[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 123 (Monday, June 26, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39326-39334]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15915]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-6721-7]
RIN 2060-AE41
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Source Categories: National Emission Standards for Primary Copper
Smelters
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Supplement to proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes a change to the proposed national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for primary
copper smelters. After our careful review and evaluation of comments
received on the proposed rule and new emissions data obtained since the
proposal of the rule, we conclude that a change to the proposed
standards for the control of process emissions from smelting furnaces,
slag cleaning vessels, and batch copper converters is warranted.
Specifically, instead of the equipment standard specified in the
original proposal, we are proposing a numerical emission standard that
would limit the maximum concentration of total particulate matter in
the off-gases discharged from these processes. This action also
proposes a new requirement for smelters using baghouses that are
required to use bag leak detector systems. On April 20, 1998 (63 FR
19592), the EPA proposed the NESHAP for Source Categories: National
Emission Standards for Primary Copper Smelters. In that proposal the
EPA estimated that nationwide HAP emissions from the ``Primary Copper
Smelting'' source category was estimated to be approximately 189 Mg/yr
(208 tpy). The EPA estimated in the same proposal that implementation
of the NESHAP, as proposed, would reduce these nationwide HAP emissions
by approximately 20 percent to 115 Mg/yr (171 tpy).
DATES: Comments. We are requesting comments only on this supplement to
the proposed rule by August 25, 2000.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing on or before July 17, 2000, a public hearing will be
held on July 26, 2000 beginning at 10:00 a.m.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments on this supplement to the proposed rule
should be submitted (in duplicate) to Docket No. A-96-22 at the
following address: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
(6102), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20460. We request that a separate copy of the
comments also be sent to the contact person listed below in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Docket
The docket for this rulemaking is Docket No. A-96-22 and is
available for public inspection between 8 a.m. and
[[Page 39327]]
5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except for Federal holidays, at the
following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 260-7548. The docket is located
at the above address in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor). A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Eugene Crumpler, Metals Group,
Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, telephone number (919) 541-
0881, facsimile number (919) 541-5600, electronic mail address
``[email protected]''.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this action are primary copper
smelters (SIC 3339). No Federal government entities nor State/local/
tribal government entities would be regulated by final action on this
supplemental proposal.
This description of the regulated entities is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities
likely to be regulated by final action on this supplemental proposal.
This description identifies the types of entities that we are now aware
could potentially be regulated by final action on this supplemental
proposal. To determine whether your facility is regulated by final
action on this supplemental proposal, you should carefully examine the
applicability criteria in the proposed rule (63 FR 19582, April 20,
1998). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the contact person listed in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
World Wide Web
An electronic copy of this document will also be available on the
Technology Transfer Network (TTN) policy and guidance page for newly
proposed or promulgated rules (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/). The TTN
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air
pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed,
call (919) 541-5384.
Docket
The supplemental proposal and other information related to the
proposed rule are available for review in the docket. Copies of this
information may be obtained by request from the Air Docket by calling
(202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket
materials The docket is intended to be an organized and complete file
of the administrative records complied by us in the development of this
rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added
throughout the rulemaking development. The docketing system is intended
to allow members of the public and regulated industries to readily
identify and locate documents so that they can effectively participate
in the rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated
standards and their preambles, the contents of the docket, except for
certain interagency documents, will serve as the record for judicial
review. (See CAA section 307(d)(7)(A).)
Public Hearing
If anyone contacts us and requests to speak at a public hearing by
July 17, 2000, a public hearing will be held at the U.S. EPA's Office
of Administration Auditorium, 79 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. Persons interested in attending the
hearing or in making an oral presentation should notify Mrs. Mary
Hinson, Metals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5601.
Electronic Filing
Electronic comments can be sent directly to U.S. EPA's Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center at: ``[email protected].'' Electronic comments must be submitted as an
ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of
encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on disks in
WordPerfect in 5.1, 6.1, or Corel 8 file format or ASCII file format.
All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by the
docket number (A-96-22). No ``Confidential Business Information''
should be submitted through electronic mail. Electronic comments may be
filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
Confidential Business Information
If you want to submit proprietary information for consideration,
you should clearly distinguish such information from your other
comments and clearly label it ``Confidential Business Information.'' To
ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the
docket, comments containing such proprietary information should not be
sent to the public docket but instead sent directly to Mr. Eugene
Crumpler, Metals Group, Emission Standards Division, c/o OAQPS Document
Control Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 411 West Chapel
Hill Street, Room 740B, Durham, NC 27701. Information covered by such
claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by us only to the extent
allowed and by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim
of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received by us,
the submission may be made available to the public without further
notice to the commenter.
