 1-
minute intervals during which at least one copper converter was blowing 
but none of the interference events listed in paragraphs (c)(7)(iii)(A) 
through (F) of this section occurred. Other ancillary activities not 
listed but conducted in or adjacent to the converter aisle during the 
opacity observations are not considered to be interference events 
(e.g., converter aisle cleaning, placement of smoking ladles or skulls 
on the converter aisle floor).
    (A) Charging of copper matte, reverts, or other materials to a 
batch copper converter;
    (B) Skimming slag or other molten materials from a batch copper 
converter;
    (C) Pouring of blister copper or other molten materials from a 
batch copper converter;
    (D) Return of slag or other molten materials to the flash smelting 
furnace or slag cleaning vessel;
    (E) Roll-out or roll-in of the batch copper converter; or
    (F) Smoke and fumes generated inside the converter building by 
operation of the smelting furnace, the slag cleaning vessel (if used), 
anode refining and casting processes that drift into the copper 
converter department.
    (iv) Using the data summary sheets prepared according to paragraph 
(c)(7)(iii) of this section, up to five 1-minute intervals following an 
interference event may be eliminated from data used for the compliance 
determination calculation specified in paragraph (c)(8) of this section 
by applying a time delay factor. The time delay factor must be a 
constant number of minutes not to exceed 5 minutes that is added to the 
clock time recorded when cessation of the interference event occurs. 
The same time delay factor must be used for all interference events 
(i.e., a constant time delay factor for the smelter of 1 minute, 2 
minutes, 3 minutes, 4 minutes, or 5 minutes). The number of minutes to 
be used for the time delay factor is determined based on the site-
specific equipment and converter building configuration. An explanation 
of the rationale for selecting the value used for the time delay factor 
must be prepared and included in the test report.
    (8) You must use the data summary prepared in paragraph (c)(7) of 
this section to calculate the average opacity value for a minimum of 
120 1-minute intervals during which at least one copper converter was 
blowing with no interference events as determined according to 
paragraphs (c)(7)(iii) and (iv) of this section. Average opacity is 
calculated using Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JN02.026

Where
    VEave = Average opacity to be used for compliance 
determination (percent);
    n = Total number of 1-minute intervals during which at least one 
copper converter was blowing with no interference events as determined 
according to paragraphs (c)(7)(iii) and (iv) of this section (at least 
120 1-minute intervals);
    i = 1-minute interval ``i'' during which at least one copper 
converter was blowing with no interference events as determined 
according to paragraphs (c)(7)(iii) and (iv) of this section; and
    VEi = Average opacity value calculated for the eight 
opacity readings recorded during 1-minute interval ``i'' (percent).

    (9) You must certify that the copper converter department capture 
system operated during the performance test at the operating limits 
established in your capture system operation and maintenance plan using 
the procedure specified in paragraphs (c)(9)(i) through (iv) of this 
section.
    (i) Concurrent with all opacity observations, measure and record 
values for each of the operating limit parameters in your capture 
system operation and maintenance plan according to the monitoring 
requirements specified in Sec. 63.1452(a).
    (ii) For any dampers that are manually set and remain in the same 
position at all times the capture system is operating, the damper 
position must be visually checked and recorded at the beginning and end 
of each opacity observation period segment.
    (iii) Review the recorded monitoring data. Identify and explain any 
times during batch copper converter blowing when the capture system 
operated outside the applicable operating limits.
    (iv) Certify in your performance test report that during all 
observation period segments, the copper converter department capture 
system was operating at the values or settings established in your 
capture system operation and maintenance plan.


Sec. 63.1451  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 
limitations, work practice standards, and operation and maintenance 
requirements that apply to me?

    (a) Total particulate matter emission limits. For each copper 
concentrate dryer, smelting furnace, slag cleaning vessel, and copper 
converter department subject to a total particulate matter emission 
limits in Sec. 63.1444 or Sec. 63.1446 that applies to you, you have 
demonstrated initial compliance if you meet both of the conditions in 
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) The average concentration of total particulate matter from a 
control device applied to emissions from the affected source, measured 
according to the performance test procedures in Sec. 63.1450(a), did 
not exceed the applicable emission limit.
    (2) You have submitted a notification of compliance status 
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.1454(e).
    (b) Nonsulfuric acid particulate matter emissions limits. For each 
smelting furnace, slag cleaning vessel, and copper converter 
departments subject to the nonsulfuric acid particulate matter 
emissions limit in Sec. 63.1444 as applies to you, you have 
demonstrated initial compliance if you meet both of the conditions in 
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) The average concentration of nonsulfuric acid particulate 
matter in the process off-gas discharged from the

