+(,121/,1(

Citation: 51 Fed. Reg. 27955 1986

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Tue Feb 23 11:17:04 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. Monday . August 4, 1986

Part :11

Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 61 National Emission Standards for" Hazardous Air Pollutants; Standards for .Inorganic Arsenic; Final Rule 27956 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ADDRESSES: Background Information supporting the promulgated standards, AGENCY Documents. The background contact Dr. James Crowder, Industrial information documents (BID's) may be Studies Branch, MD-13, U.S. 40 CFR Part 61 obtained from the U.S. EPA Library Environmental Protection Agency, (MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, JAD-FR L-2779-3 1 Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) telephone (919) 541-5601. For 541-2777. Please specify: information on the regulation of National Emission Standards For EPA-450/3-83-Olob Inorganic Arsenic inorganic arsenic emissions and the Hazardous Air Pollutants; Standards Emissions from Primary Copper promulgated standards, contact Mr. For Inorganic Arsenic Smelters and Arsenic Plants- Robert L. Ajax, Standards Development Background Information for Branch. MD-13, U.S. Environmental AGENCY: Environmental Protection Promulgated Standards. Protection Agency, Research Triangle Agency (EPA). EPA-450/3-83-Olb Inorganic Arsenic Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone ACTION: Final rule. Emissions From Glass Manufacturing (919) 541-5578. For information Plants-Background Information for concerning the listing of inorganic SUMMARY: On June 5, 1980, EPA listed Promulgated Standards. arsenic as a hazardous air pollutant, inorganic arsenic as a hazardous air EPA-450/5-85-001 Inorganic Arsenic contact Mr. Robert Kellam, Pollutant pollutant under section 112 of the Clean NESHAP: Responses to Public Assessment Branch, MD-12, U.S. Air Act (48 FR 37886). Standards were Comments on Health, Risk Assessment. Environmental Protection Agency, subsequently proposed for inorganic and Risk Management. Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. arsenic emissions from high-arsenic EPA-450/5-85-002 Inorganic Arsenic telephone (919) 541-5645. primary copper smelters, low-arsenic Risk Assessment for Primary and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The primary copper smelters, and glass Secondary Lead Smelters, Primary Zinc manufacturing plants on July 20, 1983 (48 discussion of the promulgated standards Smelters, Zinc Oxide Plants, Cotton and their basis and the decision not to FR 33112). Additional control measures Gins, and Arsenic Chemical Plants. for high-arsenic primary copper smelters regulate certain source categories is The BID's for the promulgated organized as-follows: and associated arsenic plants were standards each contain: (1) A summary proposed in a December 16, 1983, of all public comments on the proposed 1. Overview Federal Register notice (48 FR 55880) standard, including comments that are 1. Background and additional control options for glass not discussed in this preamble, and 2. Basis for Promulgated Standards 3. Summary of Standards and Actions - manufacturing plants were proposed in EPA's responses to these comments; (2) a March 20, 1984, Federal Register notice It. Risk Management Policy and General a summary of changes to the standard Ilealth Issues (49 FR 10278). This Federal Register since proposal; and (3) the final 1. Health Effects and Listing of Inorganic notice reaffirms the Administrator's. environmental impact statement (EIS), Arsenic decision that inorganic arsenic is a which summarizes the impacts of the 2. Public Exposure and IIcalth Risk hazardous air pollutant and responds to standard. Estimates comments on and promulgates For background information on the 3. Risk Management standards for inorganic arsenic health effects and carcinogenicity of III. Primary Copper Smelters emissions from primary copper smelters, inorganic arsenic, please refer to 1. Summary of Promulgated Standard 2. Summary of Environmental. Health, glass manufacturing plants, and arsenic "Health Assessment Document for plants. Energy, and Economic Impacts Inorganic Arsenic," EPA-60018-83-021F. 3. Significant Changes Since Proposal Six other categories of sources This document also may be obtained at 4. Additional Analyses emitting inorganic arsenic were also the above address. 5. Basis for Standard identified and discussed in the July 20, Dockets. Dockets containing 6. Discussion of Comments 1983, Federal Register notice: primary supporting information considered in 7..Impacts of Reporting and Recordkeeping lead smelters, secondary lead smelters, developing the promulgated standards Requirements primary zinc smelters, zinc oxide plants, are available for public inspection and IV. Class Manufacturing Plants cotton gins, and arsenic chemical copying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. 1. Summary of Promulgated Standard 2. Summary of Environmental, I lealth, manufacturing plants. This Federal. Monday through Friday, at EPA's Energy, and Economic Impacts Register notice responds to comments Central Docket Section, West Tower 3. Significant Changes Since Proposal on the decision that standards for these Lobby, Gallery 1, Waterside Mall, 401 M 4. Additional Analyses sources were not warranted and Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. A 5. Basis for Standard reaffirms the Administrator's decision reasonable fee may be charged for 6. Discussion of Comments not to regulate these sources. copying. The following dockets are 7. Impacts of Reporting and Recordkeeping available. Requirements EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4, 1986. Under V. Arsenic Trioxide and Metallic Arsenic section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, OAQPS-79.-8 Listing of arsenic as a Production Facilities judicial review of the actions taken by hazardous pollutant 1. Summary of Promulgated Standard this notice is available only by filing a A-80-40 High-arsenic and low-arsenic 2. Summary of Environmental, Health. petition for review in the United States copper smelters Energy, and Economic Impacts Court of Appeals for the District of A-83-8 Glass manufacturing plants 3. Significant Changes Since Proposal Columbia circuit within 60 days of A-83--9 Secondary lead 4. Additional Analyses today's publication of this notice. Under A-83-10 Cotton gins 5. Basis for Standard section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act, A-83-11 Zinc oxide plants 6. Discussion of Comments the requirements that are the subject of A-83-23 Primary zinc, primary lead. 7. Impacts of Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements today's notice may not-be challenged arsenic chemical manufacturing. VI. Negative Determinations later in civil or criminal proceedings FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Summary of Decisions brought by EPA to enforce these For. further information concerning the 2. Significant Changes Since Proposal requirements. background technical 'information 3. Additional Analyses Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 27957

4. Basis for Decisions categories was not warranted. These significantly, but the actual 5. Discussion of Comments sources are primary lead smelters, configuration of the facilities was not VII. Miscellaneous secondary lead smelters, primary zinc specified. Therefore, EPA is 1. Docket smelters, zinc oxide plants, cotton gins, promulgating the proposed standard for 2. Reporting and Recordkeeping sources at arsenic 3. Executive Order 12291 and arsenic chemical manufacturing fugitive emission 4. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis plants. During the consideration of plants. This standard is being 5. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification public comments on the proposed established as Subpart P. The only actions, new information on emissions existing arsenic plant is the ASARCO The Overview section presents a brief and costs as well as new regulatory arsenic plant at Tacoma, Washington. summary of the basis for the standards approaches were published for public while and a summary of the standards, comment. Specifically, on December 16, Public Participation present the sections on the standards 1983, EPA proposed in the Federal The To provide interested persons an more detailed discussions. Register (48 FR 55880) for comment. discussion of the risk management opportunity to comment on the proposed additional controls for fugitive emission standards, public hearings were held on policy and health issues presented in the sources at high-arsenic primary copper part of this preamble is limited November 2, 3, and 4, 1983, in Tacoma, second smelters and any associated arsenic to issues generally applicable to the Washington, and on November 8, 1983, plant. The comment period for the in Washington, DC. Both hearings were actions. Policy and health issues specific proposed standard on glass to individual source categories are open to the public, and each attendee manufacturing plants was reopened on was given an opportunity to comment on presented as part of the specific March 20, 1984, (49 FR 10278) to take discussion on the standard. the proposed standards and the negative public comment on proposed options for determinations. During the various I. Overview controlling emissions from furnaces public comment periods, about 800 producing soda-lime glass and the letters were received on the proposed Background production method for calculating zero standards for high-and low-arsenic In 1977, Congress amended the Clean On September 20, 1984, the offsets. copper smelters. 24 letters were airborne comment period was reopened to primary: Air Act (the Act] to address public received on the proposed standard for emissions of arsenic. Section 122'of the cost and take comments on the -revised glass plants, and 11 letters were the Administrator of EPA - Act required emission estimates for low-arsenic received on the listing of inorganic to determine whether or not emissions primary copper smelters (49 FR 36877). arsenic and the negative determinations. of arsenic into the ambient air will The public comment period on this last cause, or contribute to, air pollution Federal Register notice closed on Most of the commenters made multiple which may reasonably.be anticipated to November 5, 1984. comments,'and many repeated endanger public health. On June 5, 1980, At the time of proposal, the standard comments made in other letters or by EPA published a Federal Register notice proposed for high-arsenic primary other commenters. All comments were listing inorganic arsenic as a hazardous copper smelters affected only the carefully considered and, where air pollutant under section 112 of the Act smelter owned and operated by determined to-be appropriate by EPA, (44 FR 37886). ASARCO, Incorporated, located in have served as the basis for changes Concurrent with the decision to list Tacoma, Washington. On June 27,1984, made to the proposed standards. inorganic arsenic as a hazardous- air ASARCO announced plans to close its (Comments received on the proposed pollutant, EPA began a series of studies primary-copper smelting' operations :at standard for high-arsenic primary of the sources of inorganic arsenic Tacoma, Washington, by June 30,1985; copper smelters that are also pertinent emissions. The purpose of the earliest and subsequehtly ceased copper to the proposed standard for low-arsenic studies in the series was to identify smelting operations at Tacoma. Because smelters were considered in the which types of sources merited more of ASARCO's action, EPA is development of the final standard for detailed study toward possible withholding further action on'the primary copper smelters.) Major regulation, and the purpose of the final proposed standard for existing high- comments and EPA's consideration of studies in the series was to develop the arsenic primary copper smelters. The the issues- presented for each standard detailed information needed to support EPA will continue to monitor ASARCO's are discussed in the appropriate section the proposal of standards. The EPA actions and will reconsider-the need for of this preamble. Additional comments. Administrator was sued by the State of a separate standard applicable to and the detailed analyses conducted for New York, and was subsequently existing high-arsenic smelters if there is responses to-some issues are presented ordered on January 12, 1983, by the evidence that ASARCO-Tacoma will in the BID's for the promulgated United States District Court for the resume copper smelting operations. standards (see Addresses section). All Southern District of New York, to However, even in the absence of a commenters on the proposed standards publish proposed emission standards for - specific high-arsenic smelter standard, are identified in the appropriate BID's. inorganic arsenic by July 11, 1983, New the standard being promulgated today Standards York v. Gorsuch, 554 F. Supp. 1060, 1066 would apply to the Tacoma'smelter if- Basis ForPromulgated (S.D.N.Y. 1983]. copper smelting -operations were to Risk Management Approach On July 11, 1983, EPA proposed resume. Today's standard is applicable standards (48 FR 33112, July 20, 1983] for to all existing and any new primary For carcinogenic hazardous inorganic arsenic emissions from the copper smelters. pollutants, including inorganic arsenic, - following source categories: High- In the announcement of closure of the health effects thresholds.have not been arsenic primary copper smelters, low- primary-copper smelter at Tacoma; clearly demonstrated and, in the view of arsenic primary copper smelters, and ASARCO also stated that it-will a number of researchers, may not exist. glass manufacturing plants. The EPA continue to operate the arsenic trioxide The absence of identifiable thresholds also identified other categories of and metallic arsenic plants at the site. suggests that-for carcinogens any level sources which emitted inorganic arsenic; ASARCO also indicated that the of control short-of-an absolute ban on but, after careful study, determined that operations at the arsenic plants.would emissions may pose finite health risks. proposal of standards for these source be modified to reduce-emissions - For many of thesubstances considered- 27958 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations for regulation under section 112, such a can reasonably be expected after EPA in the linear, nonthreshold model is ban would produce severe economic considering the uncertainties in the called the unit risk factor. The unit risk disruption if not closure of the emitting analysis, the residual risks remaining factor for an air pollutant is defined as industries. after the application of the selected the excess cancer risk associated with a Section 112 of the Act requires EPA to control level, the costs of further control, lifetime of exposure (70 years) to an establish emission standards for and the societal and other average concentration of 1 microgram hazardous air pollutants that protect environmental impacts of the regulation. per cubic meter (1 Ag/m 3) of the public health with an "ample margin of In the consideration of the factors, no pollutant in the air. For inorganic safety." In interpreting this language for one factor is consistently overriding and arsenic, the unit risk estimate is based the purposes of regulatory development, the deciding factor will'vary among on EPA's analysis of five sets of the EPA does not believe that the word source categories. In summary, there is latest smelter worker epidemiological "safety" implies a total absence of risk. no rigid formula to decide whether to data collected by four researchers at Many activities involve some risk, but regulate a source category or decide the two smelters. Based on this analysis, are not considered "unsafe." In the' appropriate level of control; rather, a EPA has revised the unit risk estimate Administrator's view, standards under more flexible approach is used to weigh used in the proposed regulations from section 112 should protect against the effects of regulation in a given • 0.00295 to 0.00429 per jLg/m 3, a 40- significant public health risks. See situation. The Administrator believes percent increase. The linear Industrial Union Department,AFL-CIO that this flexibility is necessary to nonthreshold risk extrapolation model is v. American PetroleumInstitute, 448 U.S establish the appropriate level of believed to produce plausible upper- 607, 642 (1980]; Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 541 control. bound estimates of risk since other F. 2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1976), cert. den. 426 Risk Assessment Methodology plausible risk models give lower risk U.S. 941 (1976); H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, estimates. When the projected lifetime 95th Congress, 1st Sess. 43-51 (1977). In reaching a decision on the ample public exposure to inorganic arsenic In establishing an appropriate level of margin of safety required by section 112 approaches 1 pg/m 3, the public exposure control for carcinogens, the of the Act, the Administrator considers also approaches the range of Administrator views the objective as a the nature and relative magnitude of the occupational exposure as measured by judgment of the extent to which the health hazards posed by the pollutant in some epidemiological studies. In this question. The EPA has estimated public high range of exposure, the difference estimated health risks must be reduced health risks as a result of population before the degree of control can be between models is less and the risk exposure to inorganic arsenic emissions' estimate is more accurate. At lower considered amply protective. Two from a number of source categories. choices are available:.either the levels of inorganic arsenic emission standards must be set at zero Although uncertainties are associated concentrations where most of the public with the data and the estimating exposure occurs, the Agency believes to eliminate the attributable health risks procedure, the Administrator believes or some residual risk must be permitted. that the risk model generally produces that these quantitative expressions of upper-bound but plausible risk In the absence of specific direction on risk serve a purpose as a health-baged estimates, if the exposure is accurately this choice in section 112 and in measurement tool facilitating ' . recognition of the drastic economic comparison of pollutants, source's, and known. consequences that could follow a emission controls, and that when used The unit risk factor is one of two requirement to eliminate all risk from appropriately, such quantitative elements required in the estimation of hazardous pollutant emissions, the EPA expressions of risk play an important public health risks. The second required believes that it is not the intent of this role in decisionmaking. element is the estimation of public sectionto eliminate totally all risks and In developing the exposure/risk exposu're, i.e., the number of people that section 112 standards which permit relationship for inorganic arsenic, EPA exposed and the concentrations of' some level of residual risk can be has assumed that a linear,. nonthreshold inorganic arsenic to which they are considered to provide an ample margin model appropriately describes the exposed. To estimate public exposure, of safety to protect public health. relationship between inorganic arsenic EPA uses computer models that The EPA's strategy for risk exposure and the risk of contracting calculate: (1)Nearby ambient management under section 112 first lung cancer. This relationship, -concentration profiles that occur due to provides for the identification of source calculated from 'studies of the source's emissions, and (2) the categories that may pose significant occupationally exposed workers who location and number of people exposed risks to public health as a result of air have been subjected to relatively.high to the arsenic concentrations. Arsenic emissions. Next, the Agency performs exposures, is also assumed to describe concentration profiles are estimated an assessment of candidate'source mathematically the exposure/risk through the use of atmospheric categories to evaluate current control relationship at lower levels more dispersion models. Plants are located by levels and associated health risks,.future characteristic of public exposure. The latitude and longitude, and then or ongoing. emissions reductions from nonthreshold assumption implies that estimated or measured emissions data other regulatory activities (e.g., State any nonzero exposure to inorganic are supplied along with other plant Implementation Plans (SIP's) and arsenic poses some finite cancer risk. As parameters and local prevailing weather Occupational Safety and Health described more fully in Part II, Risk patterns as inputs to the computer Administration [OSHA] standards), the Management Policy and General Health model to estimate ambient air availability of more stringent options Issues, of this preamble, EPA has concentrations within a specified such as further controls or process concluded that the assumptions of distance from the source. When data are modifications, and the costs and. linearity and the absence of thresholds available and where feasible, the economic impacts associated with each are reasonable and prudent for the Agency compares the predicted option. Based on this assessment, the protection of public health in light pf concentrations to the measured Administrator selects a level of control presently available information.. , concentrations, and adjustments are which. in his judgment, reduces the The numerical constant that defines .made in the exposure estimates to health risks to the greatest extent that ,the exposure/risk relationshiptised:by reflect more closely the measur.d Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 27959 concentrations. The number and data on emission rates; atmospheric Compliance with the particulate location of people exposed are derived dispersion patterns and population matter emission limit will be determined from 1980 census data broken down into concentrations around individual using EPA Reference Method 5. The clusters called individual block group sources; and lack of information on average annual arsenic charging rate to and enumeration districts that are short-term and long-term movement the converters will be determined using located within the assessment area. (migration) of people and indoor versus monthly average weight percent arsenic By combining the population data outdoor toxic air pollutant concentration in feed materials and the charging rates. with predicted concentrations, the patterns. Finally, there are uncertainties The weight percent arsenic in feed computer model estimates exposure at concerning possible additive effects of materials will be determined using selected distances from the source and multiple sources or pollutants, Method 108A. Continuous monitoring of sums the exposure estimates. As used in synergistic or antagonistic health the opacity of gases exiting the control this notice, the term "exposure" refers to effects, and heightened susceptibilities device and of the airflow through the the product of the estimated ambient air to some cancers by some population converter secondary hood is required to concentration of inorganic arsenic and groups. ensure proper operation and the estimated number of people exposed In view of this, EPA took a number of maintenance of the system. The is to that concentration. Exposure ' actions. Where better data were reporting requirements of the standard in units of -people-jtg/m$. expressed available and more detailed study was include: (1) Annual reports of average The modeled concentrations and feasible, EPA performed a limited inorganic arsenic charging rate to the exposure estimates are combined to number of more sophisticated site- converters; (2) quarterly reports of produce two measures of health risk: 80 "annual incidence" and "maximum specific air dispersion analyses that airflows less than percent of the consider local meteorology and terrain reference flow rate; and [3) quarterly risk." "Annual incidence" lifetime features. Also. EPA used measured reports of excess opacity levels. represents the aggregate number of ambient arsenic data to confirm the cancer cases that may occur in the Glass Manufacturing Plants population residing within a specified concentration profiles predicted by the distance from plant or plants. This risk air dispersion analysis and reviewed The standard applies to each glass reflects the average number of cases community epidemiology studies to manufacturing furnace that uses that would be expected each year in the check the risk asscssment projections. commercial arsenic as a raw material. exposed population based on predicted The Administrator has considered the. The standard for existing glass exposure, "Maximum lifetime risk" uncertainties of the analysis and the risk manufacturing furnaces requires the represents the probability of contracting assessment methodology and has owner or operator to either: (1)Limit cancer for those individuals assumed to concluded that the calculated risks for uncontrolled arsenic emissions to 2.5 be exposed for a lifetime to the highest inorganic arsenic exposure represent the megagrams (Mg) (2.75 tons) per year, or measured or predicted average best estimates of the actual-health risks less, or (2) reduce total arsenic concentration. that the Agency can generate within the emissions'by 85 percent. New or Due to the highly complex interactions available resources. modified glass furnaces must keep emissions below between individuals and airborne Summary of Standards and Actions uncontrolled arsenic arsenic, EPA has made a number of 0.4 Mg (0.44 tons) per year or reduce simplifying assumptions in estimating Primary Copper Smelters emissions by 85 percent. inorganic arsenic health risks. Major The standard applies to all existing Compliance with the emission limit assumptions of the exposure model are Method 108 and new primary copper smelters. The will be determined using that individuals remain in the vicinity of unless the furnace is exempted. Existing their residences for a lifetime, are standard requires monitoring,. recordkeeping, and reporting of the furnaces are exemptfr6m the emission exposed for that period to the predicted test requirement if less than 8.0 Mg (8.8 concentrations, and are equally as average annual inorganic arsenic feed rate to converters. For all affected tons) of arsenic is added to the furnace susceptible .to contracting cancer as annually, and new or modified furnaces occupationally exposed individuals. primary copper smelters with average annual arsenic feed rates to the are exempt if less than 1.0 Mg (1.1 tons) Also, site-specific factors such as the of arsenic is added annually; and the plant's emissions are, for calculation converters greater than 75 kilograms per hour (kg/h) (164 pounds/h Jlb/h]), the owner or operator can demonstrate purposes, assumed to remain constant through a material balance that the In addition, two standard requires capture and collection over a lifetime. applicable emission limit is being. met. simplifying assumptions generally have of secondary inorganic arsenic emissions from converters. The standard The standard also requires continuous been used in the air dispersion modeling monitoring of the temperature of the gas available is expressed in terms of equipment and analysis: That the readily entering the control device and of the meteorological data at the site nearest design specifications and work practices opacity of the gas discharged to the of the local for the capture system and a maximum the plant are representative atmosphere from the control device. The meteorology and that the terrain allowable particulate emission limit for the control device. The required reporting requirements of the standard surrounding the plant is relatively flat. of There are also numerous uncertainties equipment consists of a secondary hood include: (1) Semiannual reports at in the analysis. For example, scientific system, the principal components of occurrences of excess opacity subject to the 85 percent uncertainties not resolved to date which are a hood enclosure, a horizontal facilities include the amount of overestimation of air. curtain, fans, and auxiliary reduction emission limit, and (2) the true risk in the use of the linear equipment. The standard limits semiannual reports of occurrences of nonthreshold model in extrapolating emissions from the control device to 11.6 uncontrolled emission rates greater than from high-dose occupational exposure to milligrams of particulate per dry 2.5 Mg (2.75-tons) per year at existing low-dose public exposure at ambient air standard cubic meter of exhaust gas furnaces and greater than 0.4 Mg (0.44 concentrations. There also is (mg/dscm) (0.005 grains per dry tons) per year at new or modified uncertainty with exposure estimates standard cubic foot of exhaust gas [gr/ furnaces at facilities subject to those because of difficulty in obtaining precise dscf]). limits. 27960 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

