Citation: 41 Fed. Reg. 2332 1976

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)Wed Feb 24 14:38:33 2016

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

2332

Title 40-Protection of EnvironmentCHAPTER I-ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCYSUBCHAPTER C-AIR PROGRAMS

[r'RsL 452-3]PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE

FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCESPrimary Copper, Zinc, and Lead Smelters

On October 16, 1974 (39 PR 37040),pursuant to section 111 of the Clean AirAct, as amended, the Administrator pro-posed standards of performance for newand modified sources within three ate-gories of stationary sources: (1) primarycopper smelters, (2) primary zinc smelt-ers, and (3) primary lead smelters. TheAdministrator also' proposed amend-ments to Appendix A, ReferenceMethods, of 40 CFR Part 60.

Interested persons representing in-dustry, trade associations, environmentalgroups, and Federal and State govern-ments participated in the rulemaking bysending comments to the Agency. Com-mentators submitted 14 letters contain-Ing eighty-five comments. Each of thesecomments has been carefully consideredand where determined by the Adminis-trator to be appropriate, changes havebeen made to the proposed regulationswhich are promulgated herein.

The comment letters received, a sum-mary of the comments contained in theseletters, and the Agency's responses tothese comments are available for publicInspection at the Freedomo£InformationCenter, Room 202 West Tower, 101 MStreet, S.W, Washington, D.C. Copiesof the comment summary and. theAgency's responses may be obtained bywriting to the EPA Public InformationCenter (PM-215), 401 M Street, S.W.,Washington, D.C. 20460, and requestingthe Public Comment Summary-PrimaryCopper, Zinc and Lead Smelters.

The bases for the proposed standardsare presented in "Background IEnforma-tion for New Source Performance Stand-ards: Primary Copper, .inc and LeadSmelters, Volume 1, Proposed Stand-ards" (EPA-450/2-74-002a) and "Eco-nomic Impact of New Source Perform-ance Standards- on the Primary CopperIndustry: An Assessment" (EPA Con-tract No. 68-02-1349-Task 2). Copiesof these documents are available on re-quest from the Emission Standards andEngineering Division, EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Research TrianglePark, North Carolina 27711, Attention:Mr. Don R. Goodwih.

SuhzIARY OF REGULATIONS

The promulgated standards of per-formance for new and modified primarycopper smelters limit emissions of par-ticulate matter contained in the gasesdischarged into the atmosphere fromdryers to 50 mg/dscm. (0.022 gr/dscf). Inaddition, the opacity of these gases islimited to 20 percent.

Emissions of sulfur dioxide containedin the gases discharged Into the atmos-phere from roasters, smelting furnacesand copper converters are limited to

RULES AND REGULATIONS

0.065 percent by volume (650 parts permillion) averaged over a six-hour period.Reverberatory smelting furnaces at pri-mary copper smelters which process anaverage smelter charge containing a highlevel of volatile impurities, however, areexempt from this standard during thoseperiods when such a charge is processed.A high level of volatile impurities is de-fined to be more than 0.2 weight percentarsenic, 0.1 weight percent antimony, 4.5weight percent lead or 5.5 weight percentzinc. In addition, where a sulfuric acidplant is used to comply with this stand-ard, the opacity of the gases dischargedInto the atmosphere is limited to 20 per-cent.

The regulations also require any pri-mary copper smelter that makes use ofthe- exemption provided for reverbera-tory smelting furnaces processing- acharge of high volatile impurity content-to keep a monthly record of the weightpercent of arsenic, antimony, lead andzinc contained in this charge. In addi-tion, the regulations require continuousmonitoring systems to monitor and re-cord the opacity of emissions dischargedinto the atmosphere from any dryer sub-ject to the standards and the concentra-tion of sulfur dioxide in the gases din-charged into- the atmosphere from anyroaster, smelting furnace, or copper con-verter subject to the standard. Whilethese regulatfons pertain primarily tosulfur dioxide emissions, the Agency rec-ognizes the potential problems posed byarsenic emissions and is conducting stud-ies to assess these problems. Appropriateaction will be taken at the conclusion ofthese studies.

The promulgated standards of per-formance for new and modified primaryzinc imelters limit emissions of particu-late matter contained in the gases dix-charged into the atmosphere from sinter-Ing machines to 50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf). The opacity of these gases islimited to 20 percent.

Emissions of sulfur dioxide containedIn the gases discharged into the atmos-phere from roasters and from any sinter-ing machine which eliminates more than10 percent of the sulfur initially con-tained in the zinc sulfide concentratesprocessed are limited to 0.065 percent byvolume (650 parts per million) averagedover a two-hour period. In addition,where a sulfuric acid plant is used tocomply with this standard, the opacityof-the gases discharged into the atmos-phere is limited to 20 percent.

The regulations also require continu-ous monitoring systems to monitor andrecord the opacity of emissions dis-charged Into the atmosphere from anysintering machine subject to the stand-ards, and the concentration of sulfur di-oxide in the gase discharged into theatmosphere from any roasters or sinter-ing machinesubject to the standard lim-iting emissions of sulfur dioxide.

The promulgated standards of per-formance for new and modified primarylead smelters limit emissions of particu-late matter contained in the gases dis-charged into the atmosphere from blastfurnaces, dross reverberatory furnaces

and sintering machine discharge ends to50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf). The opaoltyof these gases is limited to 20 percent.

Emissions of sulfur dioxide containedin the gases discharged into the atmos-phere from sintering machines, electricsmelting frnaces and converters arelimited to 0.065 percenbt by volume (650parts per million) averaged over a two-hour period. Where a sulfuric acid plantis used to comply with this standard, theopacity of the gases discharged into theatmosphere is limited to 20 percent.

The regulations also require con-tinuous monitoring systems to monitorand record the opacity of emissions dis-charged Into the atmosphere from anyblast, furnace, dross reverberatory fur-nace, or sintering machine dischargeend subject to the standards, and thoconcentration of sulfur dioxide in thegases dlscharged into the atmospherefrom any sintering machine, electricfurnace or converter subJect to thestandards.MAJOR CoM.nuNrs AND CHANGES MADE TO

THE PROPOSED STANDARDSPRILTARY COPPER SMELTERS

Most of the comments submitted to theAgency concerned the proposed stand-ards of performance for primary coppersmelters. As noted In the preamble to theproposed standards, the domestic coppersmelting industry expressed strong ob-jections to these standards during theirdevelopment. Most of the comments sub-mitted by the industry following pro-posal of these standards reiterated theseobjections. In addition, a number ofcomments were submitted by State agon-cieg, environmental organizations andprivate-individuals, also expressing ob-iections to various: aspects of the pro-posed standards. Consequently, it is ap-propriate to review the basis of the pro-posed standards before discussing thecomments received, the responses to thesecomments and the changes made to thestandards for promulgation.

The proposed 'standards would havelimited the concentrhtion of sulfur di-oxide contained in gases discharged intothe atmosphere from all new and modl-fled roasters; reverberatory, flash andelectric smelting furnaces; and copperconverters, at primary copper smelters to650 parts per million. Uncontrolled roast-

-ers, flash and electric smelting furnaces,and copper converters discharge gasstreams containing more than 3 ,A per-cent sulfur dioxide. The cost of control-ling these gas streams with sulfuric acidplants was considered reasonable. Re-verberatory- smelting furnaces, however,normally discharge gas streams contain-ing less than 3/2 percent sulfur dioxide,and the cost of controlling these gasstreams through the use of various sul-fur dioxide scrubbing systems currentlyavailable was considered unreasonablein most cases. It was the Administrator'sconclusion, however, that flash and elec-tric smelting considered together wereapplicable to essentially" the full rangeof domestic primary copper smelting op-erations. Consequently, standards wereproposed which applied equally to new

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 10-THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 1976

RULES" AND REGULATIONS

flash, electric and reverberatory smeltingfurnaces. The result was standards whichfavored construction of new flash andelectric 'smelting furnaces over newreverberatory smeltiiag furnaces.

Most of the increase in copper produc-tion over the next few years will probablyresult from expansion of existing coppersmelters. Of the sixteen domestic pri-mary copper smelters, only one employsflash smelting and only two employ elec-tric smelting. The remaining thirteenemploy reverberatory smelting, althoughone of these thirteen, has initiated con-struction to convert to electric smeltihgand another has initiated construction toconvert to a new smelting process re-ferred to as Noranda smelting. (The No-randa smelting process discharges a gasstream of high sulfur dioxide concentra-tion which is easily controlled at reason-able costs. By virtue of the-definition ofa -smelting furnace, the promulgatedstandards also apply-to Noranda fur-naces.)

In view of the Administrator's judg-ment that the cost of controlling sulfurdioxide emissions f from reverberatoryfurnaces was.unreasonable, the Adminis-trator concluded that an exemption fromthe standards was necessary for existingreverberatory smelting furnaces, to per-mit expansion of existing smelters at rea-sonable costs. Consequently, the pro-posed standards stated that any physicalchanges or changes in the method ofoperation of existing reverberatorysmelting furnaces, vhich resulted in anincrease in sulfur dioxide emissions fromthese furnaces, would not -cause thesefurnaces to be considered "modified"affected facilities subject to the stand-

,ards. This exemption, however, appliedonly where total emissions of sulfurdioxide from the primary copper smelterin question did-not increase.