[[Page 40499]]

affected source, measured according to the performance test procedures 
in Sec. 63.1450(b), did not exceed 6.2 mg/dscm.
    (2) You have submitted a notification of compliance status 
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.1454(e).
    (c) For each existing copper converter department subject to the 
opacity limit in Sec. 63.1444, you have demonstrated initial compliance 
if you meet both of the conditions in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this 
section.
    (1) The opacity of visible emissions exiting the roof monitors or 
roof exhaust fans on the building housing the copper converter 
department measured according to the performance test procedures in 
Sec. 63.1450(c), did not exceed 4 percent opacity.
    (2) You have submitted a notification of compliance status 
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.1454(e).
    (d) Copper converter department capture systems. You have 
demonstrated initial compliance of the copper converter department 
capture system if you meet all of the conditions in paragraphs (d)(1) 
through (4) of this section.
    (1) Prepared the capture system operation and maintenance plan 
according to the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section;
    (2) Conducted an initial performance test according to the 
procedures of Sec. 63.1450(c) demonstrating the opacity of any visible 
emissions exiting the roof monitors or roof exhaust fans on the 
building housing the copper converter department does not exceed 4 
percent opacity;
    (3) Included in your notification of compliance status a copy of 
your written capture system operation and maintenance plan and have 
certified in your notification of compliance status that you will 
operate the copper converter department capture system at all times 
during blowing at the values or settings established for the operating 
limits in that plan; and
    (4) Submitted a notification of compliance status according to the 
requirements in Sec. 63.1454(e).
    (e) Baghouses. For each baghouse subject to operating limits in 
Sec. 63.1444(f) or Sec. 63.1446(c), you have demonstrated initial 
compliance if you meet all of the conditions in paragraphs (e)(1) 
through (3) of this section.
    (1) You have included in your written operation and maintenance 
plan required under Sec. 63.1447(b) detailed descriptions of the 
procedures you use for inspection, maintenance, bag leak detection, and 
corrective action for the baghouse.
    (2) You have certified in your notification of compliance status 
that you will operate the baghouse according to your written operation 
and maintenance plan.
    (3) You have submitted the notification of compliance status 
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.1454(e).
    (f) Venturi wet scrubbers. For each venturi wet scrubber subject to 
operating limits in Sec. 63.1444(g) or Sec. 63.1446(d), you have 
demonstrated initial compliance if you meet all of the conditions in 
paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Established site-specific operating limits for pressure drop 
and scrubber water flow rate and have a record of the pressure drop and 
scrubber water flow rate measured during the performance test you 
conduct to demonstrate initial compliance with paragraph (a) of this 
section.
    (2) Certified in your notification of compliance status that you 
will operate the venturi wet scrubber within the established operating 
limits for pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate.
    (3) Submitted a notification of compliance status according to the 
requirements in Sec. 63.1454(e).
    (g) Other control devices. For each control device other than a 
baghouse or venturi wet scrubber subject to operating limits in 
Sec. 63.1444(h) or Sec. 63.1446(e), you have demonstrated initial 
compliance if you meet all of the conditions in paragraphs (g)(1) 
through (4) of this section.
    (1) Selected one or more operating parameters, as appropriate for 
the control device design, that can be used as representative and 
reliable indicators of the control device operation.
    (2) Established site-specific operating limits for each of the 
selected operating parameters based on values measured during the 
performance test you conduct to demonstrate initial compliance with 
paragraph (a) of this section and have prepared written documentation 
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.1450(a)(5)(iv).
    (3) Included in your notification of compliance status a copy of 
the written documentation you have prepared to demonstrate compliance 
with paragraph (g)(2) of this section and have certified in your 
notification of compliance status that you will operate the control 
device within the established operating limits.
    (4) Submitted a notification of compliance status according to the 
requirements in Sec. 63.1454(e).
    (h) Fugitive dust sources. For all fugitive dust sources subject to 
work practice standards in Sec. 63.1445, you have demonstrated initial 
compliance if you meet all of the conditions in paragraphs (i)(1) 
through (3) of this section.
    (1) Prepared a written fugitive dust control plan according to the 
requirements in Sec. 63.1454 and it has been approved by the designated 
authority.
    (2) Certified in your notification of compliance status that you 
will control emissions from the fugitive dust sources according to the 
procedures in the approved plan.
    (3) Submitted the notification of compliance status according to 
the requirements in Sec. 63.1454(e).
    (i) Operation and maintenance requirements. You have demonstrated 
initial compliance with the operation and maintenance requirements that 
apply to you if you meet all of the conditions in paragraphs (i)(1) 
through (3) of this section.
    (1) Prepared an operation and maintenance plan according to the 
requirements in Sec. 63.1454(b).
    (2) Certified in your notification of compliance status that you 
will operate each capture system and control device according to the 
procedures in the plan.
    (3) Submitted the notification of compliance status according to 
the requirements in Sec. 63.1454(e).