Arsenic Trioxide and Metallic Arsenic Health Effects and the Listing of Also referenced by these commenters Plants Inorganic Arsenic were several community studies, such as The standard applies to facilities A fundamental element in this Frost, et al., that did not detect any . recovering arsenic trioxide from low rulemaking is the Administrator's increases of lung cancer in the primary grade arsenic bearing materials by a conclusion that inorganic arsenic is a community near the ASARCO copper smelter in Tacoma, Washington. roasting-condensation process hazardous air pollutant and the decision and to These commenters agreed with the metallic on June 5, 1980, to list inorganic arsenic arsenic plants. The standard Administrator's finding that there is a requires the owner or operator to under section 112 of the Act (45 FR 37885]. After a substance is listed as a high probability that inorganic arsenic is develop a detailed inspection, carcinogenic to humans at high levels of maintenance, hazardous air pollutant, section 112 and housekeeping plan requires exposure, but they felt that there are that will be used the Administrator to subject the to minimize fugitive listing decision to public review either no risks or insignificant risks emissions; to take steps to minimize following the proposal of the emission associated with the lower levels of emissions during malfunctions and standards to determine if "such public exposure to inorganic arsenic upsets; and to monitor ambient pollutant is clearly not a hazardous air emissions. concentrations of inorganic arsenic near pollutant" (section 112(b](1)(B]). Thus, in The Administrator stated at the time the plants. the July 20, 1983, proposal the Agency of proposal, and many commenters Compliance with the standard will be specifically requested comments on the agreed, that there are uncertainties in determined by the development of an listing decision and the Administrator's the health data base and EPA's risk approvable plan and implementation of judgment that inorganic arsenic is a assessment and that a significant public that plan. Continuous monitoring of the hazardous air pollutant. Of those who health risk in the general community has opacity of gases exiting from the control responded to this request, the majority not been absolutely proven. But, neither device is required to ensure proper of commenters expressed support for the Act nor prudent public health' operation and maintenance of the EPA's decision to list inorganic arsenic protection policy requires absolute proof control device. The regulation also as a hazardous air pollutant and to of health risks before the Agency requires continued operation and require standards to protect public invokes its authority to act under maintenance of existing ambient health. However, there were a number section 112. monitoring systems for arsenic in the of commenters who disagreed with the When the decision to propose vicinity of the arsenic plants. Reporting listing decision. Most of their arguments inorganic arsenic standards was made, requirements of the standard include: (1) fell into the following two categories. the Administrator was aware, via an Quarterly reports of occurrences of One group of commenters called for extensively updated draft document the Administrator entitled "Health Assessment Document excess opacity; (2] quarterly reports of to act under section ambient concentrations of arsenic 112 only when there is an absolute for Inorganic Arsenic" (EPA-600/8-83- certainty that inorganic arsenic 021), of the issues and the data monitored near the facility; and (3] is a human carcinogen and when there is a subsequently presented by many of the semiannual reports on pilot plant clear association between inorganic dissenting commenters. This draft studies on alternative arsenic trioxide arsenic emissions and lung cancer. For document presented, on balance, a production technologies. instance, these commenters noted that strong case for inorganic arsenic being a Negative Determinations inorganic arsenic is not a proven animal human carcinogen. In September 1983, carcinogen, and in fact, low levels of the Science Advisory Board (SAB), an At proposal, EPA identified several inorganic arsenic appear to be a advisory group of nationally prominent inorganic arsenic source categories for nutritional requirement for certain scientists from outside EPA, reviewed which standards were not warranted. animals. Also, several commenters the document in a public meeting. The After consideration of public comments stated that the mutagenic potency-of SAB subsequently concurred with the on these negative determinations, the inorganic arsenic is weak or negligible report's conclusion that the weight of Administrator is reaffirming his decision when compared to other known metal evidence places inorganic arsenic in a not to regulate these sources at this mutagens and that this, therefore, casts group of pollutants that are time. The primary reasons for this some doubt on inorganic arsenic being characterized as "carcinogenic to decision are that the estimated health classified as a human carcinogen. There humans." This conclusion is based on risks are small; and additional emission also were flaws, a few commenters said, two general observations. First, reduction either can be achieved only in the occupational studies on which associations between cancer and through closure or will impose control EPA's listing decision was based. inorganic arsenic exposure have been costs that are likely to result in closure, Another set of commenters felt that a demonstrated in several different or are excessive compared to any small reasonable link had been established occupational settings, such as copper possible health benefit that might result. between the high levels of inorganic smelters, pesticide manufacturing, and arsenic exposure and increased lung agricultural work, and in II. Risk Management Policy and General cancer rates. But, they pointed out that nonoccupational populations using Health Issues certain studies, such as those of Higgins, arsenical drugs on consuming arsenic- et al., indicate the existence of a cancer This part of the preamble presents a contaminated drinking water and/or threshold, i.e., a certain level of food. Second, the results from several discussion of comments on health inorganic arsenic exposure below which human studies have consistently effects of inorganic arsenic and the risk no carcinogenic effect was observed in demonstrated the same study findings, management policy that apply to all those exposed. Furthermore, they noted that is, the same high relative risks, and categories considered in the July 20, that the apparent inorganic arsenic specificity of tumor sites (skin and 1983, notice. Health and risk issues that threshold level (as suggested by Higgins, lungs]. The EPA has now published pertain only to one source category are et aL) is well above the measured or these conclusions-in the-final health presented in the discussion on the estimated public exposure levels near document (EPA-600/8-83-021F], which specific source category. any of the inorganic arsenic sources. can be obtained from EPA at the Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 27961 address given in the Addresses section various inorganic compounds of arsenic carcinogenicity of inorganic arsenic, of this preamble. have been tested for mutagenicity in a questioned the assumption that Others have made similar findings variety of systems ranging in complexity ,inorganic arsenic poses some finite lung regarding inorganic arsenic's from bacteria to lymphocytes in the cancer risk at low levels of exposure. carcinogenicity. Widely respected blood of exposed human beings. They felt that several scientific studies scientific groups such as the National Although much of the data are had shown that there was a threshold or Cancer Institute (NCI), the National contradictory, the weight of evidence level of exposure below which increased Academy of Sciences (NAS), and the supports the following conclusions: cancer, risks are nonexistent. The EPA International Agency for Res*earch on 1. Arsenic is either inactive or recognized at the time of listing that Cancer (IARC) have concluded that extremely weak for the induction of epidemiological studies had not proven there is sufficient evidence to conclude gene mutations in cell cultures. that exposure to inorganic arsenic at that inorganic arsenic is carcinogenic to 2. Arsenic causes chromosomal ambient levels causes cancers. humans. In addition, the OSHA also breakage and induces sister chromatid Epidemiological methods that have recently reviewed the substantial body exchanges, an indicator of chromosomal successfully revealed associations of evidence and concluded that damage, in a variety of cell types, between occupational exposure and inorganic arsenic "is clearly a human including human cell cultures. cancer for inorganic arsenic are not as carcinogen" (43 FR 19584). 3. Arsenic does not appear to induce easily applied to the public sector, with The EPA health document indicates chromosome aberrations in its increased number of confounding that consistent demonstration of experimental animals (one available variables, much more diverse and inorganic arsenic as an animal study). mobile exposed population, lack of carcinogen, using different chemical 4. Several studies suggest that human consolidated medical records, much forms, routes of exposure, and various beings exposed to arsenic demonstrate lower exposures, and almost total experimental species. has not been higher frequencies of sister chromatid absence of historical exposure data. observed. However, recent data indicate exchanges and chromosomal Given the above characteristics, EPA that lung tumorigenicity and possibly aberrations in blood lymphocytes; considers it improbable that any carcinogenicity can be demonstrated in however, the quality of these studies is community epidemiological association animals if the retention of inorganic generally poor. with arsenic exposure, short of very arsenic in the lung is increased. The 5. Arsenic may affect DNA by the large increases in cancer or very additional observations reported from inhibition of DNA repair processes or by unusual pathology, can be detected with two laboratories that calcium arsenate its occasional substitution for any reasonable certainty. The NAS is only slowly cleared from the lung phosphorus in the DNA structure. noted that in considering the possibility suggest that this agent may be Although the data do not present a clear of thresholdsfor carcinogenesis, it is carcinogenic. Upon review of the 'picture, inorganic arsenic may be a important to understand that there is no available data and the public comments, weak or inactive gene mutagen with the agent, chemical or physical, that induces the Administrator has concluded that potential to cause chromosomal changes a form of cancer in man that does not the data do not clearly demonstrate the in human beings. The Administrator occur in the absence of that agent. In lack of carcinogenicity of inorganic cannot conclude, based on the available other words. arsenic in animals. data, that inorganic arsenic is clearly a The possible nutritional value of nonmutagen in humans, as some ....when there is exposure to a material, inorganic arsenic was mentioned by commenters have suggested. we are not starting at an origin of zero commenters in support of the idea that The information the commenters have cancers. Nor are we starting at an origin of presented is indirect evidence for the zero carcinogenic agents in our environment. at low levels inorganic arsenic is Thus, it is likely that any carcinogenic agent beneficial to humans. That inorganic case of inorganic arsenic not being a added to the environment will act by a arsenic appears to be an essential human carcinogen, and when closely particular mechanism on a particular cell element in small quantities in certain studied is inconclusive as evidence to population that is already being icted on by animal species is based on a number of refute the Administrator's findings. On the same mechanism to induce cancer. detrimental effects noted by several the other hand, a number of independent researchers when administering arsenic- occupational studies provide direct In discussing experimental dose- deprived diets to rats, goats, chicks, and evidence of inorganic arsenic's response curves, the NAS observed that guinea pigs. However, EPA's review of carcinogenicity in humans. As most information on carcinogenesis is the literature and the public comments commenters pointed out, each study derived from studies on ionizing found no data which support the view contains flaws and EPA carefully radiation with experimental animals that inorganic arsenic is beneficial to reviewed the comments regarding those and with humans, which indicate a such animals when inhaled or deposited flaws. But, the collective documentation linear, nonthreshold dose-response in the trachea, and EPA is unaware of in the human health data base, which relationship at low doses. They added any data that demonstrate the demonstrates in several different that although some evidence exists for essentiality of inorganic arsenic in man. occupational settings the same study thresholds in some animal tissues, by Many researchers have noted that a findings, the same high relative risks, and large thresholds have not been number of probable carcinogens have and the same specificity of tumor sites, established for most tissues. The NAS also been shown to be probable overwhelms the flaws in each individual concluded that establishing such low- mutagens as well, and have linked the occupational study and the inconclusive, dose thresholds would require large- two responses together. Commenters, in indirect data from the animal studies. scale experiments and recognized that applying this association in reverse, On balance, the Administrator the U.S. population is a genetically pointed to inorganic arsenic's weakness concludes, after reviewing the public heterogeneous group exposed to a large in producing mutagenic responses in comments and the available data, that variety of toxic agents. This-fact, numerous test systems as supporting a inorganic arsenic is a human carcinogen. coupled with the known genetic conclusion that inorganic arsenic is not The second set of cominenters, variability to carcinogenesis and the carcinogenic. The EPA's final health although agreeing with the predisposition of some individuals to assessment document points out that Administrator's findings regarding the some form of cancer, makes it extremely 27962 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and .Regulations difficult, if not impossible, to identify a completed during the public comment green), and sodium arsenite. An increase threshold. period, many of these studies identified in lung cancer was seen in the census For these reasons, EPA has taken the by the respondents were already tract containing the plant in the years position, shared by other Federal mentioned in EPA's draft health 1966-1974 in males only. No increase regulatory agencies, that in the absence assessment document and had been was seen in an earlier time period (1958- of sound scientific evidence to the considered by the Agency. The 1962]. Removing plant workers from the contrary, carcinogens should be following section provides a summary of high lung cancer census tract did not considered to pose some cancer risk at the known community studies that eliminate the high male lung cancer any exposure level. This nonthreshold consider arsenic exposure. mortality rate. assumption is based on the view that as 1. Blot and Fraumeni,1975 Lung 7. Polissar,et al., 1979 Lung cancer little as one molecule of a carcinogenic cancer mortality was shown to be mortality by census tract was examined substance may be sufficient to transform significantly higher among males and around the Tacoma, Washington, copper a normal cell into a cancer cell. females in 36 U.S. counties with copper, smelter. The distance of the census tract Evidence is available from both the lead, and zinc smelters and refineries from the smelter, and the concentration human and animal health literature that than in the rest of the U.S. counties. The of sulfur dioxide over background for cancers may arise from a single increase, corrected for demographic each census tract were used as a transformed cell. Mutation research variables, was 17 percent for males and surrogate for arsenic exposure data. with ionizing radiation in cell cultures 15 percent for females over the years There was no excess risk of lung cancer indicates that such a transformation can 1950-1969. for persons living near the smelter. occur as the result of interaction with as 2. Lyon, et al., 1977 Using a population 8. Hartley,et al., 1982 Lung cancer little as a single cluster of ion pairs; In based cancer registry, addresses at mortality in the 35 census tracts in reviewing the available data and the diagnosis of lung cancer cases were Tacoma, Washington, was examined for public comments regarding compared to malignant lymphoma the 21 years 1950-1970, using the death carcinogenicity, EPA found no controls to assess the possible certificate address for assignment to compelling scientific reason to abandon carcinogenic effect of the Salt Lake City census tract. Lung cancer mortality was the nonthreshold presumption for copper smelter. The distribution of no higher in the census tracts near the inorganic arsenic. distances from the smelter of lung smelter than in those farther away. In support for the existence of an cancer cases and lymphoma controls 9. Milham, et al., 1982 Class rosters of inorganic arsenic threshold, several was similar. children enrolled at the Ruston commenters cited community studies 3. Rom, et al., 1982 Using the same elementary school (91m [100 yards) from that did not demonstrate a link between methodology as Lyon, et al., lung cancer the Tacoma, Washington, smelter) were increased lung cancer risks and arsenic cases around the El Paso, Texas, smelter examined. A cohort of 283 children who exposure. For instance, Dr. Frost of the were shown to have the same distance were enrolled for three or more years Washington State Department of Social distribution from the smelter as breast during the years 1900-1919 was and Health Services (DSHS} forwarded and prostate cancer controls. developed. Surviving cohort members to EPA a recently completed community 4. Greaves, et al., 1981 Greaves, using were contacted and death records were study that provided new data on women the same methods as Lyon, et al. and obtained for decedent members. Using who have died in Pierce County from Rom, et al., studied the distances of life table comparisons, mortality of men 1935 through 1969. The Frost, et al., residences at diagnosis, or death, of lung in this cohort was shown to be analysis showed that all three study cancer cases and controls (prostate, favorable (more survivors to 1980 than areas near the ASARCO primary copper colon, and breast cancers) from the ten expected). It also did not appear that smelter in Tacoma, Washington had primary copper smelters and one lead- lung cancer was increased in the male mortality rates that were slightly less zinc smelter. The distance distribution cohort (1 lung cancer death among 20 for than the U.S. white-female lung cancer of lung cancer was not significantly whom death certificates were obtained). rates, even though these women were different from the distribution of the Forty percent of the men in this cohort living near a very large inorganic control cancers in any of the areas were employed at the smelter at some arsenic source in the U.S. Unfortunately, studied. time. this kind of study cannot directly 5. Pershagen,et al., 1977 Mortality in 10. Newman, et al., 1976 Although this quantify the female lung cancer rates for the region around the Ronnskar smelter was primarily a study of lung cancercell people who had lived in the study areas in northern Sweden was studied. The type in two Montana copper mining and without inorganic arsenic exposure (i.e., population residing within 15 kilometers smelting counties, it demonstrated an there is no control group) and, therefore, (kin) (9 miles) of the smelter was increase in lung cancer incidence in such studies do not provide a clear compared to the population residing 200 both men and women in the towns of demonstration of the absence of km (124 miles) away. The lung cancer Butte and Anaconda, but the same increased cancer risks in an exposed mortality in the exposed population increase was not seen in the counties as population in relation to a similar but (<15 km) was significantly different in a whole. unexposed population. However, the comparison to national rates. When the In addition, there were a number of Frost, et al., study does provide an occupationally exposed cases are community morbidity studies referenced indication that the ASARCO emissions removed, the lung cancer standard by commenters. have not been causing an epidemic of mortality ratio was reduced and was no 1. Milham and Strong, 1974 In the lung cancers in the communities longer statistically significantly different population around the Tacoma smelter, surrounding the smelter and that EPA than the comparison population. children were shown to have increased has not grossly underestimated public 6. Matinoski,et al., 1976 Cancer levels of arsenic in hair and urine. risks. mortality reported on death certificates Urinary arsenic decreased with distance Several other community studies with was studied in census tracts in from the smelter. Mean urinary arsenic both "positive" and "negative" results Baltimore around a chemical plant for children living within 0.8 km (0.5) were mentioned by commenters. Except producing calcium and lead arsenate, miles of the smelter was 0.30 ppm (parts for the Frost, et al., study which was arsenic acid, cupric aceto-arsenite (Paris per million) (normal 0.014). Vacuum Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 279632 cleaner dust and attic dust contained The second shortcoming of community represented sources of uncertainty. A over 1000 ppm of arsenic. studies is that negative study results do few commenters recommended that 1980 2. Morse, et al., 1979 Children exposed not conclusively prove that there is no census data or recent maps of the areas to arsenic in air and drinking water in increased risk in the community due to near sources, rather than 1970 census Ajo, Arizona, near a copper mine and exposure. The ability of a study to data, be used to estimate the exposed smelter were studied. Hair and urinary detect an excess risk that truly exists, or populations. Also, EPA's simplifying arsenic were elevated in children and the probability of not missing a true assumption that individuals are exposed decreased with distance from the excess risk, is quantified by a statistical to the same arsenic concentration smelter. No clinical or hematologic parameter called "power." In a continuously over 70 years was abnormalities attributable to arsenic community epidemiological study, the questioned by several commenters. were found. research may not have the statistical Other commenters noted that EPA's 3. Baker, et al., 1977 In 19 U.S. towns power or be able to detect excesses in models did not consider such factors as with primary nonferrous smelters, 1-to 5- lung cancer rates when, in fact, such risks to sensitive subpopulations, year-old children were studied for excesses are actually occurring. Key exposure to arsenic at places other than arsenic, lead, and cadmium absorption. factors that determine the study's power a person's residence, and risks to people Urine arsenic was elevated near 10 of 11 are the number of expected lung cancer residing beyond 20 km (12 miles) from copper smelters. cases in the study group and the relative sources. 4. Milham, 1977 Hearing, magnitude of the excess risk in relation Another group of commenters hematological status, and school to expected risk. attendance of children living in Ruston, questioned the usefulness of the For inorganic arsenic, EPA's quantitative exposure and risk model Washington (near the Tacoma smelter), assessment estimated that the increase results in decisionmaking. For instance, were the same as children living further in lung cancer risk due to the inorganic several commenters expressed opinions away from the smelter. The Ruston arsenic source categories is for most of about the degree of conservatism of the children had increased levels of urinary the exposed population a small fraction and hair arsenic. models. Most felt that EPA's risk of the expected community lung cancer estimates were overly conservative, 5. Nordstrom, et al., 1978 Frequencies risk. Considering the above, it is not of congenital malformations were representing an extreme worst-case reasonable to expect the referenced estimate of risk. In particular, some studied in offspring of female employees community studies to detect the thought the linear, nonthreshold model of the Ronnskar smelter and in the increased lung cancers predicted by the used to calculate risk from exposure population living near the smelter. In the Agency. offspring of the employees, the In particular, the Nordstrom, et aL, estimates was too conservative, although a few supported use of this frequency of multiple malformations studies were not designated specifically model. Others thought that the linear, was increased. However, there was no to study the effects of arsenic but rather nonthreshold model was moderate, and increase in total frequency of to study the effects, in general, of the might underestimate health risk. Also, malformations or in type of smelter works pollutants on neighboring commenters questioned the need malformations in the population around populations; the diverse agents involved several to use exposure and/or the smelter. preclude making conclusive statements for the Agency health risk models at all. Instead, they 6. Nordstrom, et al., 1978 Frequency of about the specific effects of inorganic should use spontaneous abortion and birthweight arsenic. In 1981, the Swedish National suggested that the Agency direct measurements of public health distributions in female smelter Health Board Expert Committee employees 'and women who lived near published a report that discredited or effects and lung cancer rates instead of the Ronnskar smelter were examined. questioned almost every finding that mathematical models. Others suggested Women working at the smelter had an would be suitable for making that urinary arsenic content or measured increased frequency of spontaneous determinations regarding the potential ambient arsenic concentrations rather abortion and low birthweight infants. human reproductive effects caused by than dispersion model estimates be used Women living near the smelter showed inorganic arsenic exposure. to estimate public exposure. no increase in spontaneous abortions, These community studies have In the Overview-Basis for but had a tendency to have infants provided the Administrator with very Promulgated Standards section of this slightly lighter than women who lived at little new information regarding the preamble, EPA has briefly described the a distance from the smelter. risks associated with inorganic arsenic public exposure/risk methodology and a Such community studies generally emissions other than that increased more detailed explanation can be found suffer from two shortcomings: They lack cancer risks are not likely to be in each BID for the inorganic arsenic a well-defined control group and they substantially greater than EPA's source categories (see ADDRESSES lack the necessary statistical power to estimates and could be substantially section of this preamble). Basically, detect the predicted number of less than estimated. Such studies also there are four phases of the risk increased lung cancer cases. have not clearly proven the existence of assessment process: (1) Emission and A control group is a number of people an inorganic arsenic threshold. emission parameter estimation; (2) air who are not exposed to inorganic The Administrator, upon review of the quality dispersion modeling; (3) public arsenic yet who live in the same or a available data and the public comments, exposure estimation; and (4) risk similar area, have similar life styles, and reaffirms his position stated in the evaluation. The first two phases are are similarly exposed to other proposal that inorganic arsenic discussed elsewhere in this notice, while carcinogenic agents. National data emissions pose significant risks to the the following discussion focuses on indicate significantly different lung public health. comments pertaining to the third and cancer rates between states and even fourth phases. Public cities; thus, the ideal control group Exposure and Health Risk Changes in the exposure estimation would live in the same city or area; but Estimates methodology (the third phase) were would remain unexposed to arsenic. A number of commenters were made in response to public comments Obviously, such a group of any useful concerned that specific portions of the and the Agency's desire to improve the size.does not exist. exposure and health risk models model. At the time of proposal, EPA 27964 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