Outline
The information in this preamble is organized as follows.
I. Summary of Proposed Rule Change
II. Background to Supplemental Proposal
III. Selection of the Proposed Emission Standard
A. Original Decision to Propose an Equipment Standard
B. Public Comments on the Proposed Equipment Standard
C. Why We Decided to Change to an Emission Standard
D. Why We Selected Particulate Matter as a HAP Surrogate
E. How We Selected the Numerical Limit for the Emission Standard
IV. Requirements for Alarm Limits on Baghouse Leak Detectors
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC
601 et. seq.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Summary of Proposed Rule Change
We are proposing an emission standard to control the hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) emissions from process off-gases discharged from
smelting furnaces, slag cleaning vessels, and batch copper converters
operated at primary copper smelters subject to the rule as proposed.
This emission standard replaces the equipment standard we originally
proposed for these sources. The emission standard would establish a
numerical limit for the concentration of total particulate matter
allowed to be emitted in the process off-gases discharged to the
atmosphere from an affected source. We
[[Page 39328]]
are proposing that this concentration limit be set at 23 milligrams of
total particulate matter per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm)
(approximately 0.010 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)).
Measurement of total particulate matter concentration would be
performed using either EPA Method 5 or Method 29 in 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A. The average value of the results from three test runs would
be used to determine compliance with this numerical limit.
We are also proposing a requirement for the percentage of time that
bag leak detectors installed on baghouses at primary copper smelters
detect levels of particulate matter above a set point. A violation of
the standard will occur when the percentage of time that the alarm on
the detector is activated exceeds 5 percent of the operating time in
any 6-month period.
II. Background to Supplemental Proposal
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) directs us to establish
NESHAP to control emissions from major and area stationary sources. The
source category of ``primary copper smelting'' is one of the
approximately 170 categories selected for regulation under section 112
(57 FR 31576, 61 FR 28202). On April 20, 1998, we proposed the NESHAP
for the primary copper smelting source category (63 FR 19582, April 20,
1998).
Following the proposal date, a 90-day comment period (April 20,
1998 to July 20, 1998) was provided to receive comments from the
public. A copy of each comment letter that we received has been placed
in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. A-96-22). Several
commenters provided new information regarding operations at primary
copper smelters that caused us to reconsider the equipment standard
originally proposed for the control of smelter process off-gas streams
discharged from smelting furnaces, slag cleaning vessels, and batch
copper converters.
The supplement also proposes an operating standard that would limit
the frequency and duration of baghouse leak detector alarms to 5
percent of the baghouse operating time during any 6-month period. This
operating standard helps assure that baghouses are in continuous
compliance with particulate matter standards. The standard will also
assure that the owner or operator will properly operate and maintain
the system by responding immediately to alarms and take corrective
action.
Discussions on the purpose and bases of these proposed changes to
the original proposal are contained in the following sections of this
preamble.
III. Selection of the Proposed Emission Standard
A. Original Decision To Propose an Equipment Standard
Process HAP emissions are the HAP contained in the primary exhaust
gas stream (i.e., off-gases) discharged from a process unit or vessel.
Process HAP emissions at primary copper smelters include metal HAP
contained in the off-gases exhausted from flash smelting furnaces and
from batch copper converters (when the converter vessels are positioned
and operated in either the slag or copper blowing mode). At those
smelters that perform an additional slag cleaning process step, a third
source of metal HAP emissions is the off-gases exhausted from the slag
cleaning vessels. All three of these process off-gas streams share a
common characteristic. They all contain substantial quantities of
sulfur dioxide (SO2) at high concentrations ranging from 4
percent to as much as 80 percent for some smelting furnaces. At all
existing smelters using these processes, the process off-gas streams
are vented to by-product sulfuric acid plants for SO2
control. These sulfuric acid plants were installed at the smelters to
comply with Federal and State regulations limiting emissions of
SO2 to the atmosphere.
When we were developing the proposed NESHAP, we determined that the
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) floor for controlling
metal HAP emissions in the process off-gases vented from existing
smelting furnaces, slag cleaning vessels, and batch copper converters
is to vent these off-gases to a by-product sulfuric acid plant with its
ancillary particulate matter pre-cleaning and conditioning systems (63
FR 19594). Recognizing that an emission standard is the preferred
approach for standards established under section 112 of the CAA, we
nevertheless proposed an equipment standard pursuant to section 112(h).