Continuous Compliance Requirements


Sec. 63.1452  What are my monitoring requirements?

    (a) Copper converter department capture systems. For each operating 
limit established under your capture system operation and maintenance 
plan, you must install, operate, and maintain an appropriate monitoring 
device according the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) though (6) of 
this section to measure and record the operating limit value or setting 
at all times the copper converter department capture system is 
operating during batch copper converter blowing. Dampers that are 
manually set and remain in the same position at all times the capture 
system is operating are exempted from the requirements of this 
paragraph (a).
    (1) Install the monitoring device, associated sensor(s), and 
recording equipment according to the manufacturers' specifications. 
Locate the sensor(s) used for monitoring in or as close to a position 
that provides a representative measurement of the parameter being 
monitored.
    (2) If a flow measurement device is used to monitor the operating 
limit parameter, you must meet the requirements in paragraph (a)(2)(i) 
through (iv) of this section.
    (i) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment such as

[[Page 40500]]

straightening vanes in a position that provides a representative flow.
    (ii) Use a flow sensor with a minimum tolerance of 2 percent of the 
flow rate.
    (iii) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due 
to upstream and downstream disturbances.
    (iv) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semiannually.
    (3) If a pressure measurement device is used to monitor the 
operating limit parameter, you must meet the requirements in paragraph 
(a)(3)(i) through (v) of this section.
    (i) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to a position that 
provides a representative measurement of the pressure.
    (ii) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and 
internal and external corrosion.
    (iii) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 0.5 inch of water or 
a transducer with a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the pressure 
range.
    (iv) Check pressure tap pluggage daily.
    (v) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and 
transducer calibration monthly.
    (4) Conduct calibration and validation checks any time the sensor 
exceeds the manufacturer's specifications or you install a new sensor.
    (5) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all 
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections 
for leakage.
    (6) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and 
validation check.
    (b) Baghouses. For each baghouse subject to the operating limit in 
Sec. 63.1444(f) or Sec. 63.1446(c) for the bag leak detection system 
alarm, you must at all times monitor the relative change in particulate 
matter loadings using a bag leak detection system according to the 
requirements in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and conduct regular 
inspections according to the requirements in paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section.
    (1) You must install, operate, and maintain each bag leak detection 
system according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through 
(vii) of this section.
    (i) The system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable 
of detecting emissions of particulate matter at concentrations of 10 
milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) 
or less.
    (ii) The system must provide output of relative changes in 
particulate matter loadings.
    (iii) The system must be equipped with an alarm that will sound 
when an increase in relative particulate loadings is detected over a 
preset level. The alarm must be located such that it can be heard by 
the appropriate plant personnel.
    (iv) Each system that works based on the triboelectric effect must 
be installed, operated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the 
guidance document, ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' EPA-
454/R-98-015, September 1997. You may obtain a copy of this guidance 
document by contacting the National Technical Information Service 
(NTIS) at 800-553-6847. You may install, operate, and maintain other 
types of bag leak detection systems in a manner consistent with the 
manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations.
    (v) To make the initial adjustment of the system, establish the 
baseline output by adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the averaging 
period of the device. Then, establish the alarm set points and the 
alarm delay time.
    (vi) Following the initial adjustment, do not adjust the 
sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm 
delay time, except as detailed in your operation and maintenance plan. 
Do not increase the sensitivity by more than 100 percent or decrease 
the sensitivity by more than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless a 
responsible official certifies, in writing, that the baghouse has been 
inspected and found to be in good operating condition.
    (vii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's 
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (2) You must conduct baghouse inspections at their specified 
frequencies according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) 
through (viii) of this section.
    (i) Monitor the pressure drop across each baghouse cell each day to 
ensure pressure drop is within the normal operating range identified in 
the manual.
    (ii) Confirm that dust is being removed from hoppers through weekly 
visual inspections or other means of ensuring the proper functioning of 
removal mechanisms.
    (iii) Check the compressed air supply for pulse-jet baghouses each 
day.
    (iv) Monitor cleaning cycles to ensure proper operation using an 
appropriate methodology.
    (v) Check bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning through 
monthly visual inspection or equivalent means.
    (vi) Make monthly visual checks of bag tension on reverse air and 
shaker-type baghouses to ensure that bags are not kinked (kneed or 
bent) or laying on their sides. You do not have to make this check for 
shaker-type baghouses using self-tensioning (spring-loaded) devices.
    (vii) Confirm the physical integrity of the baghouse through 
quarterly visual inspections of the baghouse interior for air leaks.
    (viii) Inspect fans for wear, material buildup, and corrosion 
through quarterly visual inspections, vibration detectors, or 
equivalent means.
    (c) Venturi wet scrubbers. For each venturi wet scrubber subject to 
the operating limits for pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate in 
Sec. 63.1444(g) or Sec. 63.1446(d), you must at all times monitor the 
hourly average pressure drop and water flow rate using a CPMS. You must 
install, operate, and maintain each CPMS according to the requirements 
in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) For the pressure drop CPMS, you must meet the requirements in 
paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section.
    (i) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to a position that 
provides a representative measurement of the pressure and that 
minimizes or eliminates pulsating pressure, vibration, and internal and 
external corrosion.
    (ii) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch 
of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 1 
percent of the pressure range.
    (iii) Check the pressure tap for pluggage daily.
    (iv) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and 
transducer calibration monthly.
    (v) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the 
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range, or install a 
new pressure sensor.
    (vi) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all 
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections 
for leakage.
    (2) For the scrubber water flow rate CPMS, you must meet the 
requirements in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment in a 
position that provides a representative flow and that reduces swirling 
flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream 
disturbances.
    (ii) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2 
percent of the flow rate.
    (iii) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semiannually 
according to the manufacturer's instructions.