used 1970 U.S. Census Bureau model also assumes that people are significant migration of individuals into population data which EPA extrapolated continuously exposed to the average and from the area. For this reason, the to 1980 by using 1977 U.S. Census ambient arsenic concentration at their individual exposure assumption does Bureau county growth factors. These residence. In reality, people travel daily not impact the estimation of aggregate population data have been replaced within and beyond the local area and population risk, i.e., the annual with 1980 U.S. Census Bureau they are exposed to different incidence. population data recently made available concentrations at their workplaces, Another problem is that emission to the Agency. schools, shopping centers, etc. However, sources do not emit at a constant annual At proposal, exposure and risk were it would be extremely difficult to model level for 70 years. Many sources have estimated for people residing within 20 local travel and indoor and outdoor reduced emissions over the past decade. km (12 miles) of a source. Some exposures, and any result would be To the extent that this trend continues, commenters pointed out that since highly uncertain. For instance, even if it EPA's estimates may overstate risks. people beyond 20 km are exposed to were possible for EPA to collect this Similarly, the EPA assumes that the some level of arsenic due to the source information over one particular time number of people that are exposed emissions, EPA's proposal analysis period, it may not be representative of remains constant. These uncertainties underestimates the total exposure and population activities in times past or in are considered to the extent possible in risk. EPA agrees with this comment and the future. It is not known if this interpreting and applying modeled risk has expanded its analysis to 50 km (31 approach over- or underestimates actual estimates. miles); the risk assessment results exposures. One commenter noted that EPA presented in today's notice reflect this Moreover, the Agency believes that assumed that indoor air concentrations change. There are several reasons for there is merit to using the simplifying equaled the ambient concentration near EPA to extend its analysis out to 50 km. assumption of 70-year resident the house and that assumption probably The EPA's guidelines for use of air immobility. When estimating risk, the causes overestimation of exposure and quality models recommend that, Agency is concerned about both the risk. When developing inorganic arsenic because of the increasing uncertainty of public exposure that is occurring and exposure estimates, the Agency estimates with distance from the that could potentially occur. That group considered this possibility. If there are modeled source and because of the of people being exposed to the highest no sources or sinks for inorganic arsenic paucity of validation studies at larger predicted pollutant concentrations may in the homes, the long-term distances, the impact analysis should include individuals, who for a variety of concentrations in the home should equal generally be limited to a downwind reasons, may spend a large majority of the concentrations measured just distance of 50 km from the source. Such their lifetime at a single residence. outside the house. However, this may site-specific factors as terrain features Presently, the Agency does not have not be true for many homes. For (complex or flat), the objectives of the detailed information on those example, homes that have a filtered air modeling exercise, and the distance to individuals that live near the inorganic handling system for heating and cooling which the model has been validated will arsenic sources, nor does it intend to would tend to have lower indoor determine the appropriate distance collect routinely those kinds of specific inorganic arsenic concentrations. Little (whether greater or less than the data. Such data would not allow the study has been made of the relationship guideline distance) over which the Agency to predict the exposure patterns between indoor and outdoor inorganic Agency should apply the model. that high exposure groups may arsenic concentrations. The limited Unless there are special overriding experience in the future. Since the available data on particulate matter technical considerations, EPA has purpose of estimating maximum indicate that the indoor concentrations decided to extend the hazardous air individual exposure is to anticipate a are somewhat lower than ambient pollutant dispersion modeling out to 50 reasonable worst-case scenario, EPA concentrations but the difference is not km (31 miles). The Administrator regards this assumption as appropriate. substantial; the indoor particulate believes that the potential to identify In calculating aggregate risk, the matter levels are about 10 to 30 percent additional significant public exposure estimates of annual cancer incidence lower than the outdoor air. Whether this outweighs the increased inaccuracies of are independent of population mobility ratio applies to homes near arsenic applying the models beyond the as long as there is no net change in sources is unknown. Since people spend previously accepted 20-km radius. population of each exposure subgroup part of their time on their property For the exposure model, it is assumed and no net change in the total outside the house and since the that people stay at the same location population in the study area (see available data do not indicate that a and are exposed to the same Overview-Risk Assessment correction for indoor inorganic arsenic concentration for 70 years. The Methodology for a description of EPA's concentrations is required, the complexity of human mobility in today's exposure model). This conclusion is assumption of equal inorganic arsenic society makes this assumption based on EPA's risk model which concentrations for both indoor and somewhat unrealistic. However, long- mathematically describes cancer risk outdoor air over a long term is term individual mobility and concurrent that varies in direct proportion to reasonable. The EPA has not made any changes in inorganic arsenic exposure cumulative lifetime exposure. For revisions in its current analysis to are difficult to model with any amount example, application of EPA's risk account for this factor. of certainty. For example, it is unknown model produces the same estimate of The distribution of individual how long various portions of the total cancer incidence for a certain susceptibility to lung cancer is unknown, population remain in an area and to number of people exposed for a lifetime so risk to sensitive subpopulations or what concentrations of inorganic to a particular concentration as for a individuals could not be considered arsenic they may have been exposed in group twice that number being exposed quantitatively in EPA's model. other places they have lived. Thus, the for half a lifetime to the same Commenters correctly indicated that the simplifying assumption of a 70-year concentration. It is possible for unit risk estimate is based on the study residence in one location has been communities to remain rather stable in of healthy males exposed in the made. On a smaller scale, the exposure number and location of residents despite workplace and the application of the Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 27965 / unit risk estimate assumes that the locations at different times of the year ambient data. The NRDC mentioned exposed community has the same under a variety of meteorological that the ASARCO monitoring program cancer susceptibility as the exposed conditions. Dispersion and exposure had a number of uncertainties such as workers. As stated in the background modeling, despite its drawbacks, is a the untested correspondence between documents, this is one of the much more practical approach. the ASARCO air sampler (low-volume uncertainties that may cause the risks As discussed earlier, increased health filtration) and EPA's air sampler (high- calculated by EPA to be underestimated. risk to residents in an area surrounding volume filtration), and the lack of a The EPA, in its decisionmaking, is a source cannot be measured directly quality assurance program. New York aware of the possible risk to sensitive either. Epidemiological studies have questioned the reasons for changes in individuals and to the extent possible revealed an association between the measurement technique used by considers this in its selection of the occupational exposure to ambient EPA for establishing mass of the appropriate control option. arsenic and lung cancer, but such collected arsenic and thought that the Several commenters suggested that associations are not readily measured in Agency's analysis was designed for EPA use approaches, such as direct the general public because of the measuring only certain inorganic arsenic monitoring, other than modeled presence of many confounding factors. compounds and not all arsenic exposure estimates. While appealing, it These include the public's greater compounds. is not feasible to directly measure diversity and mobility, the lack of To measure the atmospheric exposure to ambient arsenic. In a consolidated medical records, lack of concentrations, the Agency first collects heavily populated area such as El Paso historical exposure data over each or "captures" arsenic onto or into some or Tacoma, a large number of monitors individual's lifetime, public exposure to medium from which analytical would be necessary. Perhaps as many many carcinogens besides inorganic techniques can determine the mass of as 50 to 100 monitors within 50 km (31 arsenic, and the long latency period of the collected arsenic. Both ASARCO miles) of the plant would be needed to cancer. Because of such factors, and EPA use devices that draw the air determine the concentrations to which increases in cancer observed in the through a filter to capture the ambient persons living near a source are public can rarely be assigned to a particulate matter and then analyze the exposed, since exposure will vary with specific chemical or emission source. amount of arsenic in the filtrate. The distance and direction from the plant. Therefore, public risk is estimated by concentration of arsenic is calculated by Furthermore, air quality monitors cannot using an exposure/risk relationship dividing the measured mass of the predict potential ambient concentration developed from epidemiology studies. pollutant of the filter by the measured reductions due to a certain control The Human Exposure Model (HEM) volume of air that passed through the option, or past or future concentrations. uses air dispersion and population filter. Portions of the commenters' Conversely, dispersion models can be models to estimate exposure, and then concerns centered on one of the two used to estimate time variations in applies the exposure risk relationship to phases of atmospheric measurement exposure and to predict exposure under calculate risks. These assessment (sampling or analysis) described above. any emission control scenario. procedures are the only tools currently In the early 1970's, limited research Based on the Agency's present level of available to EPA for making such indicated that some if not a substantial knowledge, EPA also has rejected the estimates.. amount of arsenic was not being use of urinary arsenic concentrations as Risks from other potential inorganic collected by either the high- or the low- a measure of public exposure to smelter arsenic-related health effects were not volume sampler's filters. More recently, emissions or lung cancer risks and for modeled For example, skin cancer also ASARCO conducted a more extensive developing Section 112 regulations. The has been associated with inorganic test of their low-volume air sampler's primary reason is that urinary arsenic arsenic when exposure occurred through collection efficency. The collection levels and how they relate to adverse ingestion or dermal contact. Health efficiency test was performed by adding effects such as cancer are not well effects other than cancer which could arsenic gas phase collection devices understood, although we do know they result from chronic, low-level exposure behind the filter The EPA and the Puget reflect many factors in addition to the to inorganic arsenic have not been well Sound Air Pollution Control Agency inhalation of arsenic. Arsenic in food documented. These effects have not (PSAPCA) reviewed the study results and drinking water can account for been consistently observed where and determined that the data provided increases and decreases in urinary exposure/risk relationships can be evidence of the.reliability of the low- arsenic concentrations. Individual established. For this reason, health risks volume sampler to collect arsenic. metabolism and age also can cause other than lung cancer cannot be Although the data showed that the variations in the amount of arsenic quantitatively estimated or modeled. device was not 100 percent efficient (no excreted. Thus, at low dose levels The potential for risks of other unknown collection device can be), generally urinary arsenic levels cannot be used to health effects is considered by EPA to more than 90 percent of the airborne estimate exposure to.air emission the extent possible during the arsenic was collected by the filter and sources only, because other sources of decisionmaking procedure. It is not clear consequently, less than 10 percent of the exposure contribute in unknown degrees that these other effects are occurring at arsenic. was collected by the impingers. to arsenic concentrations in urine. workplace exposure levels and, as best However, some of the arsenic data Furthermore, an attempt to determine as can be determined, they do not occur used in the risk assessment was exposure to the population within 50 km at levels of public exposure. collected using high-volume samplers. In (31 miles) of an inorganic arsenic source Although a number of commenters addition to the impinger studies, using urinary arsenic measurements .had assumed that measured ambient ASARCO, in conjunction with the State would not be feasible. The analysis. arsenic concentration data provided the of Montana, conducted a comparison procedure would be relatively expensive best means of calculating exposure, the study between the low-volume and the and time consuming; to get a good - Natural Resources Defense Council high-volume air samplers. This study 'map" of exposure, one would have to (NRDC) and the Attorney General's indicated that the two devices provided measure urinary arsenic levels in many • Office of New York questioned the measurements that were highly individuals living at many different • reliability of either EPA's Or ASARCO's correlated, the concentrations measured 27966,, Federal Register'/ Vol. 51" No. 149 / Monday, August 4,1986 / Rules'and Regulations

