[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