[[Page 40501]]

    (iv) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all 
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections 
for leakage.
    (d) Other control devices. For each control device other than a 
baghouse or venturi wet scrubber subject to the operating limits for 
appropriate parameters in Sec. 63.1444(h) or Sec. 63.1446(e), you must 
at all times monitor the hourly average pressure drop and water flow 
rate using a CPMS. You must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS 
according to the equipment manufacturer's specifications and the 
requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) though (5) of this section.
    (1) Locate the sensor(s) used for monitoring in or as close to a 
position that provides a representative measurement of the parameter 
being monitored.
    (2) Determine the hourly average of all recorded readings.
    (3) Conduct calibration and validation checks any time the sensor 
exceeds the manufacturer's specifications or you install a new sensor.
    (4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all 
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections 
for leakage.
    (5) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and 
validation check.
    (e) Except for monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and 
required quality assurance or control activities (including as 
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), 
you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required 
intervals) at all times an affected source is operating.
    (f) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, 
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control 
activities in data averages and calculations used to report emission or 
operating levels or to fulfill a minimum data availability requirement, 
if applicable. You must use all the data collected during all other 
periods in assessing compliance.
    (g) A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable failure of the monitor to provide valid data. 
Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or 
careless operation are not malfunctions.


Sec. 63.1453  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations, work practice standards, and operation and 
maintenance requirements that apply to me?