27986 . Federal Register I Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations by low-volume air samplers were about entirely inadequate to provide this predicted by the estimated procedures, 18 percent higher than those measured "ample margin of saftey." Opposing and not bound by a fixed target. Third, a using high-volume samplers: the low- views were held by other who felt that fixed target level fails to provide the volume samplers' data ranged from 4 to the proposed standards were adequate flexibility necessary for an appropriate 33 percent higher than the high-volume to protect the health of the citizens response. For example, where risks sampler's data. The two sampling living in the local communities. could be reduced beyond the target techniques are statistically different at According to several commenters, the without significant costs, that should be the 90 percent level. Thus, the Agency should establish a level of permitted. Likewise, where attainment combination 'of the two studies, the health risk-resulting from exposure to of the risk-based goal would eliminate a ASARCO/Montana study and the hazardous pollutants that it considers to highly beneficial or necessary activity, ASARCO impinger study, provide be acceptable. For instance, commenters the decisionmaker should be able to evidence to the Agency that for felt that maximum individual risks consider less stringent standards. The purposes of the inorganic arsenic risk above 1 in 1,000 were unacceptable. EPA agrees with those commenters who assessment the high-volume air sampler Some felt that risk levels below 1 in perceived that specific acceptable risk data have adequately measured the 100,000 or 1 in 1,000,000 could be levels are very difficult to set and are amount of arsenic in the atmosphere. considered negligible. In addition, many not reasonable as a basis for regulation. Regarding the second phase of commenters felt that the emission After reflecting on the various points measurement (analysis), EPA has standards for arsenic should be set at a presented, the Administrator supports changed the analytical techniques used zero level or at a level which would the concept of reducing public.risks to over the years. The objective of result in no deaths (zero risk); however, the extent possible considering the switching techniques Was to improve other commenters felt that a zero-risk uncertainties and technical feasibility, sensitivity and accuracy, and the standard was not possible or needed. and the environmental, economic, Agency has generally been successful in Some said it would be difficult or energy, and other impacts on society doing so. However, the commenters impossible to determine an acceptable and industry. (See Basis for Standard should note that both the Agency's and level of risk, while others said that EPA sections of this preamble for a ASARCO's routine analyses measure should determine an unacceptable level discussion of how these factors were elemental arsenic; it is more difficult to of risk before promulgating a regulation. Many specifically used to select the level of provide analyses on individual species commenters sought a control in the final standards.) of arsenic compounds such as arsenic framework for determining the The EPA understands the desire of the trioxide or the trivalent arsenic. acceptabilty of the estimated risks. They public to seek a reference for relating to compounds than the elemental suggested that comparisons of risk the-estimated risk levels associated with concentrations. Also, when measuring levels to those associated with other inorganic arsenic source categories. The total elemental arsenic, the Agency uses societal and environmental factors a, EPA believes that comparing the quality control/quality assurance might be appropriate. Both voluntary estimated increased lung cancer risk program to assure the best data risks (such as those associated with possible. associated with inorganic arsenic source smoking) and involuntary risks (such as categories, as seen in other sections of Based on the available company data the risk of being struck by lightning) and some limited monitoring data this notice, to national lung cancer rates were suggested as a basis of provides a useful perspective (see Table collected at nearby sites, the Agency comparison. II-i). believes that both ASARCO and EPA Many of these commenters, in effect, arsenic data have some mea sure of are advocating that EPA establish a uncertainty, TABLE 11-1.-NATIONAL CANCER AND LUNG but may provide more target, or maximum permissible, risk reliable CANCER RATES-ALL AGES (1982)1 information than the air level for setting standards under Section dispei sibn modeling. For these reasons, 112. Under this approach, a fixed. Annual Percent deaths of the Agency followed through on the numerical risk or expected cancer per total 100,00Ob, commenters' suggestion to check air incidence rate target could be used in deaths_ dispe'rsion predictions against available determining the degree of control air quality data and this has been done Malignant neoplasms of respiratory required for carcinogens. Although EPA and intrathoracic organs ...... 50.2 5.8 where the data Would provide finds the concept of an established Malignant neoplasms. including neo- meaningful comparisons. "acceptable" plasms of lymphatic and hemato- risk level appealing, it poietic tissues (cancer-all forms). 188.1 21.9 Risk Management suffers, from several drawbacks. First, Source: "Monthly Vital Statistics Report," National Center the Agency perceives there would be for Health Statistics,. Vol. 31. No. 13, October 5, 1983. Risk Management Approach 6 Based on a 10 percent sample of deaths. substantial difficulty in determining 'Rates are not age-adjusted. Several comments focused on whether such levels. This perception was borne the proposed inorganic arsenic out by the wide range of opinions on standards provide an ample'margin of what constituted acceptability in the Basis for Proposed Standards safety as required by Section 112. These minds of the commenters. Second, Many commenters objected to EPA's comments either directly or indirectly although current quantitative risk setting standards based on "best address the Agency's position that a assessment techniques for chemical available technology" (BAT). -Section 112 regulation can permit some carcinogens are useful decisionmaking Commenters felt that basing standards level of residual risk and still provide an tools, considerable uncertainties are on BAT placed too much emphasis on ample margin of safety to protect public associated with these techniques at their nonhealth issues such as technology, health.(see, the Overview-Basis for current stage of development. economics, and affordability. They Promulgated Standards- section of this Consequently, the Administrator stated that under section 112 the preamble for the full statement of the believes that in using quantitative risk protection of. public health, not costs. or Agency's position).A significant number assessments, he should generally be free the availability of technology, is the of:those who commented on-this issue to consider that actual cancer risks may. primary consideration in developing. felt that the proposed standards were be significantly above or below those - standards. A few commenters objected Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 27967 to the BAT approach because it BAT policy upon which the proposed (OMB) was not supportive of either provided no incentive on the part of decision was based gave limited weight alternative approach presented by the .industry to develop improved control to exposure and risk information and Agency'and said that the'stepwise technology. On the other hand, several substantial weight to the economic process of Classifying sources (based on commenter's favored basing a standard, feasibility of installing technologically risk or exposure data] into subcategories on BAT, calling it a reasonable, logical available emission controls. The Agency and then determining BAT (based on approach. They felt it was a reasonable sought public comment on the degree to technology and costs) produces approach when considering which exposure and risk information inconsistent results. The OMB argued uncertainties associated with estimating should be used to establish BAT and, in that one of the most important factors, public health risks. They also felt that doing so, presented two alternative risk reduction, could not be considered economic data are important and must strategies. Under the first alternative, in the subcategorization-process, and be considered in setting standards under called the population density approach, plants may be required to apply controls section 112. Some commenters noted EPA would subdivide the source that are "too little" or "too much" in that basing standards on BAT may category on the basis of population light of the reduction in public risks. allow for continued improvement. As a density (a surrogate for public exposure) Thus, for each plant, EPA would be new technology becomes available and near each source before determining unable to balance the effectiveness of economically feasible, commenters BAT. Sources would be put into a "high" all control options in light of likely thought it appropriate to require that or "low" population density category public health gains and costs of technology for control of emissions. and BAT.would be determined for each achieving further control. The OMB Comments received on the risk subcategory of sources. Under the went on to suggest that EPA should management approach described in the second alternative, the risk-based establish BAT in one step where the July 20, 1983, notice of proposal approach, EPA would place sources into decision criteria, reduction in public suggested that many do not believe that "high" or "low" risk categories based on health risks and costs of further the approach sufficiently considers consideration of the combination of controls, can be considered and protection of public health. Evidently, estimated maximum individual risk and balanced at the same time. If exposure some commenters saw the selection of the annual incidence estimates. Again, and risk were considered in the process BAT as the final step in the BAT would be determined for each of subdividing the source category for decisionmaking process. Also, there source group. purposes of establishing different levels seemed to be some level of One commenter felt that under both of of BAT, then the selection of BAT based misunderstanding as to what BAT EPA's alternative approaches for on cost effectiveness of reducing represented and some confusion determining BAT for low-arsenic copper emissions would serve as a reasonable between BAT and similar terms used in smelters, EPA was making the estimate of the cost effectiveness of other EPA programs, such as "best protection that an individual deserves a reducing public exposure and risk. available control technology" (BACT) function of the number of people at the Another commenter agreed with this found in the Prevention of Significant same level of exposure. He, along with basic concept, but suggested that EPA Deterioration program and "best three other commenters, said that the discontinue the BAT approach and use available technology" (BAT] in the population density approach had the the one step that considers risk, risk water program. potential for causing people in sparsely reduction, available controls, and costs Several-commenters either interpreted populated areas to be exposed to higher when making decisions to regulate each the meaning of BAT in terms of a level risk than people in cities. Under the risk- source category. of control that would force further based approach he said a person could Two commenters supported EPA's development of control technology of be exposed to shockingly high risks proposal to subdivide low-arsenic desired the Agency to adopt this unless there are many people in a primary copper smelters based on definition. This perception is not, similar situation. He stated that the cancer incidence and health risk data. however, consistent with EPA's Clean Air Act does not authorize such One felt that a more uniform risk proposed definition of BAT applied-to inequitable distinctions. criterion should be established for inorganic arsenic control. Under EPA's Two commenters rejected both, regulating each source category and definition at proposal, BAT was an alternatives by saying that, although the preferably for each carcinogen. In fact, available, feasible, and affordable cost factors associated with regulation the commenter said, in the case of technology. An option which would be may be excessive for smaller sources, inorganic arsenic abundant risk technology-forcing and which might EPA should establish required controls information is available, providing require plant closure if the technology for the entire industry to regulate more confidence that safe levels can be does not evolve was defined as beyond effectively environmental pollutants. prescribed. Risk information should play BAT. However, commenters who are One suggested that if such an approach a more significant role in establishing concerned that technology was going to drive somebody out of BAT. improvements will bypass EPA's business, that individual should petition Three commenters disagreed with regulation are reminded that the Congress and let Congress decide EPA's cancer incidence and health risk Agency's activities do not stop with the whether that is an unacceptable tradeoff based approach as an alternative promulgation of standards; EPA will between risk reduction and the cost of strategy. One felt that this approach periodically review today's regulations compliance. Another said that once a would be based on unreliable risk and revise them appropriately in light of standard is set, penalties should be estimates. Two other'commenters improved control technologies. imposed for violations that are stiff shared his concern and stated that this In addition, several commenters enough to make compliance regulatory alternative also suffers from responded to EPA's suggestions . economically worthwhile. other serious problems, such as the regarding alternative strategies for using Although they wanted risk intentionally conservative assumptions exposure/risk information to determine information to be used in a more in calculating risk which distort and best available technology (BAT) for low- significant way in determining BAT, the exaggerate the risk estimates. The high arsenic primary copper smelters. The , Office of Management and Budget risk etimates place sources in the high 27968 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