Our decision to propose an equipment standard was based on the
inherent design and operation of the sulfuric acid plants used to treat
the off-gases discharged from the smelting furnaces, slag cleaning
vessels, and batch copper converters in order to comply with the
existing, federally-enforceable SO2 emission standards. By
operating these plants, the smelters also achieve effective control of
the metal HAP contained in the process off-gases discharged from the
smelting and converting operations. Rigorous pre-cleaning and
conditioning of these process off-gases to remove metals and other
particulate matter upstream of the acid plant catalyst beds are
mandatory to optimize the acid plant performance and to prevent
expensive damage to the catalysts and other critical plant equipment.
Consequently, the metal HAP concentrations in the tail gases exiting
the sulfuric acid plants at primary copper smelters are controlled to
very low, if not, trace levels. We concluded that compliance with the
existing federally-enforceable SO2 emission limits would
ensure good metal HAP emission control for the SO2 rich
process off-gases discharged to the smelter's sulfuric acid plant.
Therefore, we proposed an equipment standard for the primary copper
smelter NESHAP that would require that the process off-gases from
smelting furnaces, slag cleaning vessels, and batch copper converters
be discharged through a by-product sulfuric acid plant (or other type
of sulfur recovery process unit that requires comparable levels of gas
stream pre-cleaning and conditioning to remove particulate matter). No
numerical emission limits for either individual HAP metals or
particulate matter were proposed.
B. Public Comments on the Proposed Equipment Standard
One commenter disagreed with our decision to propose an equipment
standard instead of an emission standard for control of metal HAP
emissions from smelting furnaces, slag cleaning vessels, and batch
copper converters at the affected primary copper smelters. The
commenter argued that we are required by the CAA to establish an
emission standard for these sources unless it can be demonstrated that
prescribing and enforcing a numerical limit is not feasible. In the
case of the proposed NESHAP for primary copper smelters, the commenter
stated that we provided no documentation to support a determination
that it is not feasible to prescribe a numerical limit for the metal
HAP emissions from sulfuric acid plants operated at primary copper
smelters.
C. Why We Decided To Change to an Emission Standard
Since proposal, we have learned that source tests using EPA
reference test methods have been routinely performed at primary copper
smelters to measure the content of total particulate matter and
individual HAP metal constituents in the tail gas streams vented from
the sulfuric acid plants operating at these smelters. After our careful
review and evaluation of the comments received on the proposed
equipment standard and
[[Page 39329]]
the newly obtained source test data, we have now changed our opinion
regarding the application of a numerical emission limit to these
sources.
We have compiled a data base that includes metal HAP and total
particulate matter emission data from source tests of the sulfuric acid
plants operated at four of the six primary copper smelters using batch
copper converters. Many source tests have been conducted at primary
copper smelters since 1996 to measure the concentrations of total
particulate matter and individual metal HAP in the tail gases exiting
the smelter sulfuric acid plants. The majority of these tests were
performed using EPA reference test methods.
At two smelters, source tests were repeated on a monthly basis for
a 3-year period. The demonstrated capability of the smelter owners and
operators to conduct these source tests clearly supports a conclusion
that this type of source testing is not only feasible but is practical
and not overly burdensome to perform. Furthermore, given the data base
that has been compiled using the source test results, we now conclude
that a numerical emission limit on the tail gases exiting the sulfuric
acid plants operated at primary copper smelters can readily be
prescribed and effectively enforced.
D. Why We Selected Particulate Matter as a HAP Surrogate
The HAP emissions from primary copper smelters originate primarily
from metal impurities (e.g., arsenic, lead, cadmium, antimony, and
other heavy metal species that have been listed as HAP) that naturally
occur in copper ore concentrates. During the smelting process of the
copper ore concentrates and the subsequent converting process to
produce blister copper, these HAP metal species either are eliminated
in the molten slag tapped from the process vessels or are vaporized and
discharged in the process vessel off-gases. Upon cooling of the process
off-gases, the volatilized HAP metal species condense, form aerosols,
and behave as particulate matter.