Prior to the proposal of thesd stand-ards, the Administrator commissionedthe Arthur D. Little Co., Inc., to under-take an independent assessment of boththe technical basis for the standards andthe potential impact of the standards onthe domestic primary copper smelting in-dustry. The results of this study havebeen considered together with the com-ments submitted during the public re-view and comment period in'determiningwhether the proposed standards shouldbe revised for promulgation.

Briefly, the Arthur D. ittle studyreached the following conclusions:

(1) The proposed standards sliouldhave no adverse impact on new primarycopper.smelters processing materials con-taining low levels of-volatile impurities.

(2) The proposed standards could re-duce the-capability of new primary cop-per smelters located in the southwest U.S.to process materials of high impuritycontent. This impact was foreseen sincethe capability of flash smelting to processmaterials of high impurity levels was un-known. Although electric smelting wasconsidered technically capiable of process-ing these materials, the higher costs as-sociated with electric smelting, due to thehigh cost of electrical power in the sbuth-west, were -considered sufficient to pre-clude its use in most cases.

Thi conclusion was subject, however.to qualification. It applied only to thesouthwest (Arizona, New Mexico and westTexas) and not to other areas of theUnited States (Montana, Nevada, Utahand Washington) where primary coppersmelters currently operate; and It wasnot viewed as applicable to large new oredeposits of high impurity content whichwere capable of providing the entirecharge to a new smelter. The study alsoconcluded It was impossible to estimatethe magnitude of this potential impactsince It was not possible to predict impur-ity levels likely to be produced from newore reserves.

Although considerable doubt existed asto the need for a new smelter in thesouthwest to process materials of highimpurity levels in the future (essentiallyall the information and data examinedindicated such a need is not likely toarise), the Arthur D. Little study con-eluded it would be prudent to assume newsmelters in the southwest should havethe flexibility to process these materials.To assume otherwise according to thestudy might place constraints on possiblefuture plans of the American Smeltingand Refining Company.

(3) The. proposqd standards shouldhave little or no impact on the abilityof existing primary copper smelters toexpand copper production. This conclu-sion was also subject to qualification. Itwas noted that other means of expand-ing smelter capacity might exist than theapproaches studied and that the pro-posed standards might or might not in-fluence the viability of these other meansof expanding capacity. It was also notedthat, the study assumed existing singleabsorption sulfuric acid plants could beconverted to double absorption, but thatindividual smelters were not visited andthis conversion might not be possible atsome smelters.

Each of the comment letters receivedby SPA contained multiple comments.The most significant comments, theAgency's responses to these commentsand the various changes made to theproposed regulations for promulgationin response to these comments are dis-cussedbelow.

(1) Legal authoritU under section M11.Four commentators indicated that theAgency would exceed Its statutory au-thority inder section 111 of the Act bypromulgating a standard of perform-ance that could not be met by copperreverberatory smelting furnaces, whichare extensively used at existing domesticsmelters. The commentators believe thatthe "best system of emission reduction"cited in section 111 refers to controltechniques that reduce emissions, andnot to processes that emit more easilycontrolled eMuent gas streams. The com-mentators contend, therefore, that aproducer may choose the process that Ismost appropriate in his view, and newsource performance-standards must bebased on the application of the bestdemonstrated techniques of emission re-duction to that process.

The legislative history of the 1970Amendments to the Act is cited by thesecommentators as supporting this inter-

pretation of section l11. Specificallypointed out Is the fact that the House-Senate Conference Committee, whichreconciled competing House and Senateversions of the bll, deleted languagefrom the Senate bill that would havegranted the Agency explicit authority toregulate processes. This action, accord-lng to these commentators, clearly indi-cates a Congressional intent not to grantthe Agency such authority.

The conference bill, however, merelyreplaced the phrase in the Senate bill"latest available control technology.processes, operating method or otheralternatives" with "best system of emis-sion reduction which (taking Into ac-count the cost of achieving such reduc-tion) the Administrator determines hasbeen adequately, demonstrated.!' The useof the phrase "best system of emissionreduction" appears to be inclusive ofthe terms in the Senate bill. The absenceof discussion in the conference reporton this Issue further suggests that nosubstantive change was intended by thesubstitution of the phrase "best systemof emission reduction" for the phrase"latest available control technology,processes, operating method or other al-ternatives" in the Senate bill.

For some classes of sources, the dif-ferent processes used in the productionactivity significantly affect the emissionlevels of the source and/or the tech-nology that can be applied to controlthe source. For this reason, the Agencybelieves that the "best system of emis-sion reduction" includes the processesutilized and does not refer only to emis-sion control hardware. It is clear thatadherence to existing process utilizationcould serve to undermine the purpose ofsection 111 to require maximum feasiblecontrol of new sources. In general, there-fore, the Agency believes that section 111authorizes the promulgation of onestandard applicable to all processes usedby a class- of sources, in order that thestandard may reflect the maximumfeasible control for that class. When theapplication of a standard to a givenprocess would effectively ban the process,however, a separate standard must heprescribed for it unless some other proc-ess(es) is available to perform the func-tion at reasonable cost.

In determining whether the use of dif-ferent processes would necessitate thesetting of different standards, the Agencyfirst determines whether or not the proc-esses are functionally interchangeable.Factors such as whether the least pollut-ing process can be used in-various loca-tions or with various raw materials orunder other conditions are considered.The second important consideration ofthe Agency involves the costs of achiev-ing the reduction called for by a standardapplicable to all processes used in asource category. Where a single stand-ard would effectively preclude using aprocess which is much less expensive thanthe permitted process, the economic im-pact of the single standard must be de-termined to be reasonable or separatestandards are set. This does not mean,however, that the cost of the alternativesto the potentially prohibited process can

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 10-THURSDAY, JANUARY 1S, 1976

RULES AND REGULATIONS

be no grater than those which-would beassociated. with. controlling the processunder alessstringent standard.

The Administrator has- determinedthat- the flash copper smelting process isavailable and will perform: the functionof the reverberatory copper smeltingprocess at reasonable cost, except, thatflash smeltinghas not yet been commer-cially demonstrated for the processingof feed materials with a high level ofvolatile impurities. The standards pro-mulgated herein, which do not apply tocopper reverberatory smelting furnaceswhen the smelter charge contains a highlevel of volatile Impurities, are there-fore authorized under section 111 of theAct.

(2) Control of everberatory smeltingfurnaces. Two commentators represent-ing environmental groups and one com-mentator representing a State pollutioncontrol agency questioned the Adminis-trator's judgment that the use of varioussulffir dioxide scrubbing systems to con-trol sulfur- dioxide emissions from rever-beratory smelting furnaces was unrea-sonable, especially in view- of his conclu-sion that the use of these- systems onlarge steam generators was reasonable.These commentators also pointed outthat this conclusion was based only onan examination of the use of sulfur di-oxide scrubbing systems and that alter-native means of control, such as the useof oxygen enrichment of reverberatoryfurnace combustion air, or the mixingof the gases from the reverberatory fur-nace with the gases from roasters andcopper converters to produce a mixedgas stream suitable for control, were notexamined.

This comment was submitted in re-sponse to the exemption included in theproposed standards for existing rever-beratory smelting furnaces. As discussedbelow, the amendments recently promul-gated by the Agency to 40 CFR Part 60clarifying the meaning of "modification"make this exemption unnecessary. Thecomment is still appropriate, however,since the promulgated standards now in-clude an exemption for new reverbera-tory smelting furnaces at smelters proc-essing materials containing high levelsof volatile impurities.

Section 111 of the Clean Air Act dic-tates that standards of performance bebased on " * * the best system of emis-sion reduction which (taking into ac-count the cost of achieving such reduc-tion) the Administrator determines hasbeen adequately demonstrated." Thus,not only must various systems of emis-sion control be investigated to ensurethese systems are technically proven andthe levels to which emissions could be re-duced through the use of these systemsidentified, the costs of these systems mustbe considered to ensure that standards ofperformance will not impose an unrea-sonable economic burden on each sourcecategory for which standards are devel-oped.

The control. of gas streams containinglow concentrations- of sulfur dioxidethrough the use of various scrubbing sys-

tems which are currently available Isconsidered by the Administrator to betechnically proven and well demon-strated. The use of these systema on largesteam. generators- is considered reason-able since electric utilities are regulatedmonopolies and the costs incured tocontrol sulfur- dioxide, emissions can. bepassed forward to the consumern'Pri-mary copper smelters, however, do notenjoy a monopolistic position and facedirect, competition from bath foreignsmelters and other domestic smelters.The costs associated with the use of thesescrubbing systems on reverberatorysmelting furnaces at primary coppersmelters are so large, in the Administra-tor's judgment, that they could not beeither absorbed, by- a copper smelterwithout resulting in a significant de-crease in. profitability, passed forward tothe consumer without.leading-to a signif-icint loss in. sales, or passed. back to themining operations-without resulting in aclosing of some mines and. a decrease Inmining activity. Consequently, the Ad-ministrator considers the. use of thesesystems to control reverberatory, smelt-ing furnaces unreasonable.