    (a) Particulate matter emission limits. For each affected source 
subject to a particulate matter emission limit Sec. 63.1444 or 
Sec. 63.1446 as applies to you, you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) 
of this section.
    (1) For each copper concentrate dryer, smelting furnace, slag 
cleaning vessel, and copper converter department subject to a total 
particulate matter emission limit in Sec. 63.1444 or Sec. 63.1446 as 
applies to you, you must demonstrate continuous compliance by meeting 
the conditions in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) Maintain the average concentration of total particulate matter 
in the gases discharged from the affected source at or below the 
applicable emission limit.
    (ii) Conduct subsequent performance tests following your initial 
performance test no less frequently than once per year according to the 
performance test procedures in Sec. 63.1450(a).
    (2) For each smelting furnace, slag cleaning vessel, and copper 
converter department subject to the nonsulfuric acid particulate matter 
emission limit in Sec. 63.1444 as applies to you, you must demonstrate 
continuous compliance by meeting the conditions in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) 
and (ii) of this section.
    (i) Maintain the average concentration of nonsulfuric acid 
particulate matter in the process off-gas discharged from the affected 
source at or below 6.2 mg/dscm.
    (ii) Conduct subsequent performance tests following your initial 
performance test no less frequently than once per year according to the 
performance test procedures in Sec. 63.1450(b).
    (b) Copper converter department capture systems. You must 
demonstrate continuous compliance of the copper converter department 
capture system by meeting the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through 
(4) of this section.
    (1) Operate the copper converter department capture system at all 
times during blowing at or above the lowest values or settings 
established for the operating limits and demonstrated to achieve the 
opacity limit according to the applicable requirements of this subpart;
    (2) Inspect and maintain the copper converter department capture 
system according to the applicable requirements in Sec. 63.1447 and 
recording all information needed to document conformance with these 
requirements;
    (3) Monitor the copper converter department capture system 
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.1452(a) and collecting, 
reducing, and recording the monitoring data for each of the operating 
limit parameters according to the applicable requirements of this 
subpart; and
    (4) Conduct subsequent performance tests according to the 
requirements of Sec. 63.1450(c) following your initial performance test 
no less frequently than once per year to demonstrate that the opacity 
of any visible emissions exiting the roof monitors or roof exhaust fans 
on the building housing the copper converter department does not exceed 
4 percent opacity.
    (c) Baghouses. For each baghouse subject to the operating limit for 
the bag leak detection system alarm in Sec. 63.1444(f) or 
Sec. 63.1446(c), you must demonstrate continuous compliance by meeting 
the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Maintain the baghouse such that the bag leak detection system 
alarm does not sound for more than 5 percent of the operating time 
during any semiannual reporting period. To determine the percent of 
time the alarm sounded use the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) 
through (v) of this section.
    (i) Alarms that occur due solely to a malfunction of the bag leak 
detection system are not included in the calculation.
    (ii) Alarms that occur during startup, shutdown, or malfunction are 
not included in the calculation if the condition is described in the 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, and all the actions you took 
during the startup, shutdown, or malfunction were consistent with the 
procedures in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
    (iii) Count 1 hour of alarm time for each alarm when you initiated 
procedures to determine the cause of the alarm within 1 hour.
    (iv) Count the actual amount of time you took to initiate 
procedures to determine the cause of the alarm if you did not initiate 
procedures to determine the cause of the alarm within 1 hour of the 
alarm.
    (v) Calculate the percentage of time the alarm on the bag leak 
detection system sounds as the ratio of the sum of alarm times to the 
total operating time multiplied by 100.
    (2) Maintain records of the times the bag leak detection system 
alarm sounded, and for each valid alarm, the time you initiated 
corrective action, the corrective action(s) taken, and the date on 
which corrective action was completed.
    (3) Inspect and maintain each baghouse according to the 
requirements in Sec. 63.1451(b)(2) and recording all information needed 
to document conformance with these requirements. If

[[Page 40502]]

you increase or decrease the sensitivity of the bag leak detection 
system beyond the limits specified in Sec. 63.1451(b)(1)(vi), you must 
include a copy of the required written certification by a responsible 
official in the next semiannual compliance report.
    (d) Venturi wet scrubbers. For each venturi wet scrubber subject to 
the operating limits for pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate in 
Sec. 63.1444(g) or Sec. 63.1446(d), you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance by meeting the requirements of paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) 
of this section.
    (1) Maintain the hourly average pressure drop and scrubber water 
flow rate at levels no lower than those established during the initial 
or subsequent performance test;
    (2) Inspect and maintain each venturi wet scrubber CPMS according 
to Sec. 63.1452(c) and recording all information needed to document 
conformance with these requirements; and
    (3) Collect and reduce monitoring data for pressure drop and 
scrubber water flow rate according to Sec. 63.1452(e) and recording all 
information needed to document conformance with these requirements.
    (e) Other control devices. For each control device other than a 
baghouse or venturi wet scrubber subject to the operating limits for 
site-specific operating parameters in Sec. 63.1444(h) or 
Sec. 63.1446(e), you must demonstrate continuous compliance by meeting 
the requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section:
    (1) Maintain the hourly average rate at levels no lower than those 
established during the initial or subsequent performance test;
    (2) Inspect and maintain each venturi wet scrubber CPMS according 
to Sec. 63.1452(d) and recording all information needed to document 
conformance with these requirements; and
    (3) Collect and reduce monitoring data for selected parameters 
according to Sec. 63.1452(e) and recording all information needed to 
document conformance with these requirements.
    (f) Fugitive dust sources. For each fugitive dust source subject to 
work practice standards in Sec. 63.1445, you must demonstrate 
continuous compliance by implementing all of fugitive control measures 
specified for the source in your written fugitive dust control plan.

Notifications, Reports and Records


Sec. 63.1454  What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all of the notifications in Secs. 63.6(h)(4) 
and (h)(5), 63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(f)(4), and 63.9(b) through (h) that 
apply to you by the specified dates.
    (b) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if you start your affected 
source before June 12, 2002, you must submit your initial notification 
not later than October 10, 2002.
    (c) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(3), if you start your new affected 
source on or after June 12, 2002, you must submit your initial 
notification not later than 120 calendar days after you become subject 
to this subpart.
    (d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must 
submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least 
60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin as 
required in Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
    (e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, opacity 
observation, or other initial compliance demonstration, you must submit 
a notification of compliance status according to Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii) by 
the date specified in paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section as 
applies to you.
    (1) For each initial compliance demonstration that does not include 
a performance test, you must submit the notification of compliance 
status before the close of business on the 30th calendar day following 
the completion of the initial compliance demonstration.
    (2) For each initial compliance demonstration that includes a 
performance test, you must submit the notification of compliance 
status, including the performance test results, before the close of 
business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the 
performance test according to Sec. 63.10(d)(2).