The composition and amounts of metal HAP in the copper ore
concentrates can vary from one smelter to another as well as over time
at individual smelters depending on the ore deposit from which the
copper ore concentrate is derived. This inherent variability and
unpredictability of the metal HAP compositions and amounts in copper
ore concentrates have a material effect on the composition and amount
of HAP metals in the process off-gas emissions. As a result,
prescribing individual numerical emission limits for each HAP metal
species (e.g., a specific emission limit for arsenic, a specific
emission limit for lead, etc.) is difficult, if not impossible, to do.
Given that prescribing individual numerical emission limits for HAP
metal is not a practicable approach in this case, an alternative
approach is to use total particulate matter as a surrogate pollutant
for the metal HAP emitted from primary copper smelters. An emission
characteristic common to all primary copper smelters and similar source
categories is the fact that the metal HAP are a component of the
particulate matter contained in the process off-gases discharged from
smelting and converting operations. Strong direct correlations exist
between the emissions of total particulate matter and metal HAP
compounds. Emission limits established to achieve good control of total
particulate matter will also achieve good control of metal HAP.
Adopting particulate matter as a surrogate pollutant for these sources
provides the added benefit of consistency with the format and test
procedures we are using for the other primary copper smelter sources
for which we have proposed numerical emission limits (i.e.,
specifically the proposed numerical emission limit standards for
exhaust gas streams from copper concentrate dryers and for captured
process fugitive gas streams from smelting and converting vessels).
E. How We Selected the Numerical Limit for the Emission Standard
We prepared a data base from which we could select a numerical
limit for total particulate matter contained in the tail gases exiting
the sulfuric acid plants operated at primary copper smelters. This data
base is derived from the results of field source tests performed
between 1996 and 1999 by the primary copper smelter companies using EPA
test methods. Most of the tests included in our data base were
performed using EPA Method 29 (in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60) which
can measure both particulate matter and individual metal emissions from
stationary sources. The remaining tests were performed using EPA Method
5 (also in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60) which is used to measure
particulate matter emissions from stationary sources. The test protocol
for these EPA methods requires that three test runs be completed to be
considered a valid compliance test.
The data base includes results for particulate matter emissions
from the sulfuric acid plants operated at four of the six primary
copper smelters that would potentially be subject to this supplemental
proposal. All the tested sulfuric acid plants are double-contact plant
designs with sulfuric acid production capacities ranging from
approximately 2,200 to 4,000 tons per day. One of the smelters tested
operates two sulfuric acid plants, and the data base includes test
results for both plants. The two other smelters for which we do not
have source test results also operate double-contact sulfuric acid
plants. The design and sulfuric acid production capacities of the
sulfuric acid plants for which we do not have data are similar to the
five plants included in the data base. A summary of results for each of
the individual source tests included in the data base is available in
the docket for this rulemaking (Docket A-96-22).
For one smelter located in Arizona, the company provided us with
the results from six additional source tests for their facility's
sulfuric acid plant conducted using the Arizona Method A1. This is a
test method adopted by the State of Arizona for measuring total
particulate matter emissions in gas streams containing sulfur. Arizona
Method A1 uses a different protocol than EPA Methods 5 and 29. The
temperature specified by Arizona Method A1 for the sample collection
filter is in the range of 350 deg.F versus 250 deg.F for EPA Methods 5
and 29. At the filter temperature used for the EPA methods, sulfuric
acid mist and waters of hydration are condensed and counted as part of
the total particulate catch on the filter. Sulfuric acid mist and
waters of hydration do not condense at the higher filter temperature
used for Arizona Method A1 and pass through the filter (i.e., do not
collect on the filter). Consequently, for a given sulfuric acid plant
tail gas stream, a total particulate matter concentration value
measured on the filter using Arizona Method A1 will be lower than the
concentration value measured on the filter using either EPA Method 5 or
29. The test results obtained using Arizona Method A1 cannot be
directly compared to the test results obtained using the EPA test
methods. Therefore, we decided not to mix incompatible test results in
our data base, and we included only those individual source tests
conducted using EPA Methods 5 or 29.
In addition, we excluded from further consideration in our
selection of a numerical emission limit the results of three source
tests that were obtained from the smelter companies. Although these
tests were conducted using EPA test methods, our review of the tests
showed that the documentation of the
[[Page 39330]]
test results was either incomplete or that the test was not conducted
under normal representative operating conditions. The first test
reported results for only two test runs; this is fewer than the minimum
number of three runs required by EPA test method protocol to be a valid
compliance test. A second test was excluded because the smelter company
reported to us that, based on the results of that test, the sulfuric
acid plant was subsequently shut down to make repairs to catalyst beds.