Although little discussion is includedIn the background dpeument supportingthe proposed standards concerning theuse of oxygen enrichment of reverbera-tory furnace combustion air, or the mix-ing of' the gases from reverberatory fur-naces with the gases from roasters andcopper converters, these approaches forcontrolling sulfur dioxide emissions fromreverberatory smelting furnaces were ex-amined. These investigations, however,were not of an in-depth nature and werenot pursued to completion.

A preliminary analysis of oxygen en-richment of reverberatory furnace com-bustion air to produce a strong gasstream from the reverberatory furnaceappeared to indicate that the costs asso-ciated with this approach were unrea-sonable. A similar analysis of the mix-ing of the gases from a reverberatoryfurnace with the gases discharged from afluid-bed roaster and copper convertersappeared to indicate that although thecosts associated with this approach werereasonable, it was not possible to usefluid-bed roasters in all cases. Multi-hearth roasters Would be required wherematerials of high volatile impurity levelswere processed. Although multi-hearthroasters discharge'strong gas streams (4-5 percent sulfur dioxide), fluid bedroasters discharge much stronger gasstreams (10-12 percent sulfur dioxide).To determine the effect of thisl lowerconcentration of sulfur dioxide in thegases discharged by multi-hearth roast-ers on the ability to mix the gases dis-charged by reverberatory smelting fur-naces with those discharged by roastersand copper converters to produce amixed gas stream suitable for control atreasonable costs would have requiredfurther investigation and study.

Unfortunately, limited resources pre-vented all avenues of investigation frombeing pursued and in. lew of the promis-ing indications from the preliminary In-

vestigations'into flash and electric smelt-ing, the Agency concentrated its effortsin this area. As discussed below, how-ever, the userof these approaches to con-trol sulfur dioxide emissions from re-verberatory smelting furnaces are underInvestigation as a means by which thepromulgated. standards of performancecould be extended to cover roverbcratorysmelting furnaces which process mate.rials containing high levels of impurito.

(3) Materials of high impurity levels.One commentator expressed his beliefthat the proposed standards would pro-veht new primary copper smelters fromprocessing materials containing high lev-els of impurities, such as arsenic, an i-mony, lead and zinc. This commentatordoes notfeel flash smelting can be con-sidered demonstrated for, smelting mate-rials containing these impurities. Thecommentator also feels the doriiestlesmelting industry will not be able to em-ploy electric smelting to process mate-rials, of this nature in the future, sinceelectric power will not be available, oronly available at, a price which will pro-vent Its use by the industry..

At the time of proposal of the stand-ards for primary copper smelters, the Ad-ministrator was aware that considerablodoubt existed concerning the capabilit,of flash smelting to process materials ofhigh Impurity levels. No doubt existed,however, with regard to the capability ofelectric, smelting to process these mate-rials. Conseqiently, the standards wereproposed on the basis that where flashsmelting could not be employed to proc-ess these materials, electric smeltingcould.

As outlined above, the Arthur D. Littlestudy concluded that at no flash smelterIn the world has the average compositionof the total charge processed on a rou-tine basis exceeded 0.2 weight percentarsenic, 0.1 weight percent antimony, 4.5weight percent lead and 5.5 weight per-cent zinc. Thus, the capability of flashsmelting to process a charge containinghigher levels of impurities than these hasnot- been adequately demonstrated. Atthis time, therefore, only electric smelt-Ing precepted by multi-hearth roasting(in addition to reverberatory smeltingpreceded by multi-hearth roasting) canbe considered adequately demonstrated(excluding costs) for processing thesematerials.

The Arthur D. Little study also ex-amined the projected availability andpricing of various forms of energythrough 1980 for those areas of theUnited States where primary coppersmelters now operate. Although tile en-ergy consumed by electric smelting isapproximately equal to that consumedby' reverberatory smelting (taking intoaccount the energy inefficiency 1.socl-ated with-electrIc power generation), thestudy concluded that a cost penalty ofI to 2 cents per pound of copper is asto-alated with electric smelting In thesouthwest U.S. due to the high cost ofelectric power in this region. This costpenalty was considered suflicient in theArthur D. IAttle study to make the use

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 10-THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 1976

2334

RULES AND REGULATIONS

of electric smelting at new primary cop-per smelters located in the southwesteconomically unattractive In most cases.

Since the basis for the proposed stand-ards considered electric smelting as aviable alternative should flash smeltingprove unable to process materials of highimpurity levels, the Administrator hasconcluded the proposed standards shouldbe revised for promulgation. Conse-quently, the standards promulgatedherein exempt new reverberatory smelt-ing furnaces at primary copper smelterswhich process a total charge containingmore than 0.2 weight percent arsenic,

-0.1 weight percent antimony, 4.5 weightpercent lead or 5.5 weight percent zinc.This will permit new primary coppersmelters to be- constructed to processmaterials of high impurity levels withoutemploying-electric smelting. The promul-gated standards of performance will,however, apply to mew roasters and cop-per converters at these smelters, sincethe Adminitrator has concluded thesefacilities-can be operated to produce gasstreams containinggreater than 3% per-cent sulfur dioxide and that -the costsassociated with controlling these gasstreams are reasonable.-Although the Administrator conbiders

it prudent to promulgate the standardswith this exemption for new reverbera-tory smelting-furaces, the Administra-tor believes this exemption may not benecessary. As pqinted out in the com-ments submitted by various environmen-tal organizations and private citizens,-neither the use of oxygen enrichment ofreverberatory -furnace combustion air,nor the mixing-of the gases from rever-bertoryurnaces with those from multl-hearth roasters and copper converterswere investigated in depth by'the Agency

,in developing the proposed standards.ither of these-approacihes could prove

to be reasonable for ,controlling sulfurdioxid emissions from reverberatorySsmelting furnaces.

Under the promulgated standards withthe exemptions provided for new rever-leratory smelting fmuances, new primarycopper smelters could remain among thelargest point sources of sulfur dioxideemissions within the US. Consequently,the Agency's'program to develop stand-ardsof performance to limitsulfur diox-ide emissions from primary copper smelt--ers will continue. 'This program willfocus on the use of oxygen enrichment ofreverberatory furnace combustion airand the mixing of the gases from rever-beratory smelting furnaces with thosefrom multi-hearth roasters and copperconverters. If the Administrator con-cludes either-or both of these approachescan be employed to control sulfur dioxide'emissions from reverberatory smeltingfurnaces at reasonable costs, the Admin-istrator will propose that this exemptionbedeleted.

(4) Copper smelter modi fcatios. Oneof the major issues associated with theproposed regulations -on modification,notification and reconstruction (39 FR36946) involved the "bubble concept."The "bubble concept' refers to the trad-ing off of emission increases from one

existing facility undergoing a physicalor operational change at a source withemission reductions from another exist-ing facility at the same source. If there isno net increase in the amount of anyair pollutant (to-which a standard ap-plies) emitted into the atmosphere by thesource as a whole, the facility which ex-perienced an emissions increase is notconsidered modified. Although the "bub-ble concept" may be applied to existingfacilities which undergo a physical oroperational change, It may not be appliedto cover construction of new facilities.

In commenting on the proposed stand-ards of performance for primary coppersmelters, two commentators suggestedthat the bubble concept be extended toinclude construction of new facilities atexisting copper smelters. These com-

'mentators indicated that this could re-sult in a substantial reduction: in thecosts, while at the same time leadingto a substantial reduction in emissions-from the smelter.

To support their claims, these com-mehtators presented two hypothetcalexamples of expansions at a coppersmelter that-could occur through con-struction of new facilities. Where newfacilities were -controlled to meet stand-ards of performance, emissions from thesmelter as a whole increased. Wheresome new facilities were not controlledto meet standards of performance, emis-sions from the smelter as a whole de-creased-substantially.

These results, however, depend on spe-cial manipulation of emissions from theexisting facilities at the smelter. In thecase where new facilities -are controlled-tomeet standards of performance, emis-elons from existing facilities are notreduced. Thus, with tonstruction of new:facilities, emissions from the smelter as-a whole increase. In theease vhere some-new -facilities ure not controlled to meet"standards of performance, emistonsfrom existing facilities are reducedthrough additional emission control orproduction cut-back. Since emissions'from the existing facilities were assumed'to be -very large initially, a reduction Inthese emissions results in ai-et reduction

'In emissions from the smelter as a whole.These hypothetical examples, however.

appear to represent contrived situations.7n many cases, compliance with Stateimplementation plans to meet the Na-

"tional Ambient Air Quality Standards-ill -require existing copper smelters tocontrol emissions to such a degree thatthe situations portrayed in the examplespresented by these commentators aremot likely to arise. Furthermore, asmelter operator may petition the Ad--inistrator for reconsideration of the"promulgated standards if he' believesthey would be infeasible when applied tohis smelter.