Sec. 63.1455  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit each report in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of 
this section that applies to you.
    (1) You must submit a compliance report semiannually according to 
the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section and containing the 
information in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) You must submit an immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
report if you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the 
reporting period that is not consistent with your startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction plan. You must report the actions taken for the event 
by fax or telephone within 2 working days after starting actions 
inconsistent with the plan. You must submit the information in 
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii) of this part by letter within 7 working days after 
the end of the event unless you have made alternative arrangements with 
the permitting authority.
    (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule 
under Sec. 63.10(a), you must submit each compliance report required in 
paragraph (a) of this section according to the applicable requirements 
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on 
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in 
Sec. 63.1443 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date comes 
first after the compliance date that is specified for your source in 
Sec. 63.1443.
    (2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no 
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date comes first after your 
first compliance report is due.
    (3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual 
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual 
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
    (4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or 
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date comes 
first after the end of the semiannual reporting period.
    (5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting 
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the 
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual 
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) of this chapter, you may submit the first and 
subsequent compliance reports according to the dates the permitting 
authority has established instead of according to the dates in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (c) Each compliance report must contain the information in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section and, as applicable, 
paragraphs (c)(4) through (8) of this section.
    (1) Company name and address.
    (2) Statement by a responsible official, as defined in 40 CFR 63.2, 
with that official's name, title, and signature, certifying the 
accuracy and completeness of the content of the report.
    (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting 
period.

[[Page 40503]]

    (4) If you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the 
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance report must include the 
information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
    (5) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations 
(emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit) that applies to you 
and there are no deviations from the requirements for work practice 
standards in this subpart, a statement that there were no deviations 
from the emission limitations, work practice standards, or operation 
and maintenance requirements during the reporting period.
    (6) If there were no periods during which an operating parameter 
monitoring system was out-of-control as specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7), a 
statement that there were no periods during which the monitoring system 
was out-of-control during the reporting period.
    (7) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit, 
operating limit, opacity limit) and for each deviation from the 
requirements for work practice standards that occurs at an affected 
source where you are not using a continuous monitoring system to comply 
with the emission limitations or work practice standards in this 
subpart, the compliance report must contain the information in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section and the information in 
paragraphs (b)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section. This includes periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (i) The total operating time of each affected source during the 
reporting period.
    (ii) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations 
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the 
corrective action taken.
    (8) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit, 
operating limit, opacity limit, and visible emission limit) occurring 
at an affected source where you are using a operating parameter 
monitoring system to comply with the emission limitation in this 
subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through 
(4) of this section and the information in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) through 
(xi) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction.
    (i) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
    (ii) The date and time that each monitoring system was inoperative, 
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (iii) The date, time and duration that each monitoring system was 
out-of-control, including the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
    (iv) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and 
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction or during another period.
    (v) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the 
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total 
source operating time during that reporting period.
    (vi) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control 
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other 
unknown causes.
    (vii) A summary of the total duration of monitoring system downtime 
during the reporting period and the total duration of monitoring system 
downtime as a percent of the total source operating time during that 
reporting period.
    (viii) A brief description of the process units.
    (ix) A brief description of the monitoring system.
    (x) The date of the latest monitoring system certification or 
audit.
    (xi) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring systems, 
processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
    (d) If you have obtained a Title V operating permit pursuant to 40 
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 must report all deviations as defined in 
this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a 
compliance report pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section along with, 
or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance 
report includes all required information concerning deviations from any 
emission limitation(including any operating limit), or work practice 
requirement in this subpart, submission of the compliance report is 
deemed to satisfy any obligation to report the same deviations in the 
semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a compliance 
report does not otherwise affect any obligation you may have to report 
deviations from permit requirements to the permit authority.


Sec. 63.1456  What records must I keep and how long must I keep my 
records?