risk category when, in actuality, they do category. However, as EPA reviewed 112 regulation. Instead of the previous not need further controls. the public comments on the carcinogen multi-step process, this approach The OMB noted that most of the policy and gained more experience with incorporates an amalgam of elements of public health gains projected from the specific pollutants such as inorganic the BAT residual risk approach proposed rules would result from control arsenic and benzene, the shortcomings combined with elements of the two risk- of emissions at a distinct subset of of the BAT approach became more based alternatives set forth in the plants. For example, control of apparent. proposal. Under each control option, the secondary emissions from converter As highlighted by the wide range of residual risks were considered along ,operations at three smelters accounts for estimated risks, existing controls, and with other important factors such as risk 88 percent of the total cancer reduction affordability for individual plants in the assessment uncertainties, economic and for low-arsenic copper smelters but only primary copper smelter category, the environmental impacts, and 34 percent of the total control costs. The proposed and the suggested BAT affordability. With this approach, there commenter pointed out that an approaches would in certain cases place is no separate step for determining BAT alternative regulatory strategy that individual sources into subcategories or for examining the reasonableness of emphasizes the effectiveness of further that, on balance, would be the residual risks. Rather, these are controls on a particular subcategory of inappropriate. There were several combined into a single selection process sources could achieve most of the health reasons for this. Each of the step-wise which involves considering possible gains at a substantially lower cost. approaches tended to downplay at least control options and the technical, One commenter suggested modifying one significant piece of information. For economic, public health, and other the BAT approach to include a example, the commenters pointed out implications of each option. This graduated risk approach for regulating their concern that a small number of refinement, the Administrator believes, existing sources. Under this approach, people being subjected to very large is both rational and consistent with the the lowest achievable emission rate unacceptable risks were not going to be intent of section 112, and it responds to (LAER) would be required for sources appropriately protected. With the risk- many concerns of the commenters. with risk levels exceeding 1,000 in one based alternative regulatory strategy, a There are certain factors that must be million; BAT would be required for hypothetical source with very high evaluated, and they will remain in any sources with risks between 1,000 in a individual risks and very low annual process for selecting the appropriate million and 1 in a million; and no incidence would not be regulated. control option. For instance, has the NESHAP regulation would be required Also, the process of selecting a cutoff, control technology been demonstrated for sources with risks less than 1 in a that is, an emission, risk, cost or other at other installations as a means to million. The commenter also said that if parameter that would separate sources reduce emissions? If required, can the EPA does not have the confidence in its into one subcategory or the other, places control device actually be used safely risk assessment figures to set such risk a large burden on the Agency when on the process or the stack gases? Will levels as firm standards, then there are a number of sources near the the control technology create new acceptable risk levels should be set as cutoff value. Uncertainties in EPA's problems such as increased pollution in goals to be considered in the regulatory analysis (which may be considerable) another medium such as the water or decisionmaking process. makes the task difficult to reasonably land? Is the control technology so . The Agency carefully considered the separate sources into two subcategories. expensive that its application will shut above comments. Generally, there was An example would be a source that down a large portion of the plants not a strong support for either of EPA's narrowly fell into the low risk category within the source category? In summary, suggested alternative approaches, and but could easily afford to substantially there is no one consistently overriding the variety of other approaches offered reduce its emissions and risk. It may be indicated that the public perceived reasonable, upon further scrutiny of the factor in the evaluation of whether to major flaws in the Agency's proposed risk information, to regulate this source, regulate a given source category or BAT subcategorization approach as well although a straightforward application sources within the category; rather, a as the suggested alternatives. Based on of the BAT decisionmaking routine more flexible approach is used to weigh EPA's experiences with benzene and would not require further controls. For the effects of regulation in a given now inorganic arsenic, the these reasons and the reasons given in situation. Under both the proposed BAT Administrator agrees that the BAT the discussion of the current approach, approach and the current risk approach and its stepwise procedures the Administrator has come to the management approach, EPA has are inflexible and make it difficult to conclusion that the Agency cannot, at considered and Will continue to consider weigh all the important factors at the this time, establish a mathematical these technical and economic factors as appropriate point in the decisionmaking formula that will accommodate all the part of the selection of the appropriate process. relevant factors of managing public risk. level of control. When the Agency began formal Therefore, the Administrator has Consideration of the OSHA Standard dialogue with the public on many of decided to move away from the BAT these issues by proposing the air approach and refine the decisional A number of commenters compared carcinogen policy in 1979 (49 FR 58642), procedure into a simple one-step measured or predicted ambient the BAT concept was the keystone to process designed to reduce inorganic arsenic concentrations to the EPA's strategy. The Agency realized unacceptable risks with as little social OSHA permissible exposure limit of 10 that it was necessary to have a technical or economic disruption as possible. pg/m3 in an attempt to show that portion.of the decisionmaking process As can be seen when comparing the exposure to ambient inorganic arsenic 3 that considered what control risk management description in today's concentrations below 10 Lg/m would technologies were available and could promulgation to the one given in the cause insignificant health effects. reasonably be applied to the source proposal, the term "BAT" has been However, EPA believes that it is category being considered for removed. This change reflects more than inappropriate to make such comparisons regulation. The Agency was desirous of just a revision in terms; it is a refined for several reasons. applying a similar control requirement approach used in selecting the final For example, there is a difference in for most or all of the sources within the control option as a basis for the Section the-averaging times of the concentration Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and'Regulations 27969 values used by-OSHA.and EPA. The comment period was later reopened on and to report all occurrences of excess OSHA standard is basedon an 8 hour September 20, 1984, to allow comment emissions. time-weighted average for occupational on EPA's analysis of new information on exposure, while EPA's concerns are with- emissions and costs for low-arsenic Standard for'Converter Operations long term average (lifetime) communitys smelters. This comment period ended on The standard for converter operations 10 ;Lg/m exposures. For instance, a November,5, 1984. remains the same as proposed. The exposure for 8 hours per day, 5 days per. At the time of proposal, the low- standard requires capture and collection week, 50 weeks per year and 45 years arsenic smelter category included 14 of secondary inorganic arsenic over a lifetime equates to a continuous- smelters and it was estimated that the emissions from converter charging, lifetime exposure of less than 1.5 gg/m3 . proposed standard would affect six of blowing, skimming, holding, and pouring This example demonstrates that on a the smelters. The high-arsenic smelter operations. The standard is expressed in technical basis, direct comparisons category only included and affected the and design cannot be made between EPA's smelter owned and operated by terms of equipment specifications and work practices for the estimated long term pollutant ASARCO, Incorporated, located in concentrations and the OSHA standard. Tacoma, Washington. On June 27, 1984, capture system, and a maximum In addition, OSHA did not conclude ASARCO allowable particulate emission limit for 3 announced plans to close its that the 10 pg/m level it set left only an primary copper smelting operations at the control device. Equipment and insignificant risk. Rather, OSHA Tacoma, Washington, by June 20, 1985; design specifications described in the concluded that the level it set was the and subsequently ceased copper regulation are intended to ensure that lowest feasible level, and that a smelting operations at Tacoma. Because the secondary hood system achieves its significant risk remained to employees of this, EPA is withholding further action maximum capture efficiency. The at that level. It stated: on the proposed standard for existing secondary hood system specifications OSHA also concludes, based on the high-arsenic primary copper smelters. include: (1) The configuration and estimates from the risk.assessments and the The EPA will continue to monitor dimensions of the hood enclosure must dose-response demonstrated in many of the ASARCO's actions and will reconsider be sized so that the converter mouth, epidemiology studies, that a 10 ;Lg/m. the need for a separate standard charging ladles, skimming ladles, and exposure limit, the lowest levelfeosible. other material transfer vessels are together with the industrial hygiene applicable to existing high-arsenic provisions in the arsenic standard are smelters if there. is evidence that housed within the confines or influence necessary and appropriate to significantly ASARCO-Tacoma will resume copper of the hood during each mode of reduce the health risk. smelting operations. However, even in converter operation; (2) the back of the the absence of a specific high-arsenic Finally, OSHA concludes- that the new hood enclosure must be fully enclosed inorganic arsenic standard setting smelter standard, the standard being and sealed against the primary hood; (3) promulgated today would apply to the exposures at 10 ig/m3 does'not reduce the edges of the hood enclosure side- the risk of the exposure to inorganic Tacoma smelter if copper smelting walls in contact with the converter arsenic below the level of significance. operations were to resume. Today's vessel must remain sealed during each standard is applicable to all existing and (48 FR 1867, January 1983). OSHA mode of converter operation; (4) the size 14, any new primary copper smelters. added, of the opening at the top and front of the This part of the preamble presents the hood enclosure necessary for the entry The linear model estimates a risk level of final standard, its basis, and a and egress of ladles and crane appratus 7.7 to 10 excess cases of cancer per 1000 discussion of public comments on the exposed workers at the 10 jRg/m3"limit. must be minimized to the fullest extent OSHA's preliminary conclusion is that proposed standards. The discussion of practicable; (5) the hood enclosure must significant risk is not eliminated at this risk comments includes comments made on be fabricated in such a manner and of -the pIroposed standard for high-arsenic level and that a reasonable person would materials of sufficient strength to smelters that are also pertinent to the take steps-to reduce it if feasible (48 FR 1902). withstand incidental contact with ladles proposed standard for low-arsenic OSHA ha's clearly stated their smelters, as well as comments made on and crane apparatus with no significant judgment that the risk level iissociated damage; and (6) one side-wall of the with their 10 j.g/ml standard is the proposed standard for low-arsenic smelters. enclosure must be equipped with a significant and that their standard is horizontal-slotted plenum along the top, based on the limit to which feasible, - Summary of PromulgatedStandard and the opposite side-wall must be engineering and work practice controls equipped with an exhaust hood. 'can reduce the workplace Applicability The standard that is being The standard specifies that the concentrations. For these reasons, the horizontal-slotted plenum shall be use of the OSHA standard as a promulgated today applies to each connected to a fan and the air curtain reference or target concentration for the existing and new primary copper fan be sized to deliver a-minimum of protection of public health under the smelter. For all copper smelters, the 22,370 watts (30 air horsepower) at the Clean Air Act is inappropriate. standard requires monitoring, recordkeeping, and a reporting of slot. in addition, the converter and the I1. Primary Copper Smelters average annual inorganic arsenic feed air curtain secondary hood system must As indicated in the Overview section rate to the converters. For all copper be operated at conditions optimum for of this preamble, on July 20, 1983, EPA smelters with average annual arsenic the capture of secondary inorganic proposed standards in the Federal feed rates to the converters greater than arsenic emissions. The owner or Register (48 FR 33112) for inorganic 75 kg/h (164 lb/h), the standard requires operator must visually inspect the arsenic emissions from low- and high-, control of secondary emissions for the components of the system at least once arsenic primary copper smelters. The converters. These facilities also are every month and maintain each public comment period for the proposed required by the standard to minimize converter and associated secondary standards, which was extended twice at excess emissions during malfunctions hood system in a manner consistent the request of members of the public, and -process upsets,. to. monitor with minimizing inorganic arsenic ended on January 31,1984. The public emissions; to maintain specific records, emissions. .. 27970 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