Another commentator asked whetherconversion of an existing reverberatorysmelting furnace from firing natural gasto firing coal would constitute a modi-flcation. This commentator pointed out'that although the conversion to firingcoal would increase sulfur dioxide emis-sions from the smelter by 2 to 3 percent,

the costs of controlling the furnace tomeet the standards of performancewould be prohibitive.

The primary objective of the promul-gated standards is to control emissionsof sulfur dioxide from the copper smelt-ing process. The data and informationsupporting the standards consider es-sentially only those emissions arisingifrom the basic smelting process, notthose arising from fuel combustion. ItIs not the direct intent of these stand-ards, therefore, to control emissions fromfuel combustion per se. Consequently,since emissions from fuel combustionare negligible In comparison with thosefrom the basic smelting process, and aconversion of reverberatory smeltingfurnaces to firing coal rather than nat-ural gas will aid in efforts to conservenatural gas resources, the standards pro-mulgated herein include a provision ex-empting fuel switching in reverberatorysmelting furnaces from consideration asa modification.

(5) Expansfon of exfsing smelters.Two commentators expressed their con-cern that the proposed standards would,prevent the expansion of existing pri-mary copper smelters, since the stand-ards apply to modified facilities as wellas new facilities. These commentatorsreasoned that the costs associated withcontrolling emissions from each roaster,smelting furnace or copper convertermodified during expansion would inmany cases make these expansions eco-nomlcagly unattractive. .

As noted above, the Agency has pro-posed amendments to the general provi-sions of 40 CFR Part 60 coveringmodifiedand reconstructed sources. Under theseprovisions, sLandards of performance ap-,Ply only where an existing facility at asource s reconstructed; where a changein an existing facity results Rn an in-crease In the total emissions at-a source;and -where a new facility Is constructedat a source. Thus, unless total emissions-from a primary copper smelter increase,most alterations to existing roasters,smelting furnaces or copper converterswhich increase their emissions will notcause these facilities to- be consideredmodified and subject to standards of per-formance.

The Administrator does not believe thestandards promulgated herein will deterexpansion of existing primary coppersmelters. As discussed earlier, the Ad-ministrator concluded at proposal thatthe cost of controlling reverberatory-smelting furnaces was unreasonable(through the use of various sulfur dioxidescrubbing systems currently available),and for this reason included an exemp-tion In the proposed standards for ex-isting ureverberatory smelting furnaces.The prime objective of this exemptionwas to ensure that existing primary cop-per smelters could expand copper pro-duction at reasonable costs.

Also, as discussed earlier, the ArthurD. Little study examined this aspect ofthe proposed standards and concludedthe standards would have little or no im-pact on the ability of existing primarycopper smelters to expand production.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 1O-THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 1976

2-33.5

RULES AND REGULATIONS

This conclusion was subject to two quali-fications: other means of expandingsmelter capacity might exist than thoseexamined and the impact of the proposedstandards on these means of expandingcapacity is unknown; and it was as-sumed that existing single absorption sul-furic acid plants could be converted todouble absorption, but at some smeltersthis might not be possible.

The Administrator does not feel thesequalifications seriously detract from theessential conclusion that the standardsare likely to have little impact on the ex-pansion capabilities of existing coppersmelters. The various means of expand-ing smelter capacity examined in the Ar-thur D. Little study represent commonlyemployed techniques for increasing cop-per production from as little as 10 to 20percent, to as much as 50 percent at ex-isting smelters. Consequently, the Ad-ministrator considers the approachesexamined in the study- as broadly repre-sentative of various means of expandingexisting primary copper smelters and asa reasonable basis from which conclu-sions regarding the potential impact ofthe standards on the expansion capabili-ties of the domestic primary coppersmelting industry can be drawn.

The Administrator views the assump-tion in the Arthur D. Little report thatexisting single absorption sulfuric acidplants can bb converted to double absorp-tion as a good assumption. Although atsome existing primary copper smeltersthe physical plant layout might compli-cate a conversion from single absorptionto double absorption, the remote isolatedlocation of most smelters provides amplespace for the construction of additionalplant facilities. Thus, while the costs forconversion may vary from smelter tosmelter, it is unlikely that at any smeltera conversion could not be made.

As proposed, provisions were includedIn the regulations specifically stating thatphysical and operating changes to exist-ing reverberatory smelting furnaceswhich resulted in an Increase in sulfurdioxide emissions would not be consid-ered modifications, provided total emis-sions of sulfur dioxide from the coppersmelter did not increase above levelsspecified in State implementation plans.

Since proposal of the standards,amendments to 40 CFR Part 60 to clarifythe meaning of modification under sec-tion 111 have been proposed. Theseamendments permit changes to existingfacilities within a source which increaseemissions from these facilities withoutrequiring compliance with standards ofperformance, provided total emissionsfrom the source do not increase. Sincethis was the objective of the provisionsIncluded in the proposed regulations forprimary copper smelters with regard tochanges to existing reverberatory smelt-ing furnaces, these provisions are nolonger necessary and have been deletedfrom the promulgated regulations.

(6) Increased energy consumption.Two commentators indicated that theAgency's estimate of the impact of thestandards of performance for primarycopper, zinc and lead smelters on energyconsumption was much too low. Since

the number of smelters which will be af-fected by the standards is relativelysmall, tl~e Agency has developed a sce-nario on a smelter-by-smelter basis, bywhich the domestic industry could In-crease copper production by 400,000 tonsby 1980. This increase in copper produc-tion represents a growth rate of about3.5 percent per year and is consistentwith historical industry growth rates of3 to 4 percent per year.

On this new basis, the energy requiredto control all new primary copper, zincand lead smelters constructed by 1980 tocomply with both the proposed standardsand the standards promulgated herein isthe same and is estimated to be 320 mil-lion kilowatt-hours per year. This isequivalent to about 520,000 barrels ofnumber 6 fuel oil per year. Relative totypical State implementation plan re-quirements for primary copper, zinc andlead smelters, the incremental energy re-quired by these standards Is 50 millionkilowatt-hours per year, which is equiva-lent to about 80,000 barrels of number 6fuel oil per year.

The energy required to comply with thepromulgated standards at these newsmelters by 1980 represents no more thanapproximately 3.5 percent of the processenergy-which would be required to oper-ate these smelters in the absence of anycontrol of sulfur dioxide emissions. Theincremental amount of energy required tomeet these standards is somewhat lessthan 0.5 percent of the total energy(process plus air pollution) which wouldbe required to dperate these new smeltersand meet typical State Implementationplan emission control requirements.

One commentator stated the Agency'sinitial estimate of the increased energyrequirements associated with the pro-posed standards was low because theAgency did not take into account a 3million Btu per ton of copper concentrateenergy debit, attributed by the commen-tator to electric smelting compared toreverberatory smelting. The new basisused by the Agency to estimate the im-pact of the standards on energy con-sumption anticipates no new electricsmelting by01980. Consequently, any dif-ference in the energy consumed by elec-tric smelting compared to reverberatorysmelting will have no impact on theamount of energy required to complywith the standards.

The Agency's estimates of the energyrequirements associated with electricsmelting and reverberatory smelting,which are included in the background in-formation for the proposed standards,are based on a review of the technicalliterature and contacts with individualsmelter operators. These estimates agreequite favorably with those developed inthe Arthur D. Little study, which verifiedthe Agency's conclusion that the overallenergy requirements associated with re-verberatory and electric smelting areessentially the same. It remains, the Ad-ministrator's conclusion, therefore, thatthere is no energy debit associated withelectric smelting compared to reverbera-tory smelting.

Another commentator feels theAgency's original estimates fail to take

into account the fuel necessary to main-tain proper operating temperatures Insulfuric acid plants. This commentatorestimates that about 82,000 barrels offuel oil per year are required to heat thegases in a double absorption sulfuric acidplant. The commentator then assiunesthe domestic non-ferrous smelting In-dustry will expand production by 50 per-cent in the immediate future, citing theArthur D. Little study for support. Sinceabout 30 metallurgical sulfuric acidplants are currently in use within thedomestic smelting industry, the commen-tator assumes this mean4 15 new metal-lurgical sulfuric acid plants will be con-structed In the future. This leads to anestimated energy impact associated withthe standards of performance of about1/ millIon barrels of fuel oil per year,

It should be noted, however, that thegrowth projections developed in theArthur D. Little study are only for thedomestic copper smelting industry, andcannot be assumed to apply to the do-mestic zinc and lead smelting Industries.Over half the domestic zinc smelters, forexample, have shut down since 1968 andzinc production has fallen sharply, al-though recently plans have been an-nounced for two new zinc smelters, Inaddition, the domestic lead industry Iswidely viewed as a static industry withlittle prospect for growth in the nearfuture.

Furthermore, the Arthur D. Littlestudy does not project a 50 percent ex-pansion of the domestic copper smeltingindustry in the immediate future, By1980, the study estimates domestic cop-per production will have Increased by 15percent over 1974 and by 1985, domesticcopper production will have increased by35 percent.