    (a) You must keep the records listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(7) of this section.
    (1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to 
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any 
initial notification or notification of compliance status that you 
submitted, according to the requirements in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
    (2) The records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (3) Records of performance tests and performance evaluations as 
required in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
    (4) For each monitoring system, you must keep the records specified 
in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) Records described in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi).
    (ii) Monitoring data recorded by the monitoring system during a 
performance evaluation as required in Sec. 63.6(h)(7)(i) and (ii).
    (iii) Previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance 
evaluation plan as required in Sec. 63.8(d)(3).
    (iv) Records of the date and time that each deviation started and 
stopped, and whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction or during another period.
    (5) For each performance test you conduct to demonstrate compliance 
with a opacity limit according to Sec. 63.1450(c), you must keep the 
records specified in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (ix) of this section.
    (i) Dates and time intervals of all opacity observation period 
segments;
    (ii) Description of overall smelter operating conditions during 
each observation period. Identify, if any, the smelter copper 
production process equipment that was out-of-service during the 
performance test and explain why this equipment was not in operation;
    (iii) Name, affiliation, and copy of current visible emission 
reading certification for each visible emission observer participating 
in the performance test;
    (iv) Name, title, and affiliation for each indoor process monitor 
participating in the performance test;
    (v) Copies of all visible emission observer opacity field data 
sheets;
    (vi) Copies of all indoor process monitor operating log sheets;
    (vii) Copies of all data summary sheets used for data reduction;
    (viii) Copy of calculation sheets of the average opacity value used 
to demonstrate compliance with the opacity limit; and
    (ix) Documentation according to the requirements in 
Sec. 63.1450(c)(9)(iv) to support your selection of the site-

[[Page 40504]]

specific capture system operating limits used for each batch copper 
converter capture system when blowing.
    (6) For each baghouse subject to the operating limit in 
Sec. 63.1444(f) or Sec. 63.1446(c), you must keep the records specified 
in paragraphs (a)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) Records of alarms for each bag leak detection system.
    (ii) Description of the corrective actions taken following each bag 
leak detection alarm.
    (7) For each control device other than a baghouse or venturi wet 
scrubber subject to site-specific operating limits in Sec. 63.1444(g) 
or Sec. 63.1446(f), you must keep documentation according to the 
requirements in Sec. 63.1450(a)(5)(iv) to support your selection of the 
site-specific operating limits for the control device.
    (b) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available 
for expeditious review, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
    (c) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record for 
5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, 
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
    (d) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after 
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective 
action, report, or record, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). You can keep 
the records off site for the remaining 3 years.

Other Requirements and Information


Sec. 63.1457  What part of the general provisions apply to me?

    Table 2 to this subpart shows which parts of the general provisions 
in Secs. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.


Sec. 63.1458  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), or a delegated 
authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA 
Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal 
agency, then that agency has the authority to implement and enforce 
this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find 
out if this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal 
agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart E, the authorities listed in paragraph (c) of this section are 
retained by the U.S. EPA Administrator and are not transferred to the 
State, local, or tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or 
tribal agencies are as listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this 
section.
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the emission limitations and work 
practice standards in Secs. 63.1444 through 63.1446 under Sec. 63.6(g).
    (2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under 
Sec. 63.7(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) 
and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.


Sec. 63.1459  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 
Sec. 63.2, and in this section as follows:
    Bag leak detection system means a system that is capable of 
continuously monitoring relative particulate matter (dust) loadings in 
the exhaust of a baghouse in order to detect bag leaks and other upset 
conditions. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited 
to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, light scattering, 
transmittance or other effect to continuously monitor relative 
particulate matter loadings.
    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.''
    Batch copper converter means a Pierce-Smith converter or Hoboken 
converter in which copper matte is oxidized to form blister copper by a 
process that is performed in discrete batches using a sequence of 
charging, blowing, skimming, and pouring.
    Blowing means the operating mode for a batch copper converter 
during which air or oxygen-enriched air is injected into the molten 
converter bath.
    Capture system means the collection of components used to capture 
gases and fumes released from one or more emission points, and to 
convey the captured gases and fumes 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, dampers, manifolds, plenums, and fans.
    Charging means the operating mode for a batch copper converter 
during which molten or solid material is added into the vessel.
    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 department means the area at a primary copper 
smelter in which the copper converters are located.
    Copper matte means a material predominately composed of copper and 
iron sulfides produced by smelting copper ore concentrates.
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart or an owner or operator of such a source fails to meet any 
of the following:
    (1) Any requirement or obligation established by this subpart 
including, but not limited to, any emission limitation (including any 
operating limit) or work practice standard;
    (2) Any term or condition that is adopted to implement an 
applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the 
operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a 
permit; or
    (3) Any emission limitation (including any operating limit) or work 
practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction, regardless whether or not such failure is permitted by 
this subpart.
    Emission limitation means any emission limit, opacity limit, 
operating limit, or visible emission limit.
    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 
a fugitive dust source include, but are not limited to, on-site 
roadways used by trucks transporting copper concentrate, unloading of 
materials from trucks or railcars, outdoor material storage piles, and 
transfer of material to hoppers and bins.
    Holding means the operating mode for a batch copper converter 
during which the molten bath is maintained in the vessel but no blowing 
is performed nor is material added into or removed from the vessel.
    Opacity means the degree to which emissions reduce the transmission 
of light.