Particulate emissions from the Methods I through 5 in Appendix A of maintained at the source for a period of collection device may not exceed 11.6 40 CFR Part 60. 2 years and made available to the mg/dscm (0.005 gr/dscf1. Continuous Monitoring Administrator upon request. These records will include the monthly arsenic Requirements for Periods of Excess Owners or operators Emissions of facilities that charging rate to converters in existing must capture and control converter and new smelters, and all continuojs At all times, including periods of secondary emissions must continuously monitoring data. startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the monitor the opacity of converter standard requires plant personnel to secondary emission streams that exit Summary of En vironmental, Health, minimize emissions of inorganic arsenic from a control device. The standard Energy, and Economic Impacts requires that reference opacity levels be from the converters and associated The standard being established today control devices to the established for each converter operating greatest extent affects existing and new primary copper possible. The standard requires mode based on the highest 1-hour the smelters. It is estimated that only one owner average opacity level monitored during or operator to submit a plan for existing domestic primary copper control of emissions during startup, a 36-hour evaluation period. Thereafter, smelter, the ASARCO smelter at El shutdown, and malfunctions of occurrences of average opacity levels will be required to install converter and associated emission above the respective reference levels Paso, Texas, control equipment to comply with the control equipment. The plan shall must be reported as exceedances to standard. No new domestic copper include: (1) A systematic procedure for Administrator along with information projected to be built in the identifying malfunctions and for describing the cause of the exceedances. smelters are This projection is based on reporting them immediately to Continuous monitoring of air flow next 5 years. supervisory personnel; and (2) through the converter air curtain EPA's conclusion that in the next 5 procedures that will be followed to secondary hood system's horizontal- years annual copper industry growth in by ensure that equipment or process slotted plenum and exhaust hood is also the U.S. will be accomplished smelting breakdowns due to poor maintenance or required to ensure that the hood system existing primary copper other preventable conditions do not is being properly operated and capacity. occur. maintained. Occurrences of air flow The standard will reduce secondary rates less than 80 percent of the inorganic arsenic emissions from the Compliance Provisions reference air flow rates must be affected smelter by about 1 to 4 Mg per The Standard requires compliance reported as exceedances along with year (1.1 to 4.4 tons per year). As a within 90 days of today's date, unless a information on the causes of the result of this reduction in inorganic waiver of compliance is obtained from exceedances. arsenic emissions, it is estimated that the Administrator. Waivers can be Recordkeeping and Reporting the number of incidences per year of granted for a period of time needed to Requirments lung cancer due to inorganic arsenic exposure for persons residing within 50 install controls to comply with the Owners or operators of source standard, not to exceed 2 years from km of the affected smelter would be covered by the standard are subject to per year. today's date. Each smelter'that has an the reporting and recordkeeping reduced from 0.38 to 0.29 case average arsenic feed rate to the requirements of the standard as well as The standard would reduce the converters greater than 75 kg/h (164 lb/ those prescribed estimated maximum lifetime risk from in the General arsenic h), must have installed the required Provisions (Subpart A) of 40 CFR Part exposure to airborne inorganic controls within 90 days of today's date at the affected smelter from I X 10"s to 61. Specific reporting requirements of " to be in compliance, unless a waiver is the promulgated standard include: (1) 8 X 10 . The estimated maximum lifetime requested and granted. Most smelters An initial report and subsequent annual risk represents the probability of a already monitor the arsenic content of reports of the average inorganic arsenic person contracting cancer who has been feed materials throughout the smelting charging rate to the converters at each exposed continuously during a 70-year process and, based on historical data, affected smelter; (2) reports of emission period to the estimated maximum long- should know whether they will be test results to demonstrate compliance term inorganic arsenic concentration affected by the requirement for with the particulate emission limit for due to emissions from the smelter. These secondary converter controls. Should control devices treating converter estimated health impacts were any additional smelter in the future have secondary emissions; (3] for the calculated based on a number of an annual arsenic feed rate to the converter secondary hood systems, assumptions and contain uncertainty as converters greater than 75 kg/h. the quarterly reports of occurrences of air discussed in Appendix C of the BID for owner or operator of that source must flows less than 80 percent of the the promulgated standard (EPA-450/3- install the required controls within 90 corresponding reference flow rate for 83-olob). days of the determination, unless a any converter operating mode; and (4] Application of the controls required waiver is requested and granted. for converter secondary emission would slightly increase the amount of The average annual arsenic charging collection devices, quarterly reports of solid waste handled by the smelter. The rate to the converters shall be excess opacity readings and the additional solid waste can be easily determined each month using the reference opacity levels set at the time handled by ASARCO-EI Paso. The monthly average weight percent of the collection device demonstrated standard also does not create any direct arsenic in feed materials and charging compliance. In addition, the owner or water pollution impacts, since the rates to the converters for a 12-month operator shall submit a report control system used at ASARCO-EI Paso period. The weight percent of arsenic in documenting the evaluation of the is a dry system (a fabric filter collector). feed materials will be determined using opacity monitoring system and the The standard will increase electrical Method 108A. Compliance with the establishment of the reference opacity energy consumption by approximately particulate emission limit for copper level. 2000 MW, or approximately 0.1 percent converter control devices will be Records of supporting data for the above plant energy requirements determined using EPA Reference reports described above must be without the standards. Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 /Rules and Regulatons :27971

Capital and annualized costs of applicability is not determined for each Emission Estimates complying with the standard are converter separately. This revision was Since proposal; EPA has refined its estimated to be about $1.85 million and made to clarify the calculation method estimates of process and fugitive $379,000, respectively. The primary and the basis for the cutoff, and does emissions for the 14 primary copper. economic impacts associated with the not represent a substantive change in smelters. These revised estimates are standard are projected.decreases in the method of determining applicability. based either on additional information profitability for the ASARCO-EI Paso The revised equation calculates on the emission inventory or on smelter if costs cannot be passed converter arsenic charging rates in a through. If the costs refinements in emission estimates. are passed forward manner that is consistent with the in the form of a price increase, it is information method used to calculate the rates Analysis of additional estimated that the final standard would provided by copper companies for eight presented in Table IIl-1, given later in result in a 0.3 percent increase in the smelters concerning arsenic inputs, this notice. price of copper. No plant closures are distribution, emissions, and baseline anticipated to result from this standard. Opacity Monitoring. The proposed controls resulted in significant revisions standard required reporting of all 6-. Significant Changes Since Proposal to converter secondary'emission minute average opacity levels greater estimates at seven smelters. Comments Since proposal of the standard, a than the 97.5 percent upper confidence that prompted the additional analyses of number of major and minor changes level of a normal or log-normal emission information for these eight have been made. Significant changes distribution of the 6-minute average smelters and EPA's detailed responses have been made to the applicability of opacity levels monitored during the are included in the BID for the the standard, the opacity monitoring emission test. This requirement has been promulgated standard (EPA-450/3-83- requirements, and the requirements for revised to require establishment of 010bl along with comments received on control of matte and slag tapping reference opacity levels based on the the revised emission estimates. These emissions. In addition, requirements for highest 1-hour average opacity level comments and responses also are control of excess emissions during monitored during a 36-hour evaluation summarized in the Discussion of malfunctions and upsets have been period. The evaluation period will Conments-Emission Estimates section added. The bases for these changes are include the time periodduring which the of this preamble. discussed in the Basis for Standard and emission test for the control device is The EPA also reviewed the emission Discussion of Comments sections of this conducted. Occurrences of 1-hour part of the preamble. The changes are estimates for the remaining low-arsenic average opacity levels above the summarized below. smelters and made minor adjustments reference level Applicability of Standard.The must be reported as as necessary. These adjustments standard is now applicable to new and excess emissions. primarily reflected refinements in existing primary copper smelters. The Recordkeeping andReporting.The assumptions and calculations proposed standard was applicable to proposed requirements were redrafted concerning distribution of arsenic new and existing low-ar'senic primary to clarify some requirements, to improve between primary and secondary copper smelters, and a separate the organization of the sections, and to emission sources. These revised standard was proposed for high-arsenic add additional requirements. New emission estimates are also presented in smelters. The standard for converter recordkeeping and reporting the BID for the promulgated standard. secondary emissions now applies to all requirements added include Dispersion Modeling converters where the average annual maintenance of a record of malfunctions arsenic feed rate to the converters is 75 and all actions taken to reduce' At the time of proposal, EPA kg/h (164 lb/h), or greater; the proposed emissions until the problem is corrected; recognized that the estimates of public level was 6.5 kg/h (14 lb/h]. At proposal, and reporting of any changes in the exposure to inorganic arsenic emissions it was estimated that six smelters would operating conditions of the emission from the 14 low-arsenic copper smelters be required to install controls to comply capture system, control device, or the needed improvement. In particular, it with the standard. The final standard is building housing the converters that was known that uncertainties in expected to affect only one existing might increase emissions. In addition, emission estimates, particularly the smelter in this manner. exceedances of opacity and air flow rate estimates of fugitive emissions and other Control Requirements for Matte and reference values are now to be reported information used in dispersion modeling, Slag Tapping Emissions. The standard quarterly instead of semiannually. could contribute to significant errors in no longer includes provisions requiring estimates of ambient concentrations. application of emission control to matte Additional Analyses Because of the recognized uncertainties and slag tapping operations. in the information used in the dispersion Requirements for Periods of Excess Because of public comments, EPA has modeling studies, EPA undertook to Emissions. Provisions have been added conducted additional analyses to ensure improve the dispersion modeling results. to the standard that require steps to be that the final rule is based on the most The EPA reviewed emission sources and taken to minimize emissions during. complete and accurate information quantities used as inputsto the HEM at malfunctions and upsets and that available. These additional analyses proposal to make quantitative estimates require operation and maintenance of include revision of emission estimates, of public exposure, current risk, and converters and associated air pollution revision of dispersion modeling and risk probable risk reduction resulting from control equipment in a manner that assessments, and additional cost and application of controls. Input parameters avoids preventable malfunctions. economic impact analyses. The scope of for each smelter were revised based on Test Methods and Procedures.The these additional analyses is summarized results of the reanalysis of emission equation for calculation of the converter in the paragraphs below. The estimates and upon best available arsenic charging rate was revised to conclusions are presented in the meteorological data for each site. The clarify that all converters operating at a Discussion of Comments section of the model was applied to the revised set' of smelter are considered in the calculatior ipreamble and are discussed in detail in input paiameters foi each. low-arsenic of the arsenic charging rate and that the BID for the promulgated standard. throughput smelter and new arsenic 27972 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations dispersion estimates were obtained. The Douglas, Ajo, Hayden, San Manuel, and This section describes the application of revised modeling results predicted Morenci copper smelter sites. For a this approach in the development of the ambient concentrations at distances up number of technical reasons, including a standard for primary copper smelters to 50 km (31 miles) from the smelter. The lack of a significant quantity of data, the and the rationale for extension of the procedure used to estimate health risk is EPA was unable to make meaningful standard to any new smelters. The described in Part I of this preamble, Risk comparisons except at two sites-El factors considered in the development Management. Further, more Paso and Hayden. Although the model are discussed under two areas: (1) sophisticated modeling of arsenic both over- and underpredicted measured application of risk management dispersion was performed for two of the concentrations, generally HEM provided approach including consideration of smelters, as discussed below. reasonable, for the purpose of risk risks and control options; and (2) At the plant sites of Douglas, Arizona assessment, estimates of the inorganic selection of final standard. (Phelps Dodge), and El Paso, Texas arsenic concentrations to which people (ASARCO), EPA performed more are being exposed. (The final risk Application of Risk Management detailed, site-specific analyses which estimates for each plant are listed in Approach included the use of plant meteorological Table 111-3, presented in the The standard that is being established data, consideration of terrain features, Consideration of Risks discussion.) In today is based on the technology that, in and the use of more sophisticated air addition to the above, EPA the Administrator's judgment, provides dispersion models. These two sites were meteorologists searched for more the maximum reduction in risk to public selected because of the availability of representative weather data for each of health and is available and can be on-site or nearby meteorological data. the smelter sites. For the Garfield, Utah, applied without causing widespread At the other primary copper smelter site, such data were identified and used plant closure or imposing costs that far sites, similar data were not reasonably in subsequent analysis. These analyses exceed any public health benefit. available. are presented in detail in Appendix C of Accordingly, the Administrator In its original risk assessment. EPA the BID (EPA-450/3-83-010b). considered a number of factors in did not consider terrain effects or the Costs and Economic Analyses selecting the final standard. The factors effect of buoyancy of the fugitive that were considered included the emissions escaping from the furnace Since proposal, EPA has revised its estimated emission reduction and buildings. Additional dispersion estimates of the cost and economic remaining public exposure to inorganic analyses were performed for the El Paso impacts to primary copper smelters of arsenic, the level of the estimated health applying and Douglas sites to examine the controls required by the risks and uncertainties in these combined effect of terrain, downwash, proposed standard. For six of these estimates, and the economic impacts of and buoyancy on airborne arsenic smelters, copper companies supplied closure. The following sections describe concentrations. These analyses are information concerning equipment and the principal factors considered in this described in Appendix C of the BID costs necessary for compliance with and the decision. in a report, entitled "Atmospheric proposed standard. The EPA reviewed Dispersion Modeling of Long-Term the cost information supplied by the Considerationof Control Options. Average Arsenic Concentrations in the companies and analyzed the differences There is a range of potential control Vicinities of Four Industrial Plants" (A- between these estimates and those options that are applicable to low- 80-40/IV-A-12). made by EPA at proposal. For each of arsenic primary copper smelters. These The concentration profiles predicted these smelters, EPA reviewed the potential options are: (1) Converter by both the more sophisticated model reasonableness of the assumptions and fugitive emission controls; [2) matte and and by HEM were compared to reevaluated the control costs. The EPA slag tapping fugitive emission controls; available ambient data near the El Paso also reviewed the comments of these and (3) control of emissions during smelter to confirm the model's abilities copper companies on EPA's reanalysis malfunctions. The evaluations of the to provide reasonable estimates of of the control costs. The final estimates potential control options are ambient arsenic concentrations. Both air of control costs reflect consideration of summarized below. dispersion models generally all comments received throughout the 1. Converter fugitive emission underpredicted the ambient public comment period. controls: The standard proposed on July concentrations at the El Paso site. The Because of this reanalysis, the control 20, 1983, would have required EPA expects that the dispersion models cost estimates for converter operations installation of converter secondary could tend to slightly underpredict and matte and slag tapping operations hoods consisting of horizontal air ambient concentrations since the generally were increased over the curtains and exhaust plenum, specific ambient monitors collect arsenic due to estimates presented at proposal. Also, work practices to ensure effective other nearby sources including arsenic an economic analysis was performed for capture by the hoods of converter that naturally occurs in the soil and from the 14 copper smelters using the revised secondary emissions, and venting of the reentrainment of past smelter emissions. cost and emission estimates to captured secondary emissions to a These comparisons indicate that the determine whether the standard would control device for collection. A HEM can provide reasonable estimates be affordable. prototype air-curtain secondary hood of ambient concentration profiles and is already installed on the No. 4 converter suitable for estimating concentration of Basis for Standard at ASARCO-Tacoma has been ambient arsenic at the remaining As discussed in Part I of this evaluated and found to achieve an primary copper smelter sites at which preamble, the risk management overall average capture efficiency of the more sophisticated analyses were approach provides for a comprehensive about 94 percent. Based on these test not used. assessment of candidate source results, EPA estimates that the converter At smelter sites other than El Paso, categories, including an evaluation of fugitive controls will reduce converter Texas, EPA has compared its HEM current and applicable emission control fugitive emissions by 90 percent (if predictions of ambient concentrations to alternatives, as well as the associated captured emissions are controlled by a available ambient data. Such health risks, risk reductions, and collection device with 96 percent comparisons were attempted at the associated costs and economic impacts. efficiency {i.e., 90 percent = 94 percent Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 27973

x 96 percent)). The potential emission costs for the converter secondary estimated cost effectiveness ($/Mg) reductions, in Mg per year, for existing controls at each of the existing smelters ranges from about $100,000 to $8 million copper smelters are summarized in also are given in Table 111-1. The per Mg at the 14 smelters. Table II-1. The estimated annualized