The Agency's growth projections forthe domestic copper smelting Industryare somewhat higher than those of theArthur D. Little study and forecast a 10percent increase in copper production by1980 over 1974, The commentator's esti-mate of a 50 percent expansion of the do-mestic non-ferrous smelting industry Inthe immediate future, therefore, appearsmuch too high. Where the commentatorestimates that the standards of perform-ance will affect the construction of 15new metallurgical sulfuric acid plants,the Agency estimates the standards willaffect the construction of 7 new acidplants (6 in the copper industry, 1 Inthe zinc industry and none in the leadindustry). In addition, the Agency esti-mates the standards will require the con-version of 6 existing single absorptionacid plants to double absorption (5 Inthe copper industry, 1 in the zinc Industryand none in the lead industry).

As noted above, the commentator'scalculations also assume that these 15new metallurgical acid plants do notoperate autothermally (i.e., fuel firingis necessary to maintain proper operat-ing temperatures), The commentator'sestimate that a double absorption sul-furic acid plant requires 82,000 barrels offuel oil per year is based on operationof an acid plant designed to operateautothermally at 42 percent sulfur di-oxide, but which operates on gases con-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 10-THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 1976

2336

RULES AND REGULATIONS

taining only 3% percent sulfur dioxide40 percent of the time.

Using this same basis, the Agency cal-culates that a sulfuric acid plant shouldrequire less than 5,000 barrels of oil peryear. A review of these calculations withtwo acid plant vendors and a privateconsultant has disclosed no errors. TheAdministrator must assume, therefore,that the" commentator's calculations arein error, or assume an unrealistically lowdegree of heat recovery in the acid plantto preheat -the incoming gases, or arebased on a poorly designed or poorlyoperated sulfuric acid plant which fallsto achieve the degree of heat recoverynormally expected in a properly designedand operated sulfuric acid plant.

IRegardless-of these calculations, how-ever, the Adminitrator feels that withgood design, operation and maintenanceof the roasters, smelting furnaces, con-certers, sulfuric acid plant and the flue-gas collection system and ductwork, theconcentration of sulfur dioxide in thegases processed by a sulfuric acid plantcan be maintained above3V to 4 percentsulfur dioxide. This level is typically theautothermal point at which no fuelneed be fired to maintain proper oper-ating temperatures in a well designedmetallurgical sulfuric acid plant. Ex-cept for occasional start-ups, therefore,a well designed and properly operatedmetallurgical sulfuric acid plant shouldoperate autothermally and not requirefuel for maintaining proper operatingtemperatures. Thus, it remains the Ad-nuistrator's conclusion that the impactof the standards on increased energyconsumption, -resulting from Increasedfuel consumption to operate sulfuric acidplants,-is negligible.

(7) Emission control technology. Asthree commentators correctly noted, theproposed standards essentially requirethe use of one emission control tech-nology-double absorption sulfuric acidplants. These commentators feel, how-ever, that this prevents the use of alter-native emission control technologies suchas single absorption sulfuric acid plantsand elemental sulfur plants, and thatthese are equally effective and, in thecase of elemental sulfur plants, place lessstress on the environment.

Although these commentators ac-knowledge that double absorption sul-furic acid plants operate at a higher ef-ficiency than single absorption acidplants (99.5 percent vs. 97 percent), theyfeel .the availability of double absorptionplants Islower than thatof single absorp-tion-plants (90 percent vs. 92 percent).'These commentators also point out thatdouble absorption acid plants requiremore energy to operate than single ab-sorption plants. When the effect of thesefactors on overall sulfur dioxide emis-sions is considered, these commentatorsfeel there is no essential difference be-tween double and single absorption acidplants.

The difference n availability betweensingle and double absorption sulfuricacid plants cited by these commentatorswas estimated from data gathered solelyon single absorption acid plants, and isdue essentially to only one item-that of

the acid coolers for the sulfuric acid pro-duced In the absorption towers. The dataused by these commentators, however,reflects "old technology" In this re pectIf the data are adjusted to reflect newacid cooler technology, the availability ofsingle and double absorption acid plantsis estimated to be 94 and 93.6 percent,respectively.

Taking into account these differencesin eMciency and availability, the instal-lation of a 1000-ton-per-day doubleabsorption acid plant rather than asingle absorption acid plant results in anannual reduction In sulfur dioxide emals-sions of about 4,500 tons. The differencein annual availability between single anddouble absorption acid plants, however,does not influence short-term emissions.Over short time periods the difference inemissions between single and doubleabsorption acid plants is a reflection onlyof their difference in operating efficiency.Over a 24-hour period, for example, a1000-ton-per-day single absorption acidpant will emit about 20 tons o; sulfur,dioxide compared to about 3.5 tons froma double absorption acid plant. Conse-quentlY, the difference in e-ission con-trol obtained through the use of doubleabsorption rather than single absorptionacid plants Is significant.

The increased sulfur dioxide emissionsreleased to the atmosphere to provide thegreater energy requirements of doubleabsorption over single absorption acidplants is also minimal. For a nominal1000-ton-per-day sulfuric acid plant, thedifference In sulfur dioxide em Ions be-tween a single absorption plant and adouble absorption plant Is about 16.5tons Per day as mentioned above. Thesulfur dioxide emissions from the com-bustion of a 1.0 percent sulfur fuel oil toprovide the difference In energy required,however, is of the order of magnitudeof only 200 pounds per day.

As mentioned above, these commenta-tors also feel that elemental sulfur plantsare as effective as double absorption sul-furic acid plants and place less stress onthe environment. Elemental sulfurplants normally achieve emission reduc-tion efficiencies of only about 90 percent,which Is significantly lower than the 99+percent normally achieved in double ab-sorption sulfurlc acid plants. Conse-quently, the Administrator does not con-sider elemental sulfur plants nearly aseffective as double absorption sulfuric-acid plants.

Although elemental sulfur presents nopotential water pollution problems andcan be easily stored, thus remaining apossible future resource, the Adminis-trator does not agree that production ofelemental sulfur places less stress on theenvironment than production of sulfuricacid. At every smelter now producing sul-furic acid, an outlet for this acid hasbeen found, either In copper leachingoperations to recover copper from oxideores, or In the traditional acid markets,such as the production of fertilizer. Thus,sulfuric acid, unlike elemental sulfur,has found use as a current resource andnot required storage for use as a possiblefuture resource.

The Administrator believes that thissituation will also generally prevail inthe future. If sulfuric acid must be neu-tralized at a specific smelter, however,this can be accomplished with properprecautions without leading to waterpollution problems, as discussed In thebackground information supporting theproposed standards.

A major drawback associated with theproduction of elemental sulfur, however,is the large amount of fuel required as areductant in the process. When comparedto sulfuric acid production in doubleabsorption sulfuric acid plants, ele-mental sulfur production requires from4 to 6 times as much energy. Conse-quently, the Administrator Is not con-vinced that elemental sulfur production,which releases about 20 times more sul-fur dioxide into the atmosphere, yetconsumes 4 to 6 times as much energy,could be considered less stressful on theenvironment than sulfuric acid produc-tion.

pEMARy zrc S=C EF.5Only one major comment was sub-

mitted to the Agency concerning the pro-posed standards of performance for pri-mary zinc smelters. This comment ques-tioned whether it would be possible inall cases to eliminate 90 percent or moreof the sulfur originally present in thezinc concentrates during roasting.

Most primary zinc smelters employeither the electrolytic smelting processor the roast/sInter smelting process,both of which require a roasting opera-tion. The roast/sinter process, however,requires a sintering operation followingroasting. Sulfur not removed from theconcentrates during roasting is removedduring sintering. Since the amount ofsulfur removed by sintering is small thegases discharged from this operationcontain a low concentration of sulfurdioxide. As discussed In the preamble tothe proposed standards, the cost of con-trolling these emissions was judged bythe Administratnr to be unreasonable.

The amount of sulfur dioxide emittedfrom the sintering machine, however, de-pends on the sulfur removal achieved inthe preceding roaster. To ensure a highdegree of sulfur removal during roastingwhich will minimie sulfur dioxide emis-sions from the sintering machine, thesulfur dioxide standard applies to anysintering machine which eliminates morethan 10 percent of the sulfur originallypresent In the zinc concentrates. This re-quires 90 percent or more of the sulfurto be eliminated during roasting, which isconsistent with good operation of roast-ers as presently practiced at the two zincsmelters in the United States which em-ploy the roast/sinter process.

One commentator pointed out that cal-cium and magnesium which are presentas Impurities in some zinc concentratescould combine with sulfur during roast-ing to form calcium and magnesium sul-Sates. These materials would remain inthe calcine (roasted concentrate). Ifthese sulfates were reduced in the sinter-Ing operation, this could lead to morethan 10 percent of the sulfur originallyprezent in the zinc concentrates being

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 10-THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 1976

RULES AND REGULATIONS

emitted from the sintering machine.Uniter these conditions the sinteringmachine would be required to complywith the sulfur dioxide standard.

Although it is possible that-this situa-tion could arise, as acknowledged by thecommentator himself it does not seemlikely. Only a few zinc concentrates con-tain enough calcium and magnesium tocarry as much as 10 percent of the sulfurin the concentrate over into the sinteringoperation, even assuming all the calciumand magnesium present combined withsulfur during the roasting operation.