We do not consider this test to be representative of normal sulfuric
acid plant performance at the smelter. Our review of the third test
shows that there exists a substantial inconsistency in the measured
particulate matter concentrations between the first test run as
compared to the second and third runs conducted on the same day. An
extraordinarily large value of 0.075 gr/dscf was reported for the first
run versus more credible values of 0.004 and 0.005 gr/dscf reported for
the second and third runs, respectively. These results clearly indicate
that the first run result is an outlier due to either a sampling or
analytical error. We have, therefore, decided to exclude the results
for that source test from further consideration.
Our data base for selecting the numerical limit for the emission
standard is comprised of a total of 78 particulate matter concentration
values. Each of these values represents the total particulate matter
concentration in the tail gas stream exiting the sulfuric acid plant
and is calculated by averaging the results for the three individual
test runs conducted for a given source test. These 3-run averages range
from 0.001 gr/dscf to 0.015 gr/dscf of total particulate matter emitted
in the sulfuric acid plant tail gas streams. All but two of these 3-run
averages are less than 0.010 gr/dscf (one facility reported a 3-run
average value of 0.011 gr/dscf, and another a 3-run average value of
0.015 gr/dscf). For each of the five sulfuric acid plants represented
in our data base, we also computed the overall average total
particulate matter concentration from all of the 3-run averages
included in our data base for a given sulfuric acid plant. These
overall average particulate concentration values are presented in the
following Table 1. (Note that sulfuric acid plants A and B are located
at the same primary copper smelter.) Also shown are the number of 3-run
tests used to compute the overall average for each sulfuric acid plant.
Table 1.--Particulate Matter Emissions From Sulfuric Acid Plants at
Primary Copper Smelters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall average total Number of
Sulfuric acid plant particulate matter source tests
concentration averaged
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A............................. 0.004 gr/dscf 34
B.............................. 0.004 gr/dscf 38
C............................. 0.007 gr/dscf 1
D............................. 0.008 gr/dscf 2
E............................. 0.010 gr/dscf 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A review of the five sulfuric plant designs supports a finding that
all of the plants provide a comparable level of particulate matter pre-
cleaning. Each process off-gas stream from the smelting and converting
operations passes through a series of particulate control devices
before the gases enter the sulfuric acid plant catalyst beds. For most
of the process gas streams, the particulate matter cleaning sequence
begins with an electrostatic precipitator (ESP), followed by a wet
scrubber system, and finally a wet ESP and mist eliminator. Variations
of this sequence are used for a few of the process off-gas streams. For
example, at one smelter, the smelting furnace off-gases pass through
two separate wet scrubbing systems before entering the wet ESP.
However, regardless of the specific design configuration used for pre-
cleaning the process off-gases, all of the process off-gasses pass
through a series of either ESP or wet scrubber control devices and then
a wet ESP before the gas stream enters the catalyst bed. Therefore, we
conclude that all five sulfuric acid plants represent the MACT floor
level of control, and that the variation of the particulate matter
concentrations reported in the data base for the tail gases exiting
from these plants reflect normal and unavoidable variability.
Given the above finding and our evaluation of the available test
results, we are proposing 0.010 gr/dscf as the numerical limit for
total particulate matter contained in the tail gases exiting the
sulfuric acid plants operated at primary copper smelters. In our
judgment, this value reflects a level of total particulate matter
emissions that can be achieved consistently by a properly operated and
maintained sulfuric acid plant used to control process off-gases from
primary copper smelting and converting operations. Converting the value
of 0.010 gr/dscf to the equivalent metric units, the numerical emission
limit we are proposing for the concentration of total particulate
matter allowed to be emitted in the process off-gases discharged to the
atmosphere from smelting furnaces, slag cleaning vessels, and batch
copper converters is 23 mg/dscm.
IV. Requirements for Alarm Limits on Baghouse Leak Detector Alarms
Today's action also proposes additional requirements for owners or
operators of baghouses with bag leak detection systems. This supplement
to the proposed rule would enhance the requirements regarding bag leak
detection systems in Sec. 63.1452 of the proposed rule to include an
enforceable operating limit, such that the owner or operator would be
in violation of the standards operating limit if the alarm on a bag
leak detection system sounds for more than 5 percent of the total
operating time in each 6-month reporting period. This supplementary
proposal also specifies that each time the alarm sounds and the owner
or operator initiates corrective actions within 1 hour of the alarm, 1
hour of alarm time would be counted. If the owner or operator takes
longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective actions, the EPA proposes
that alarm time would be counted as the actual amount of time taken by
the owner or operator to initiate corrective actions. If inspection of
the baghouse system demonstrates that no corrective actions are
necessary, no alarm time would be counted. This supplementary proposal
also proposes that owners and operators be required to continuously
record the output from a bag leak detection system and to maintain
these records as specified in Sec. 63.10 of the general provisions.