TABLE III-I.-REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL AND COST IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH SECONDARY INORGANIC ARSENIC EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR CONVERTER OPERATIONS

Potential Baseline ecd Cot per AsedArsenicArsenic rate to secondary secondary Annualizedcodntrol emissioniunit Smeller contentfeed, of converters,percnt emission,arsenicklo~mperreduction. emissions,arsenic sio controlcosts, reduction,emission percent kilo~m par milligrams milligram r $1,000 dollars per per year per year milligrams as per year

ASARCO-EI Paso: (1)...... 0.5 98.9 98.3 13.3 3.7 379 102,430 (2) ...... 0.5 98.9 24.8 3.4 1.0 379 379.000 ASARCO- Hayden ...... 0.42 63.4 10.2 5.4 4.4 798 181,365 Kennecott McGill...... 0.033 9.3 10.1 10.1 9.2 2,201 239.240 Kennecott- Hayden ...... 0.015 7.2 6.5 8.5 5.9 2,140 362.710 Phelps Dodge- Douglas ...... 0.03 4.2 4.1 4.1 3.7 2,943 795,405 Inspiration- Miami ...... 0.033 5.7 1.9 1.9 1.7 2,943 1,731,000 Phelps Dodge- Morenci ...... 0.006 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.7 3,432 2.019.000 Kennecot- Utah (Garfield) ...... 0.144 14.7 1.5 1.5 1.4 2.028 1.449.000 Phelps Dodge- Hidalgo ...... 0.003 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.18 1.745 9,694,000 Tennesee Chemical-Copperhill ...... 0.0004 0.7 0.65 0.65 0.58 1,278 2.203,000 Magma- San Manuel ...... 0.006 0.6 0.55 0.55 0.50 3.979 7,958.000 Phelps Dodge- Ajo ...... 0.015 0.8 0.52 0.52 0.47 1.562 3,323,000 Kennecott- Hurley ...... 0.0005 0.8 0.46 0.46 0.42 2.296 5,467,000 Copper Range-While Pine ...... 0.008 0.5 0.30 0.30 0.27 1.278 4.733.000 Total ......

El Paso figures represent secondary arsenic emissions based (1) on an emission factor for uncontrolled converter fugitive emissions of 15% of the arsenic contained In the pnmary converter process gases and, (2) on a 3.75% emission factor. These figures are estimated byEPA to represent the upper and lower bounds of uncontrolled converter fugitive emissions at ASARCO-EI Paso. 2Emission reduction estimates calculated assuming no additinal control by the building evacuation system (BES) of emissions escaping the converter secondary hoods. Some control of these emissions bythe BES may occur although the amount of control cannot be determined. To the extent that emissions escaping the converter secondary hoods are controlled by the BES. these emission reductions are understated.

2. Matte and slag tappingfugitive control devices to control the particulate concentrations have been monitored at emission controls: The standard matter emissions. The potential the plant boundary for the past eight proposed on July 20, 1983, also-would emission reductions and the costs to years. These monitoring data have have required capture and control of control the captured emissions at the shown that arsenic concentrations matte and slag tapping secondary smelters that are not currently dramatically increased when increased emissions from smelting furnaces with controlling them are summarized in fugitive emissions were released during arsenic tapping rates greater than 40 kg/ Table 111-2. The cost effectiveness of upsets of the copper converters and h (88 lb/h]. All three smelters above this these controls ranges from $330,000 to when malfunctions of control equipment cutoff have installed localized hoods $7,300,000 per Mg for the 14 primary resulted in an increase in emissions. over matte and slag tapping operations copper smelters. Therefore, EPA believes that all and two have also installed efficient reasonably available control measures should be utilized to reduce the impact TABLE 111-2.-REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL AND COST IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH SECONDARY of malfunctions and process upsets on INORGANIC ARSENIC EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR MATTE AND SLAG TAPPING OPERATIONS inorganic arsenic emissions. The Administrator recognizes Arsenic Potential Baseline Predicted Cost per that Sltrprocess Arsenic Arsenic EmissionArsenic AnnualizedControl IEmissionUnit malfunctions cannot be completely Smelteir rate raeEmissionsmisin EisiosEmissions ReductionEiso Costsotrl ReductionEiso kilograms milligrams milligrams mion Costs duction prevented. However, there are measures pertiour per year per year milligrams $1,000 dollars per per year milligram as that can be taken to reduce emission rates significantly and to minimize the ASARCO -Hayden ...... 98.2 8.5 1.1 0 0 ...... time during which increased emissions ASARCO-EI Paso ...... 102.1 6.7 0.8 0 0 ...... Kennecott--Utah (Garfield) *...... 40.4 2.0 2.0 1.7 1,914 1,126,000 occur due to malfunctions and process Kennecott-Hayden ...... 9.4 0.9 0.9 0.78 257 329,490 upsets. Measures that can be taken to Inspiration-Miami ...... 19.8 0.8 0.8 0.69 261 378,260 Phelps Dodge-Douglas ...... 10.4 0.6 0.4 0.32 514 1,606.000 reduce emissions during startups, Kennecott-McGill ...... 5.6 0.3 0,3 0.26 257 988,460 shutdowns, and malfunctions include Phelps Dodge-Morenci ...... 5.0 0.3 0,3 0.26 514 1,977,000 Phelps Dodge-Hidalgo ...... 0.8 0.05 0,05 0.04 257 6,425,000 repair of malfunctioning or damaged Phelps Dodge-Ajo ...... 1.8 0.1 0.1 0.09 257 2,856,000 equipment as soon as possible and Kennecott-Hurey ...... 1.6 0.1 0.1 0.09 265 2,944,000 Tennessee Chernical-Copperh.ll 1.1 0.09 0.09 0.08 257 3,213,000 regular maintenance of potential sources Magma-San Manuel ...... 0 0.08 0,08 0.07 514 7.343,000 of inorganic arsenic emissions to ensure Copper Range-White Pine ...... 0.6 0.06 0.06 0.05 257 5,140,000 that preventable breakdowns do not occur. The emission reduction obtained by 3. Control of emissions during emissions. The effect of process upsets using such measures cannot be malfunctions: Primary copper smelting and equipment malfunctions on ambient estimated. Furthermore, the control operations can experience equipment arsenic concentrations has been costs will vary depending on the nature malfunctions and process upsets that demonstrated at the ASARCO-Tacoma of the malfunctions, specific equipment, result in increased inorganic arsenic smelter, where ambient arsenic and frequency of occurrence of 27974 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations malfunctions and upsets. However, it is important element in consideration of estimated maximum lifetime risks before estimated that the costs of a program risks. application of controls range from 1.3 X will be negligible. 10- to 5.0 X 10-6 and the estimated Estimated Risk-Current estimated Considerationof Risks. In reaching annual incidence ranges from 0.38 to risks and the risks remaining after the the decision on the standard, .the 0.0001 cases per year. In general, these Administrator considered of particular application of available control technology for converter secondary estimates of risk are lower than those importance the magnitude of the presented at proposal because of estimated risks and the degree to which emissions are summarized in Table III- 3. These calculated risk estimates were revisions to inorganic arsenic emission estimated risks can be reduced by rate estimates resulting from public available control measures. In addition, developed using the procedure comments (for basis of revisions see the Administrator also considered the described in Part I of this notice, and a general public comments on the unit risk factor of 4.29 X 10-a/pLg-ma. As Discussion of Comments-Emission reasonableness of risks to be an shown in Table 111-3 for each smelter, Estimates).

TABLE 111-3.-RISK ESTIMATES FOR PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS

Smelter 2 Annual Incidence, cases per year

Maximum lifetime risk Baseline x Conveter Reduction Baseline er r eduction R 10- Control' x 10- B* Control

ASARCO-El Paso: (1) ...... 10 8 2 0.38 4 0.;9 0.09 (2) ...... 6 5 1 0.20 4 0.18 0.02 210 3 4 9 1 20.18 -1O0.16 0.02 A SARCO - Hayden ...... 13 12 1 0.06 0.05 0.01 Kennecott-Garfield (Utah) ...... 0.6 0.6 0 0.14 0.14 0 Kennecott-Hayden ...... 3 0.5 2.5 0.016 0.0054 0.0106 Inspiration-Miami ...... 1.9 1.0 0.9 0.0069 0.0034 0.0035 Phelphs Dodge-Douglas ...... 12 2 10 0.022 0.0081 0.0139 0,8 '0.7 '0.1 '0.025 -0.013 0.012 Kennecott-McGill ...... 4 0.6 3.4 0.006 0.0015 0.0045 Phelps Dodge-Hidalgo ...... 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.0001 0.0001 0 Phelps Dodgeo-Morenci ...... 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.0028 0.0009 0.0019 Phelps Dodge-Ajo ...... 2 1.7 0.3 0.0045 0.0038 0.0007 Kennecott-Hurley ...... 1.2 0.5 0.7 0.0008 0.0003 0.0005 Tennessee Copper-Copperhill ...... 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.003 0.0006 0.0027 Magma--San Manual ...... 1.6 0.4 1.2 0.0026 0.0017 0.0009 Copper Range-White Pine ...... 1 0.15 0.95 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002

'Control of converter fugitive emissions by a system consisting of a secondary hood with 94 percent collection efficiency. 'El Paso figures represent secondary arsenic emissions based: (1) on an emission factor for uncontrolled converter fugitive emissions of 15% of the arsenic contained in the primary converter process gases, and (2) on a 3.75% emission factor. These figures are estimated by EPA to represent the upper and lower bounds of uncontrolled converter fugitive emissions at ASARCO-EI Paso. Risk estimates calculated using site-specific analyses (ISCLT/Valley model) and 3.75% emission factor. b Risk estimates calculated assuming no additional control by the building evacuation system (BES) of emissions escaping the converter secondary hoods. Some control of these emissions by the BES may occur although the amount of control can not be determined. To the extent that emissions escaping the converter secondary hoods are controlled by the BES. these risk estimates are overstated. 5 Risk estimates calculated using site-specific analyses (ISCLT/Valley model).

Effect of Control Options.-As any additional reduction in maximum risk estimates is inappropriate in described in the discussion on lifetime risk and would reduce the regulatory decisionmaking. Although the Considerationof Control Options, estimated annual incidence of lung Agency acknowledges the potential for reductions in fugitive emission rates can cancer to levels ranging from 0.29 to error in these estimates, EPA believes be achieved with the air-curtain hoods 0.0001 (i.e. essentially no reduction). that, on balance, they are best estimates for converter secondary emissions and Accuracy of Risk Estimates.- that the Agency can reasonably provide. controls on matte and slag tapping Although EPA believes that the use of Whether the risk estimates are higher or emissions. (Emission reductions for a quantitative risk estimates is an lower than the true risks to the public is malfunction and upset control program important element of the risk unknown; although, in general, many of cannot be estimated.) Applying controls management process, the Agency the assumptions which have been made for converter secondary emissions recognizes and has attempted to make tend to be conservative and, therefore, would reduce the range of estimated clear throughout this rulemaking that tend to ensure that the estimates are not maximum risks to between 1.2 X 10' any such estimates contains inherent significantly understated. and 3.0 X 10-6 from a range of 1.3 X - - uncertainties. A part of this uncertainty 10 3 to 5.0 x 10 . The estimated annual arises from gaps in the health and Selection of Standard incidence of lung cancer would be technical data bases that (1) Cannot The EPA interprets the requirement of reduced to levels ranging from 0.29 to ever be filled; or (2) cannot be filled section 112 to establish emission 0.0001 with application of converter within the time and resource allocations standards at a level which "provides an secondary controls. (Before application available. Another part of this ample margin of safety" as not implying of controls, the estimates of annual uncertainty derives from the simplifying that these standards must ensure that incidence ranged from 0.38 to 0.0001.) assumptions that must be made to there is no remaining level of risk. The application of Controls to matte and reduce the scope and detail of the Consequently, the standard being slag tapping secondary emissions would analysis to manageable terms. The adopted today requires the use of achieve only negligible reductions in assumptions necessary to estimate control equipment and work practices risk. Specifically, application of matte inorganic arsenic health risks and the that will reduce arsenic emissions and and slag tapping controls in addition to underlying uncertainties have led some hence risks to the practical minimum. converter controls would not result in commenters to suggest that the use of Equipment and work practices Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 641 JI IU 917017r