In addition, a number of smelter opera-tors contacted by the Agency indicatedthat it is quite possible that not.all thecalcium and magnesium present wouldcombine with sulfur to form sulfates dur-Ing roasting. It is equally possible, ac-cording to these operators, that not allthe calcium and magnesium sulfatesformed would be reduced in the sinteringmachine. Thus, even with those few con-centrates which do contain a high levelof calcium and magnesium, the extentto which calcium and magnesium mightcontribute to high sulfur emissions fromthe sintering operation is questionable.

Furthermore, these smelter operatorsindicated that at most zinc smelters anumber of different zinc concentrates arenormally blended to provide a homoge-neous charge to the roasting operation.As pointed out by these operators, this ef-fectively permits a smelter operator toreduce the amount of calcium and mag-nesium present in the charge by blendingoff the high levels of calcium and mag-nesium present in one zinc concentrateagainst the low levels present in anotherconcentrate.

The Agency also discussed this poten-tial problem with a number of mill oper-ators. These operators indicated that ad-ditional milling could be employed to re-duce calcium and magnesium levels inzinc concentrates. Although additionalmilling would pntail some additional costand probably result in a somewhat higherloss of zinc to the tailings, calcium andmagnesium levels could be reduced wellbelow the point where formation of cal-cium and magnesium sulfate duringroasting would be'of no concern.

While one may speculate that calciumand magnesium might lead to the forma-tion of sulfates during roasting, whichmight in turn be reduced during sinter-ng, the extent to which this wouldoccur is unknown. Consequently, whetherthis would prevent a primary zinc smelteremploying the roast/sinter process fromlimiting emissions from sintering to nomore than 10 percent of the sulfur orig-inally present In the zinc concentratesis questionable. The fact remains, how-ever, that at the two primary zinc smelt-ers currently operating in the UnitedStates which employ the roast/sinterprocess this has not been a problem.Furthermore, it appears that if calciumand magnesium were.to present a prob-lem in the future, a number of appro-priate measures, such as additionalblending of zinc concentrates or addi--tional milling of those concentrates con-taining high calcium and magnesium

levels, could be employed to deal withthe situation. As a result, the standardsof performance promulgated herein forprimary zinc smelters require a sinter-ing machine emitting more than 10 per-cent of the sulfur originally present inthe zinc concentrates to comply, with thesulfur dioxide standard for roasters.

'PRIMARY LEAD SMELTERSNo major comments were submitted to

the Agency concerning the proposedstandards of performance for primarylead smelters. The proposed standards,therefore, are promulgated herein withonly minor changes.

VISIBLE EMISSIONS

The opacity levels contained in theproposed standards to limit visible emis-sions have been reexamined to ensurethey are consistent with the provisionspromulgated by the Agency since pro-posal of these standards for determiningcompliance with visible emissions stand-ards (39 FR 39872). These provisionsspecify, in part, that the opacity of visibleemissions will be determined as a 6-minute average value of 24 consecutivereadings taken at 15 second intervals.Reevaluation of the visible emission dataon which the opacity levels in the pro-posed standards were based, in terms of6-minute averages, indicates no need tochange the opacity levels initially pro.posed. Consequently, the standards ofperformance are promulgated with the",same opacity-limits on visible emissions.

TEST METHODSThe proposed standards of perform-

ance for primary copper smelters, pri-mary zinc smelters and primary leadsmelters were accompanied by amend-ments to Appendix A-Reference Meth-ods of 40 CFR Part 60. The purpose ofthese amendments was to add to Ap-

•pendix A a new test method (Method 12)for use in determining compliance withthe proposed standards of performance.Method 12 contained performance speci-fications for the sulfur dioxide monitorsrequired in the proposed standards. andprescribed the procedures to follow indemonstrating that a monitor met theseperformance specifications.

Since proposal of these standards ofperformance, the Administrator has pro-posed amendments to Subpart A-Gen-eral Provisions of 40 CFR Part 60, estab-lishing a consistent set of definitions andmonitoring requirements applicable toall standards of performance. Theseamendments include a new appendix(Appendix B-Performance Specifica-tions) which contains performance spec-ifications and procedures to follow whendemonstrating that a continuous moni-tor meets these performance specifica-tions. A continuous monitoring systemfor measuring sulfur dioxide concentra-tions that is evaluated in accordancewith the procedures contained in thisappendix will be satisfactory for deter-mining compliance with the standardspromulgated herein for sulfur dioxide.

The proposed Method 12 Is thereforewithdrawn to prevent an unnecessaryrepetition of information in 40 CFR Part60.

EFFECTIVE DATE

In accordance with section 111 of theAct, these regulations prescribing stand-ards of performance for primary coppersmelters, primary zinc smelters and pri-mary lead smelters are effective on (dateof publication) 1975 and apply to allaffected facilities at these sources onwhich construction or modification com-menced after October 16, 1974.

Dated: December 30, 1075.JOHN QUARLES,

-Acting AdMinistrator.Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the

Code of Federal Regulations Is amendedas follows:

1. The table of sections is amended byadding subparts P, Q and t as follows:

Subpart P-Standards of Performance forPrimary Copper Smelters

60.160 Applicability and designation of af-fected facility.

60.161 Definitions.60.162 Standard for particulate matter.60.163 Standard for sulfur dioxide.60.164 Standard for visiblo emissions.60.165 Monitoring of operations.60.166 Test methods and procedures.

Subpart Q--Standards of Perf6rmanco forPrimary Zinc Smelters

60.170 Applicability and designation ofaffected facility.

60.171 Definitions.60.172 Standard for particulate matter.60.173 Standard for sulfur dlolddo,60.174 Standard for visible emissions.60.175 Monitoring of operations.60.176 Test methods and procedures.

Subpart R-Standards of Performance forPrimary Lead Smelters

60.180 Applicability and designation ofaffected facility.

60.181 Definitions.60.182 Standard for particulate matter.60.183 Standard for sulfur dioxide.60.184 Standard for visible emissions.60.185 Monitoring of oporatiolis,60.186 Test methods and procedures.

AUTHORITY: (Se s. 111, 114 and 301 of theClean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 18570-6, 1857c-9, 1857g).)

2. Part 60 Is amended by adding sub-parts P, Q and R as follows:Subpart P-Standards of Performance for

Primary Copper Smelters§ 60.160 Applicability and designation

of affected facility.The provisions of this subpart are ap-

plicable to the following affected facilitiesin primary copper smelters: Dryer,ioaster, smelting furnace, and copperconverter.§ 60.161 Definitions.

As used in this subpart, all terms notdefined herein shall have the meaninggiven them in the Act and In subpartA of this part.

(a) "Primary copper smelter" meansany installation or any Intermediateprocess engaged in the production ofcopper from copper sulfide ore concen-trates through the use of pyrometallurgi-cal techniques.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 16--THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 1976

RULES AND REGULATIONS

(b) "Dryer" means any facility inwhich a copper sulfide ore concentratecharge is heated in the presence of airto eliminate a portion of the moisturefrom the charge, provided less than 5percent of the sulfur contained in thecharge is eliminated in the facility.

(c) -"Roaster" means any facility inwhich a copper sulfide ore concentratecharge is heated in the presence of airto eliminate a significant portion (5 per-cent or more) of the sulfur containedin the charge.

(d) "Calcine" means the solid mate-rials produced by a roaster.

(e) "Smelting" means processingtechniques for the melting of a coppersulfide ore concentrate or calcine chargeleading to the formation of separate lay-ers of molten slag, molten copper, and/orcopper matte.

(f) "Smelting furnace" means anyvessel in which the smelting of coppersulfide ore concentrates or calcines Isperformed and in which the heat neces-sary for smelting Is provided by an elec-tric current, rapid oxidation of a portionof the sulfur contained in the concen-trate-as it passes through an oxidizingatmosphere, or the combustion of a fossilfuel.

(g) "Copper converter" means anyvessel to which copper matte is chargedand oxidized to copper.

(h) "Sulfuric acid plant" means anyfacility producing sulfuric acid by thecontact process.

(i) "Fossil fuel" means natural gas,petroleum, coal, and any form of solid,liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from suchmaterials for the purpose of creatinguseful heat.

(j) "Reverberatory smelting furnace"means any vessel in which the smeltingof copper sulfide ore concentrates or cal-cines Is performed and in which the heatnecessary for smelting i provided prl-marily by combustion of a fossil fuel.

(k) "Total smelter charge" means theweight (dry basis) of all copper sulfidesore concentrates processed at a primarycopper smelter, plus the weight of allother solid materials introduced into theroasters and smelting furnaces at a; pri-mary copper smelter, except calcine, overa one-month period.

(1) "MHgh level of volatile impurities"means a total smelter charge containingmore than 0.2 weight percent arsenic, 0.1weight percent antimony, 4.5 weight per-cent lead or 5.5 weight percent zinc, ona dry basis.§ 60.162 Standard for particulate mat-

ter.(a) On and after the date on which

the performance test required to be con-ducted by § 60.8 is completed, no owneror operator subject to the provisions ofthis subpart shall cause to be dischargedinto the atmosphere from any dryer anygases which contain particulate matterin excess of 50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf).§ 60.163 Standard for sulfur dioxide.