By requiring sources controlled by baghouses to continuously
monitor their compliance with specific control devices, and by making
deviations from such operating parameters for more than 5 percent of
the total operating time in each 6-month reporting period a violation
of the operating limit, the monitoring requirements help assure
continuous compliance with the emission limits through continuous
emissions reductions. Likewise, the continuous monitoring of the
baghouse using a bag leak detection system, and the enforceable 5
percent threshold level, will help ensure that the baghouse is being
operated and maintained properly and thereby helps assure continuous
compliance with the emission limit through continuous emissions
reductions. The EPA is proposing the requirement to continuously record
bag leak detection system output to ensure that data necessary to
assess compliance with the newly proposed operating limit for bag
[[Page 39331]]
leak detection system alarms would be available. In the absence of such
information, enforcement personnel would be unable to determine whether
the operating limit is being met. The output records would also provide
data necessary to assess the magnitude of the output level above the
alarm set point, and would assist owners and operators in properly
operating and maintaining the baghouse and in diagnosing baghouse
upsets. As proposed, an alarm simply indicates that the set point was
exceeded, but it does not relate to the deviation or magnitude of the
output level above the set point.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action''
because none of the listed criteria apply to this action. Consequently,
this action was not submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order
12866.
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, the EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or the EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State
law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in
the process of developing the proposed regulation.
This supplement to the proposed rule does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. No
State or local governments own or operate primary copper smelters.
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply
to this rule.
C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, the EPA may not issue a regulation
that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or the EPA
consults with those governments. If the EPA complies by consulting,
Executive Order 13084 requires the EPA to provide to OMB, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of the EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires the EPA to
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' This
supplement to the proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely
affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. No tribal
governments own or operate primary copper smelters. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
this action.
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. This supplement to the
proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
based on technology performance and not on health or safety risks. No
children's risk analysis was performed because no alternative
technologies exist that would provide greater stringency at a
reasonable cost. Furthermore, this rule has been determined not to be
``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local,
[[Page 39332]]
and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least-costly, most cost-
effective, or least-burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA
to adopt an alternative other than the least-costly, most cost-
effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the Administrator
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including
tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the
UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of the EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that this supplement to the proposed rule
does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of
$100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total
annual cost of the requirements by this supplement to the proposed for
any year has been estimated to be less than $50,000. Thus, today's
supplement to the proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the EPA has determined
that this supplement to the proposed rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such
governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, today's
supplement to the proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of the UMRA.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's supplemental
proposal on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small
business that is a business having less than 500 employees; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's supplement to the
proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This supplement to the proposed rule will not impose any
requirements on small entities. No small businesses, small government
jurisdictions, nor small organizations own or operate primary copper
smelters potentially subject to the proposed rule.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
The EPA submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR)(EPA ICR
No. 1850.01) for the proposed rule to OMB for approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. That ICR has been
revised to add the estimated burden for the emission standard proposed
by this supplement to the proposal. No other changes were made to the
burden estimates presented in ICR 1850.01. The revised ICR document for
the supplemental proposal will be submitted to OMB (EPA ICR No.
1850.02). Public and OMB comments made previously on ICR 1850.01 have
not been addressed to date and are not reflected in this revision. All
comments, new and old, will be addressed in the ICR for the final rule.
A copy of this revised ICR document may be obtained from Sandy Farmer
by mail at the Office of Environmental Information, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Collection Strategies Division (2822), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, by email at
[email protected], or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be
downloaded off the internet at
http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information requirements are not effective
until OMB approves them.