[[Page 40505]]

    Particulate matter means any finely divided solid or liquid 
material, other than uncombined water, as measured by the specific 
reference method.
    Pouring means the operating mode for a batch copper converter 
during which molten copper is removed from the vessel.
    Primary copper smelter means any installation or any intermediate 
process engaged in the production of copper from copper sulfide ore 
concentrates through the use of pyrometallurgical techniques.
    Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 
CFR 70.2.
    Skimming means the batch copper converter operating mode during 
which molten slag is removed from the vessel.
    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 furnace 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 furnace.
    Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice, 
or operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated 
pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act.
    As required in Sec. 63.1457, you must comply with the requirements 
of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) shown in 
the following table:

             Table 1 to Subpart QQQ of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart QQQ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Citation                        Subject           Applies to subpart QQQ        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.1...........................  Applicability..........  Yes....................
Sec.  63.2...........................  Definitions............  Yes....................
Sec.  63.3...........................  Units and Abbreviations  Yes....................
Sec.  63.4...........................  Prohibited Activities..  Yes....................
Sec.  63.5...........................  Construction and         Yes....................
                                        Reconstruction.
Sec.  63.6(a)-(g)....................  Compliance with          Yes....................
                                        Standards and
                                        Maintenance
                                        requirements.
Sec.  63.6(h)........................  Determining compliance   No.....................  Subpart QQQ specifies
                                        with Opacity and VE                               the requirements and
                                        standards.                                        test protocol used to
                                                                                          determine compliance
                                                                                          with the opacity
                                                                                          limits.
Sec.  63.6(i)-(j)....................  Extension of Compliance  Yes....................
                                        and Presidential
                                        Compliance Exemption.
Sec.  63.7(a)(1)-(2).................  Applicability and        No.....................  Subpart QQQ specifies
                                        Performance Test Dates.                           performance test
                                                                                          applicability and
                                                                                          dates.
Sec.  63.7(a)(3), (b)-(h)............  Performance Testing      Yes....................
                                        Requirements.
Sec.  63.8 except for (a)(4),(c)(4),   Monitoring Requirements  Yes....................
 and (f)(6).
Sec.  63.8(a)(4).....................  Additional Monitoring    No.....................  Subpart QQ does not
                                        Requirements for                                  require flares.
                                        Control devices in
                                        Sec.  63.11.
Sec.  63.8(c)(4).....................  Continuous Monitoring    No.....................  Subpart QQQ specifies
                                        System Requirements.                              requirements for
                                                                                          operation of CMS.
Sec.  63.8(f)(6).....................  RATA Alternative.......  No.....................  Subpart QQQ does not
                                                                                          require continuous
                                                                                          emission monitoring
                                                                                          systems.
Sec.  63.9...........................  Notification             Yes....................
                                        Requirements.
Sec.  63.9(g)(5).....................  DATA reduction.........  No.....................  Subpart QQQ specifies
                                                                                          data reduction
                                                                                          requirements
Sec.  63.10 except for (b)(2)(xiii)    Recordkeeping and        Yes....................
 and (c)(7)-(8).                        reporting Requirements.
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiii)..............  CMS Records for RATA     No.....................  Subpart QQQ does not
                                        Alternative.                                      require continuous
                                                                                          emission monitoring
                                                                                          systems.
Sec.  63.10(c)(7)-(8)................  Records of Excess        No.....................  Subpart QQQ specifies
                                        Emissions and                                     record keeping
                                        Parameter Monitoring                              requirements
                                        Accedences for CMS.
Sec.  63.11..........................  Control Device           No.....................  Subpart QQQ does not
                                        Requirements.                                     require flares
Sec.  63.12..........................  State Authority and      Yes....................
                                        Delegations.
Secs.  63.13-63.15...................  Addresses,               Yes....................
                                        Incorporation by
                                        Reference,
                                        Availability of
                                        Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                              Figure 1 to Subpart QQQ of Part 63.--Data Summary Sheet for Determination of Average Opacity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                        Average opacity
                                                                                                                  Visible emissions      for 1-minute
                                                                                            Average opacity for      interference      interval blowing
           Clock time                 Number of             Converter aisle activity         1-minute interval    observed during 1-    without visible
                                  converters blowing                                             (percent)         minute interval?        emission
                                                                                                                     (yes or no)         interferences
                                                                                                                                           (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 40506]]

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

[FR Doc. 02-12773 Filed 6-11-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P