(b) On and after the date on whichthe Performance test required to be con-ducted by § 60.8 is completed, no owneror operator subject to the provisions

of this subpart shall cause to be dis-charged into the atmosphere from anyroaster, smelting furnace, or copper con-verter any gases which contain sulfurdioxide in excess of 0.065 percent byvolume, except as provided in para-graphs (b) and (c) of this section.

(b) Reverberatory smelting furnacesshall be exempted from paragraph (a)of this section during periods when thetotal smelter charge at the primary cop-per smelter contains a high level ofvolatile impurities.

(c) A change in the fuel combustedin a reverberatory furnace shall not beconsidered a modification under thispart.§ 60.164 Standard for visible emissions* (a) On and after the date on which

the performance test required to be con-ducted by § 60.8 is completed, no owneror operator subject to the provisions ofthis subpart shall cause to be dischargedinto the atmosphere from any dryer anyvisible emissions which exhibit greaterthan 20 percent opacity.

Wb) On and after the date on whichthe performance test required to be con-ducted by § 60.8 Is completed, no owneror operator subject to the provisions ofthis subpart shall cause to be dischargedinto the atmosphere from any affectedfacility that uses a sulfuric acid to com-ply with the standard set forth in§ 60.163, any visible emissions which ex-hibit greater than 20 percent opacity.§ 60.165 fonitoringofoperations.

(a) The owner or operator of any prl-mary copper smelter subject to § 60.163(b) shall keep a monthly record of thetotal smelter charge and the weight per-cent (dry basis) of arsenic, antimony,lead and zinc contained in this charge.The analytical methods and proceduresemployed to determine the weight of themonthly smelter charge and the weightpercent of arsenic, antimony, lead andzinc shall be approved by the Adminis-trator and shall be accurate to withinplus or minus ten percent.

(b) The owner or operator of any pri-mary copper smelter subject to the pro-visions of this subpart shall install andoperate:

(1) A continuous monitoring systemto monitor and record the opacity ofgases discharged into the atmospherefrom any dryer. The span of this systemshall be set at 80 to 100 percent opacity.-

(2) A continuous monitoring systemto monitor and record sulfur dioxideemissions discharged into the atmos-phere from any roaster, smelting furnaceor copper converter subject to § 60.163(a). The span of this system shall beset at a sulfur dioxide concentration of0.20 percent by volume.

(i) The continuous monitoring systemperformance evaluation required under§ 60.13(c) shall be completed prior to theinitial performance test required under§ 60.8. During the performance evalua-tion, the span of the continuous moni-toring system may be set at a sulfurdioxide concentration of 0.15 percent byvolume if necessary to maintain the sys-tem output between 20 percent and 90

percent of full scale. Upon completionof the continuous monitoring systemperformance evaluation, the span of thecontinuous monitoring system shall beset at a sulfur dioxide concentration of0.20 percent by volume.

(i) For the purpose of the continuousmonitoring system performance evalua-tion required under § 60.13(c) the ref-erence method referred to under theField Test for Accuracy (Relative) inPerformance Specification 2 of AppendixB to this part shall be Reference Method6. For the performance evaluation, eachconcentration measurement shall be ofone hour duration. The pollutant gasused to prepare the calibration gas mix-tures required under paragraph 2.1, Per-formance Specification 2 of Appendix B,and for calibration checks under § 60.13(d), shall be sulfur dioxide.

(c) Six-hour average sulfur dioxideconcentrations shall be calculated androrded daily for the four consecutive 6-hour periods of each operating day. Eachsix-hour average shall be determined asthe arithmetic mean of the appropriatesix contiguous one-hour average sulfurdioxide concentrations provided by thecontinuous monitoring system installedunder paragraph (b) of this section.

d) For the purpose of reports requiredunder § 60.7(c), periods of excess emis-slons that shall be reported are definedas follows:

(1) Opacity. Any six-minute periodduring which the average opacity, asmeasured by the continuous monitoringsystem installed under paragraph (b) ofthis section, exceeds the standard under§ 60.164(a).

(2) Sulfur dioxide. Any six-hour pe-riod, as described in paragraph (c) ofthis section, during which the averageemissions of sulfur dioxide, as measuredby the continuous monitoring system in-stalled under paragraph (b) of this sec-tion, exceeds the standard under§ 60.163.§ 60.166 Test methods and procedures.

(a) The reference methods in Ap-pendix A to this part, except as providedfor in § 60.8(b), shall be used to deter-mine compliance with the standardsprescribed -in §§ 60.162, 60.163 and60.164 as follows:

(1) Method 5 for the concentration ofparticulate mdtter and the associatedmoisture content.

(2) Sulfur dioxide concentrations shallbe determined using the continuousmonitoring system installed in accord-ance with § 60.165(b). One 6-hour aver-age period shall constitute one run. Themonitoring system drift during any runshall not exceed 2 percent of span.

(b) For Method 5, Method 1 shall beused for selecting the sampling site andthe number of traverse points, Method 2for determining velocity and volumetricflow rate and Method 3 for determiningthe gas analysis. The sampling time foreach run shall be at least 60 minutes andthe minimum sampling volume shall be0.85 dscm (30 dscf) except that smallertimes or volumes, when necessitated byprocess variables or other factors, maybe approved by the Administrator.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 10-THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 1976

2339

2340

Subpart Q-Standards of Performance for-Primary Zinc Smelters

§ 60.170 Applicability and designationof affected facility.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to the following affected facill-ties in primary zinc smelters: roaster andsintering machine.§ 60.171 Definitions.

As used in this subpart, all terms notdefined herein shall have the meaninggiven them in the Act and In subpart Aof this part.

(a) "Primary zinc smelter" means anyinstallation engaged In the production, orany intermediate process in the produc-tion, of zinc or zinc oxide from zinc sul-fide ore concentrates through the useof pyrometallurgical techniques.

(b) "Roaster" means any facility inwhich a zinc sulfide ore concentratecharge is heated in the presence of airto eliminate a significant portion (morethan 10 percent) of the sulfur containedin the charge.

(c) "Sintering machine" means anyfurnace in which calcines are heated inthe presence of air to agglomerate thecalcines into a hard porous mass called"sinter"

(d) "Sulfuric acid plant" means anyfacility producing sulfuric acid by thecontact process.§ 60.172 Standard for particulate mat-

ter.(a) On and after the date on which

the performance test required to be con-ducted by § 60.8 is completed, no owneror operator subject to the provisions ofthis subpart shall cause to be dischargedinto the atmosphere from any sinteringmachine any gases which contain par-ticulate matter in excess of 50 mg/dscm(0.022 gr/dscf). -'

§ 60.173 Standard for sulfur dioxide.(a) On. and after the date on which

the performance test required to be con-ducted by § 60.8 is completed, no owneror operator subject to the provisions ofthis subpart shall cause to be dischargedinto the atmosphere from any roasterany gases which contain sulfur dioxideinexcess of 0.065 percent by volume.

(b) Any sintering machine whicheliminates more than 10 percent of thesulfur initially contained in the zincsulfide ore concentrates will be consid-ered as a roaster under paragraph (a)of this section.

§ 60.174 Standard for visible emissions.(a) On and after the date on which the

performance test required to be con-ducted by § 60.8 is completed, no owneror operator subject to the provisions ofthis subpart shall cause to be dischargedinto the atmosphere from any sinteringmachine any visible emissions which ex-hibit greater than 20 percent opacity.

(b) On and after the date on whichthe performance test required to be con-ducted by § 60.8 is completed, no owneror operator subject to the provisions ofthis subpart shall cause to be dischargedInto the atmosphere from any affected

RULES AND REGULATIONS

facility that uses a sulfuric acid plant tocomply with the standard set forth in§ 60.173, any visible emissions which ex-hibit greater than 20 percent opacity.§ 60.175 Monitoring of operations.

(a) The owner or operator of any pri-mary zinc smelter subject to the provi-sions of this subpart shall Install andoperate:

(1) A continuous monitoring system tomonitor and record the opacity of gasesdischarged into the atmosphere from anysintering machine. The span of this sys-tem shall be set at 80 to 100 percentopacity.

(2) A continuous monitoring system tomonitor and record sulfur dioxide emis-sions discharged into the atmospherefrom any roaster subject to § 60.173. Thespan of this system shall be set at asulfur dioxide concentration of 0.20 per-cent by volume.

(i) The continuous monitoring systemperformance evaluation required under§ 60.13 (c) shall be completed prior to theinitial performance test required under§ 60.8. During the performance evalua-tion, the span of the continuous monitor-ing system may be set at a sulfur dioxideconcentration of 0.15 percent by volumeif necessary to maintain the system out-put between 20 percent and 90 percentof full scale. Upon completion of the con-tinuous monitoring system performanceevaluation, the span of the continuousmonitoring system shall be set at a sulfurdioxide concentration of 0.20 percent byvolume.. (ii) For the purpose of the continuousmonitoring system performance evalua-tion required under § 60.13 (c). the ref-erence method referred to under theField Test for Accuracy (Relative) inPerformance Specification 2 of AppendixB to this part shall be Reference Method6. For the performance evaluation, eachconcentration measurement shall be ofone hour duration. The pollutant gasused to prepare the calibration gas mix-tures required under paragraph 2.1, Per-formance Specification 2 of Appendix B,and for calibration checks under § 60.13(d), shall be'sulfur dioxide.