The information requirements for the proposed rule are based on
notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for
all operators subject to national emission standards. These
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by
section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to
the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for
which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to
Agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
The emission standard proposed by this supplement to the proposal
would not require any notifications or reports beyond those required by
the General Provisions for performance testing under 40 CFR 63.7. The
recordkeeping requirements require only the specific information needed
to determine compliance with the proposed emission standard by
performance testing. Adding the burden estimates for the performance
testing required by the supplement to the proposed rule, the revised
total annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for the
rule (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the
rule) is estimated to be 11,980 labor hours per year at a total annual
cost of $624,000. This estimate includes a one-time performance test
and report (with repeat tests where needed); one-time submission of a
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan with semi-annual reports for
any event when the procedures in the plan were not followed; semi-
annual excess emission reports; maintenance inspections; notifications;
and recordkeeping. Total capital/startup costs associated with the
monitoring requirements over the 3-year period of the ICR are estimated
at $156,000, with operation and maintenance costs of $72,000/yr.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose, or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and
verifying information; processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to respond to a collection of information;
[[Page 39333]]
search existing data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Comments on the estimated burden for the emission standard proposed
by this supplement to the proposal are requested on the EPA's need for
this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and
any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the
use of automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the
Director, Regulatory Information Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (2137), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503,
marked ``Attention: Desk Office for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in
any correspondence. Because the OMB is required to make a decision
concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after June 26, 2000, comment
to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by
July 26, 2000. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public
comments on the information collection requirements contained in this
proposal.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note), directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards instead of government-unique standards in their regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., material specifications, test method, sampling and
analytical procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or
adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standards bodies. Examples
of organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards
bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM),
the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA requires Federal agencies like
the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations when an
agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
In developing this supplement to the proposal, the EPA searched for
voluntary consensus standards that might be applicable. The search has
identified no applicable voluntary standards. Accordingly, the NTTAA
requirement to use applicable voluntary consensus standards does not
apply to this rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Copper, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: June 19, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 63 of title 40,
chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to be
amended at 63 FR 19602 on April 20, 1998, is proposed to be further
amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart QQQ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants From Primary Copper Smelters
2. Section 63.1444 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.1444 Standards: Smelting vessels.
* * * * *
(b) The owner or operator shall not discharge nor cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any off-gases from the smelting vessel
that contain total particulate matter greater than 23 milligrams per
dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) as determined by an emission test
conducted in accordance with the applicable requirements of
Sec. 63.1451. Off-gases from the smelting vessel are generated when
copper ore concentrate and fluxes are being smelted to form copper
matte and slag.
* * * * *
3. Section 63.1445 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.1445 Standards: Slag cleaning vessels.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) The owner or operator shall not discharge nor cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any off-gases from the slag cleaning
vessel that contain total particulate matter greater than 23 milligrams
per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) as determined by a performance
test conducted in accordance with the applicable requirements of
Sec. 63.1451. Off-gases from the slag cleaning vessel are generated
when molten copper-bearing material is processed to separate this
material into molten copper matte and slag layers
* * * * *
4. Section 63.1446 is amended by revising paragraphs
(b)(1)(iii)(A), (b)(2)(ii), and (c)(3)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1446 Standards: Copper converters.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) The owner or operator shall not discharge nor cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any primary hood exhaust stream that
contains total particulate matter greater than 23 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) as determined by a performance test
conducted in accordance with the applicable requirements of
Sec. 63.1451.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The owner or operator shall not discharge nor cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any side flue exhaust stream that contains
total particulate matter greater than 23 milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter (mg/dscm) as determined by a performance test conducted in
accordance with the applicable requirements of Sec. 63.1451.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) The owner or operator shall not discharge nor cause to be
discharged to the atmosphere any side flue exhaust stream that contains
total particulate matter greater than 23 milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter (mg/dscm) as determined by a performance test conducted in
accordance with the applicable requirements of Sec. 63.1451.
* * * * *
5. Section 63.1452 is amended by adding a new paragraph (d)(5)(iii)
to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1452 Inspection and monitoring requirements.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) (A) The owner or operator shall operate and maintain the
baghouse so
[[Page 39334]]
that the alarm on the bag leak detection system does not sound for more
than 5 percent of the total operating time in each 6-month reporting
period. Each time the alarm sounds and the owner or operator initiates
corrective actions within 1 hour of the alarm, 1 hour of alarm time
will be counted. If the owner or operator takes longer than 1 hour to
initiate corrective actions, alarm time will be counted as the actual
amount of time taken by the owner or operator to initiate corrective
actions. If inspection of the baghouse system demonstrates that no
corrective actions are necessary, no alarm time will be counted.
(B) The owner or operator shall continuously record the output from
the bag leak detection system.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-15915 Filed 6-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P