(b) Two-hour average sulfur dioxideconcentrations shall be calculated andrecorded daily for the twelve consecutive2-hour periods of each operating day.Each two-hour average shall be deter-mined as the arithmetic mean of the ap-propriate two contiguous one-hour aver-age sulfur dioxide concentrations pro-vided by the continuous monitoring sys-tem installed under paragraph (a) ofthis section.

(c) For the purpose of reports requiredunder § 60.7(c), periods of excess emis-sions that shall be reported are definedas follows:

(1) Opacity. Any six-minute periodduring which the average opacity, asmeasured by the continuous monitoringsystem installed under paragraph (a) ofthis section, exceeds the standard under§ 60.174(a).

(2) Sulfur dioxide. Any two-hour pe-riod, as described in paragraph (b) ofthis section, during which the averageemissions of sulfur dioxide, bs measured

by the continuous monitoring system In-stalled under paragraph (a) of this sec-tion, exceeds the standard under § 60.173.§ 60.176 Test methods and procedures.

(a) The reference methods in Appen-dix A to this part, except as provided forin § 60.8(b), shall be used to determinecompliance with the standards pre-scribed in §§ 60.172, 60.173 and 60.174 asfollows:

(1) Method 5 for the concentration ofparticulate matter and the associatedmoisture content.

(2) Sulfur dioxide concentrations shallbe determined using the continuousmonitoring system installed in accord-ance with § 60.175(a). One 2-hour aver-age period shall constitute one run.

(b) For Method 5, Method 1 shall beused for selecting the sampling site andthe number of traverse points, Method 2for determining velocity and volumetricflow rate and Method 3 for determining

-the gas analysis. The sampling time foreach run shall be at least 60 minutes andthe minimum sampling volume shall be0.85 dscm (30 dscf) except that smallertimes or volumes, when necessitated byprocess variables or other factors, may beapproved by the Administrator.

Subpart R-Standards of Performance forPrimary Lead Smelters

§ 60.180 Applicability and designationof affected facility.

The provisions of this subpart are ap-plicable to the following affected facili-ties In primary lead smelters: sinteringmachine, sintering machine dischargeend, blast furnace, dross reverberatoryfurnace, electric smelting furnace, andconverter.§ 60.181 Definitions.

As used in this subpart, all terms notdefined herein shall have the meaninggiven them In. the Act and in subpart Aof this part.

(a) "Primary lead smelter' means anyInstallation or any intermediate processengaged in the production of lead fromlead sulfide ore concentrates throughthe use of pyrometallurgical techniques.

(b) "Sintering machine" means anyfurnace in which a lead sulfide ore con-centrate charge is heated in the presenceof air to eliminate sulfur contained inthe charge and to agglomerate thecharge into a hard porous mass called"sinter."

() "Sinter bed" means the lead sulfideore concentrate charge within a sinter-Ing machine.

(d) "Sintering machine discharge eid"means any apparatus which receives sin-ter as It is discharged from the conveyinggrate of a sintering machine.

(e) "Blast furnace" means any reduc-tion furnace to which sinter Is chargedand which forms separate layers ofmolten slag and lead bullion..

(f) "Dross reverberatory furnace"means any furnace used for the removalor refining of impurities from leadbullion.

(g) "Electric smelting furnaca" meansany furnace In which the heat necessaryfor smelting of the lead sulfide ore con-

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 10-THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 1976

RULES AND REGULATIONS

centrate charge is generated by-passingan electric current through a portion ofthe molten mass in the furnace.

(Wi) "Converter" means any vessel -towhich- lead concentrate or bullion Ischarged and refined.

(i) "Sulfuric acid plant" means anyfacility producing sulfuric acid by thecontact process.§ 60.182- Standard for particulate mat-

ter.(a) On and after- the date on which

the performance test required to be con-ducted by § 60.8 is completed, no'owneror operator subject to the provisions ofthis subpart shall cause to be dischargedinto the atmosphere from any blast fur-nace, dross reverberatory furnace, orsintering machine discharge end anygases which contain particulate matterin excess of 59 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf).§ 60.183 Standard for sulfur dioxide.

(a) On and after the date on whichthe performance test required' to be con-ducted by § 60.8 is completed, no owneror operator subject to the provisions ofthis subpart shall cause to be dischargedinto the atmosphere from any sinteringmachine, electric smelting furnace, orconverter gases which contain sulfur di-oxide in excess of 0.065 percent byvolume.§ 60.184 Standard for visible emissions.

(a) On and after the date on whichthe performance test required to be con-ducted by § 60.8 is completed, no owneror operator subject to the provisions ofthis subpart shall cause to be dischargedinto the atmosphere from any blast fur-nace, dross reverberatory furnace, orsintering machine discharge end anyvisible emissions which exhibit greaterthan 20 percent opacity.

(b) On and after the date on whichthe performance test required to be con-ducted by § 60.8 is completed, no owneror operator subject to the provisions ofthis subpart shall cause to be dischargedinto the atmosphere from any affectedfacility that uses a sulfuric acid plant tocomply with the' standard set forth in§ 60.183, any visible emissions whichexhibit greater than 20 percent opacity.

§ 60.185 Monitoring of operations.(a) The owner or operator of any

primary lead smelter subject to the pro-visions of this subpart shall Install andoperate:

(1) A continuous monitoring systemto monitor and record the 'opacity ofgases discharged into the atmospherefrom any blast furnace, dross rever-beratory furnace, or sintering machinedischarge end. The span of this systemshall be set at 80 to 100 percent opacity.

(2) A continuous monitoring systemto monitor and record sulfur dioxideemissions discharged Into the atmos-phere from any sintering machine,electric furnace or converter subject to§ 60.183. The span of this system shallbe set at a sulfur dioxide concentrationof 0.20 percent by volume.

() The continuous monitoring systemperformance evaluation required under§ 60.13(c) shall be completed prior to theinitial performance test required under§ 60.8. During the performance evalua-tion, the span of the continuous moni-toring system may be set at a sulfurdioxide concentration ofr0.15 percent byvolume if necessary to maintain the sys-tem output between 20 percent and 90percent of full scale. Upon completionof the continuous monitoring systemperformance evaluation, the span of thecontinuous monitoring system shall beset at a sulfur dioxide concentration of0.20 percent by volume.

(ii) For the purpose of the continuousmonitoring system performance evalua-tion required under § 60.13(c), the refer-ence method referred to under the FeldTest for Accuracy (Relative) in Per-formance Specification 2 of Appendix Bto this part shall be Reference Method6. For the performance evaluation, eachconcentration measurement shall be ofone hour duration. The pollutant gasesused to prepare the calibration gas mix-tures required under paragraph 2.1, Per-formance Specification 2 of Appendix B,and for calibration checks under § 60.13(d), shall be sulfur dioxide.

(b) Two-hour average sulfur dioxideconcentrations shall be calculated andrecorded daily for the twelve consecu-

tive two-hour periods of each operatingday. Each two-hour average shall be de-termined as the arithmetic mean of theappropriate two contiguous one-houraverage sulfur dioxide concentrationsprovided by the continuous monitoringsystem installed under paragraph (a) ofthis section.

(c) For the purpose of reports re-quired under § 60.7(c), Periods of excessemissions that shall be reported are de-fined as follows:

(1) Opacity. Any six-minute periodduring which the average opacity, asmeasured by the continuous monitoringsystem Installed under paragraph (a) ofthis section, exceeds the standard under

60.184(a).(2) Sulfur dioxide. Any two-hour pe-

riod, as described in paragraph Cb) ofthis section, during which the averageemissions of sulfur dioxide, as measuredby the continuous monitoring system in-stalled under paragraph (a) of this sec-tion, exceeds the standard under § 60.183.§ 60.186 Test methods and procedures.

(a) The reference methods in Appen-dix A to this part, except as provided forin § 60.8(b), shall be used to determinecompliance with the standards pre-scribed in §§ 60.182, 60.183 and 60.184 asfollows:

(1) Method 5 for the concentrationof particulate matter and the associatedmoisture content.

(2) Sulfur dioxide concentrations shallbe determined using the continuousmonitoring system installed in accord-ance with § 60.185(a). One 2-hour aver-age period shall constitute one run.

(b) For Method 5, Method I shall be-used for selecting the sampling site andthe number of traverse points, Method 2for determining velocity and volumetricflow rate and Method 3 for determiningthe gas analysis. The sampling time foreach run shall be at least 60 minutes andthe minimum sampling volume shall be0.85 dscm (30 dscf) except that smallertimes or volumes, when necessitated byprocess variables or other factors, may beapproved by the Administrator.

IFR Doc)76-733 Filed 1-14-76;8:45 aml

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 10-THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 1976

2341