requirements for the capture of secondary controls only at the that can and will be taken to reduce converter secondary emissions are being ASARCO-EI Paso smelter. established emissions from converter upsets and instead of an emission The Administrator also standard concluded control equipment malfunctions. For the owing to the infeasibility of that it is appropriate to apply the purpose accurately measuring of this standard, a malfunction these emissions standard to any new primary cooper (see 49 FR 33132 is defined as any sudden failure of for discussion of smelters having average annual arsenic process or air pollution control selection of format of the standard). feed rates to the converters of 75 equipment or of a process to operate The standard kg/h, reflects consideration of or greater. Although no new smelters are normally that results in increased the magnitude of the risks, the costs and projected to be built in the next 5 years, emissions of arsenic. A failure of availability of further controls and the standard is being applied to new equipment or a process upset caused associated risk reduction potential, and smelters to ensure that any such sources entirely or in part by poor maintenance, the potential societal impacts of are controlled. Should any new smelter careless operation, or other preventable regulatory alternatives. The be constructed, EPA will also evaluate upset condition or equipment consideration of the impacts, in the need for additional emission breakdown, would be considered particular, weighed the estimated risks controls. improper operation and maintenance. achieved by and remaining after The EPA's assessment of the risk Improper operation and maintenance is application of controls and their reduction achievable through a violation of the standard. The uncertainties against the costs to application of controls on matte and provisions pertaining to achieve malfunctions the emission reduction and the slag tapping secondary emissions that are discussed above do not potential for widespread excuse closure. These showed that reductions in annual such violations. considerations were described earlier incidence were less than 0.001 and that Discussion of Comments and are summarized below. essentially no reduction in maximum The EPA assessed the need for the lifetime risk would be obtained. The Comments on the proposed standard proposed converter secondary control negligible reductions in risk are largely a were received from copper companies, requirements using the risk estimates result of the current low emission rates State and local air pollution control and control cost estimates presented in (less than 1-2 Mg per year). In addition, agencies, Federal agencies, Tables Ill-1 and 111-3. For five of the six controls on matte and slag tapping environmental groups, the United smelters that the proposed standard operations are required by the Tripartite Steelworkers of America (USWA), and would have affected, EPA concluded Agreement for ASARCO-El Paso, and private citizens. A detailed discussion of that the costs were disproportionate to no additional emission reduction would these comments and EPA's responses the risk reductions that could be be achieved witha NESHAP can be found in the BID, which is obtained. Furthermore, the revised requirement. Moreover, it is the referred to in the ADDRESSES section economic analysis showed that for two Administrator's judgment that controls of this preamble. of these five smelters the control costs on matte and slag tapping operations at were In comment letters and hearing likely to result in the smelters the remaining facilities would impose testimony, general remaining and specific permanently closed. The costs that are greatly disproportionate to comments were made on EPA's analysis of the converter control the risk reduction achieved. Therefore, requirement emission estimates, cost estimates, also indicated for the sixth the proposed control requirement for ambient exposure facility, ASARCO-EL Paso, modeling and risk that risk matte and slag tapping operations is not estimation, achievability of the standard reduction could be obtained at a cost included in the final standard. that and various technical aspects of the does not present unreasonable The need for requirements to economic proposed standard. For discussion and social effects. An minimize emissions during process purposes, additional factor considered the comments have been in the upsets and equipment malfunctions was assessment grouped into the following areas: risk was that secondary hoods not evaluated using a risk management management will be installed on approach, legal and policy, all converters at analysis. Rather, the need was ASARCO-EL application of risk management Paso to comply with determined considering the availability requirements approach, emission estimates, health in the Texas SIP for of preventative measures and the attainment effects, public exposure and health risk of the NAAQS for lead. potential for elevated ambient arsenic Since estimates, control technology, costs and the costs of the controls are concentrations during such reasonable periods. economic impacts, monitoring and the control can be Since EPA inspections of primary implemented requirements, and compliance now, it is the copper smelters identified areas where Administrator's provisions. judgment that these increased attention to maintenance and controls should be applied at ASARCO- operations could minimize emissions Risk Management Approach El Paso. Consequently, EPA revised the due to equipment malfunctions, it is the Comments on the risk management cutoff to distinguish between primary Administrator's judgment that control copper smelters approach include general comments on where additional measures are available and can be emission the methodolgy and BAT approach as control is reasonable and those reasonably applied. Because the where well as comments on alternative risk additional emission control inclusion of a comprehensive list of all imposes costs that management strategies considered for far exceed any public potential malfunctions in a regulation is health benefit. low-arsenic primary copper smelters. The final standard, thus, impractical, the Adminstrator concluded requires installation The comments on risk management and and operation of that it would be more effective if the the air-curtain BAT approach, and alternative risk secondary hoods and the owner or operator were to identify management strategies use of work practices to ensure are considered potential malfunctions and upsets and in Part II of this notice, and will not be maximum capture of fugitive emissions the steps it would take to minimize at facilities repeated here. where the converter arsenic emissions when they occur. Therefore, feed rate is 75 kg/h (164 lb/h) or greater. the final standard requires each affected Legal and Policy Based on available information, this smelter to submit a plan for EPA A few cutoff requires application of converter commenters argued that the approval that outlines the specific steps proposed standard attempts to 27976 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations circumvent Section 112 of the Clean Air are protective of public health and Emission Estimates Act: and that the regulation should not places the obligation for controlling exempt emissions during startup, emissions on the source. The On two occasions during the public shutdown, and malfunctions from the Administrator believes that comment period, EPA published control requirements. The commenters requirements of capital investment set- estimates of arsenic emission rates for further argued that the regulation should asides and financial relief are not the low-arsenic smelters. Comments encourage compliance, not provide a authorized by Section 112 of the Act and were received from several copper means and incentive for circumvention. are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. companies on the two estimates. The The regulation has been revised as it Furthermore, EPA believes that since copper companies' comments on the applies to emissions during startups, historical fluctuations in the price of emission estimates presented in the July shutdowns, and malfunctions. The final copper was considered in the analysis of 20, 1983, Federal Register notice were regulation includes maintenance the affordability of controls, such a that EPA had overestimated arsenic requirements and timely repair of requirement is not necessary. emissions from several of their smelters. malfunctioning converters and pollution In their comments on the revised Comments of this nature were received control equipment. The regulation also emission and cost estimates published regarding ASARCO's El Paso and now explicitly requires that emissions of for comment in the September 20, 1984, Hayden smelters, Kennecott's Hayden, inorganic arsenic be minimized at all Federal Register notice, ASARCO, McGill, and Garfield (Utah) smelters, times. Phelps Dodge, and Kennecott requested and Phelps Dodge's Morenci and Ajo The Sierra Club, State of New Mexico, that EPA also publish the revised risk smelters. and NRDC took issue with EPA's estimates for comment. The For each of these smelters, EPA reliance on control measures required Administrator considered this request, reviewed the information on which the by SIP's, consent decrees growing out of the extent to which the estimates have proposal emission estimates were based violations of SIP requirements, and changed since proposal, and the in light of the comments submitted. OSHA standards. The commenters potential effect of these changes on the Where judged appropriate, revisions to thought these requirements were an final decision, and concluded that the proposal estimates were made. inadequate substitute for Section 112 publication of the revised risk estimates These revised estimates were presented standards since the requirements can be for comment is not necessary. Moreover, for public comment in the September 20, amended and have greater flexibility in the Administrator thought that the 1984, Federal Register notice (49 FR their enforcement. The Administrator additional delay in issuance of the 36877). Additional comments were believes that where standards standard this would entail would not be received regarding these revised established under separate authorities in the public interest. Instead, to keep emission estimates. In general, the are effective in reducing emissions, the public informed, EPA placed the copper companies thought that EPA's redundant standards need not be revised estimates in the public docket estimates still overstated the total established by EPA. The EPA (Docket No. A-80-40) and provided amount of arsenic being emitted or the establishes separate standards when these commenters with copies of the amount emitted from the converter revised estimates and their supporting there is evidence that either the control building. The EPA reviewed these documentation. The Administrator measures are not likely to remain in additional comments and determined place or are unlikely to be properly believes that adequate opportunity for that with the exception of Phelps Dodge- public review of the risk estimates has operated and maintained. In the case of to the been provided. Hidalgo, additional revisions primary copper smelters, EPA reviewed estimates were not warranted. The final the SIP requirements, the applicable Application of Risk Management emission estimates for the low-arsenic OSHA standards and agreements, and Approach smelters are given in Tables III-1 and the emission reductions achieved under ASARCO and Kennecott commented 111-2. All of the final estimates of these requirements. Based on this that EPA's selection of smelters to be inorganic arsenic emissions are lower review, the Agency has concluded that regulated at proposal was arbitrary and than the proposed estimates with the adoption of redundant EPA standards capricious since different cost- exception of the Kennecott-Hayden would result in no emission reduction or effectiveness cutoffs were used at estimates, which are unchanged. The other public health benefit beyound that different facilities. At proposal, smelters primary basis for revision of the which is occurring (or will occur). The were selected for regulation of either estimates is summarized below for each EPA will continue to monitor controls converter fugitive emissions or matte smelter and discussed in detail in the and emissions at the smelters, and the and slag tapping emissions based on BID for the promulgated standard (EPA- standard can be later revised should this potential emissions and the costs to 450/3-83-01ob). assessment prove to be incorrect. achieve the emission reduction. As ASARCO-EI Paso: The EPA concluded The Sierra Club also recommended discussed in Part II of this notice, from a review of comments and that EPA consider requiring capital several difficulties were encountered supporting documentation that the investment set-asides that would be with this approach and the basis for estimated capture efficiencies for the available for smelter capital selection of the appropriate level of building evacuation system at El Paso improvements when EPA reviews the control has been revised. Decisions on should be increased to 90 percent (from standard after 5 years. This would the level of control are now based on 75 percent) and that less converter provide smelters that otherwise could consideration of the risk reduction that secondary emissions may be generated not afford controls with a means of can be obtained as well as the costs to than previously estimated due to use of affording controls on their operations. achieve that reduction and the economic a computerized gas management system; The NRDC suggested that some form of impacts of the control requirement. The however, the amount of emission financial relief be established to assist Agency believes that the present risk reduction is unknown. Therefore, a communities that are at particular risk management approach is consistent range of emission estimates was from smelter inorganic arsenic with the intent of Section 112, and it developed for this smelter, assuming 90 emissions. Section 112 of the Act responds to many concerns of percent capture efficiency and converter requires EPA to adopt standards that commenters. secondary emission factors of 3.75 and Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 27977

15 percent of the converter primary Kennecott-Hayden: After demonstrated that the capture efficiency emissions, and was published in the consideration of Kennecott's comments of the converter secondary hoods is September 20, 1984, Federal Register on the emission estimate for this more than 90 percent, indicating EPA's notice. ASARCO's comments on the smelter, EPA has not made any estimate of 50 percent capture efficiency range of emission estimates did not significant changes to the arsenic is too low. This comment was restated provide any information on the effect of material balance. The overall arsenic in Kennecott's comments on the revised the computerized damper system on material balance information provided emission estimates. The final emission fugitive emissions. Therefore, EPA by Kennecott was very similar to the estimate for this smelter only reflects continues to believe that the range of mass balance used by EPA at proposal, the basic changes to the balance emission estimates best characterizes with the exception of the estimates of suggested by Kennecott. The final converter secondary emissions at stack emission rates and fugitive arsenic balance and emission estimate ASARCO-EI Paso. emission rates from smelter equipment. retains EPA's estimate of 50 percent ASARCO-Hayden: Based on a review Since Kennecott did not identify the capture efficiency by the converter of comments and material submitted basis for their estimated stack emission secondary hoods. Kennecott's claim of regarding the estimates presented in the rate of 0.23 kg/h (0.5 lb/h) and EPA's greater capture efficiency for the July 20, 1983, Federal Register notice, estimate is derived from emission test converter secondary hoods was not devices similar to the accepted because the analysis failed to EPA determined that its estimate of the data for control device used at this smelter, EPA consider the other points in the hot smelting furnace arsenic volatilization retained its estimated stack emission metal building housing the converters rate should be increased (from 49 to 78 rate of 3.2 kg/h (7 lb/h]. Further, since where emissions could escape to the percent), and converter secondary the potential reduction in fugitive atmosphere, such as the roof monitor on emissions decreased (from 15 to 3.75 inorganic arsenic emissions was not the hot metal side of the building and percent of the primary converter process quantified by Kennecott, EPA has no windows and doors in the building. The emissions). The revised percent arsenic basis for estimating the effects of the EPA also considered that even if the volatilization rate falls within the range smelter improvements on fugitive existing converter secondary hoods of values reported in the literature and emissions of inorganic arsenic. This were to achieve 90 percent capture is the rate predicted by the furnace smelter is currently closed. efficiency, the difference in the estimate designer (INCO) for feed materials used Kennecott-McGill: In response to of low-level fugitive erlissions would at the Hayden smelter. Additionally, the comments that the proposal arsenic result only in small changes in risk converter fugitive emission factor was balance was based on atypical estimates, and would not affect the revised to reflect the performance of concentrates that will not be smelted at promulgated standard. high-draft primary hoods such as the this facility in the future, EPA revised Phelps Dodge-Morenci: The EPA hoods on the No. 1 and No. 2 converters the arsenic balance to reflect use of revised the arsenic material balance for at ASARCO-Tacoma, which the primary concentrates used by other low-arsenic this smelter using information submitted hoods for the converter operations at throughput toll smelters. In comments on by the company after proposal. The Hayden closely resemble. Since the revised estimates, Kennecott revised arsenic distribution is based on ASARCO did not provide any rationale reiterated its belief that planned recent sampling at the smelter, while the for its estimates of 75 to 80 percent controls for converter fugitive emissions balance presented at proposal was capture efficiency for the existing should be considered in determining based on a theoretical distribution secondary hoods, the original estimate emissions. The EPA considered this provided by the company. of 50 percent efficiency based on EPA comment and concluded that the Consequently, the basic changes were observations was retained. planned controls should not be included accepted by EPA as more accurately In their comments on the revised in the estimate of baseline emissions. predicting inorganic arsenic emissions emission estimates, ASARCO disagreed Specifically, EPA believes that since the and were incorporated into the arsenic with EPA's assessment of emissions anticipated controls are not included in balance. escaping capture by the primary hoods, a Federally enforceable requirement and Phelps Dodge-Hidalgo:The EPA the capture efficiencies achieved by the these controls are not yet firmly enough revised the arsenic material balance for existing secondary hoods, and the established to be assumed operational this smelter using information submitted capture efficiencies air curtain before application of this NESHAP, the by the company in their comments on secondary hoods would attain at this control should not be considered in the September 20, 1984, Federal Register smelter. The EPA considered these estimating baseline emissions. This notice. The revised arsenic distribution comments and concluded that to revise smelter is currently closed. is based on the arsenic content of the emission estimates further would Kennecott-Utah: The arsenic material copper concentrates now. being require inspection of the facility and balance was revised to reflect changes processed at the smelter (now 0.005 additional information. Because EPA in process operations and more accurate percent arsenic, or less). Consequently, believes that further reductions in the material assays. The smelter arsenic EPA revised the arsenic balance based emission estimates achievable would material flow information used by EPA on this new information. The revised not affect the standard, EPA decided at proposal for developing the arsenic emission estimate is lower than the this effort would not be a productive use balance was obtained directly from estimate presented at proposal. of resources and the estimates should information submitted by Kennecott in Phelps Dodge-Ajo: The arsenic not be revised. If EPA were to consider 1978 and 1983. In its comments on the balance was revised to reflect the revising the standard so as to cover this estimate presented in the July 20, 1983, arsenic content.of feed materials facility, the capture efficiency achieved notice of proposal, Kennecott supplied a expected to be smelted in the future and by the existing secondary hoods would revised balance for the Utah smelter the use of an unmodified reverberatory be re-evaluated and the specific factors that reflected small changes in.process furnace instead of an oxy-sprinkle that might reduce the capture efficiency operations and more accurate material modified furnace. These changes were of air curtain secondary hoods would be assays. In these comments Kennecott made because of information provided evaluated. also stated that in-house testing by the.company and because of changes 27978 Federai Register J Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations in the consent decree affecting this companies presented in support of their -comments included comments on the smelter.'The company also thought that position included both fl) community linear nonthreshold assumption, the 70- the arsenic balance should reflect the and certain occupational studies that year residence assumption, the air fugitive emission controls ,on matte and did not detect lung cancer risks quality modeling.out to distances of 20 slag tapping operations at 'the Ajo associated witli exposure levels at or km (12 miles),. and the failure to consider smelter. The EPA did not revise the greater than those occurring near health effects other than lung cancer; arsenic balance regarding matte and primary copper smelters, and (2) The EPA's consideration of these slag -tapping operations fur lwo reasons. evidence that predicted concentrations general comments is discussed in Part i, First, the fugitive emission controls near the smelter are.-less than those Risk Management Policy and General consist of only an emission capture found in some cities in the U.S. Health Issues, of this preamble. The system (no collection or removal As discussed in Part 1H,Risk responses to specific comments on risk system), so no emission reduction is. Managcment Policy and General Health estimates for primary copper smelters achieved. Second, the risk modeling Issues, of this preamble, this evidence are given in this section. already considered the height of release has not proven to the Agency that Two commenters who had carefully of these emissions. primary copper smelters pose studied EPA's risk assessment results Other comments on emission insignificant or nonexistent risks to the criticized the fact that the computerized estimates were made by the USWA. In exposed public. (The commenters did exposuremodel positioned portions of its comments, the USWA suggested that not debate that inorganic arsenic exposed populations at points where no set of emission estimates should be exposure was occurring.) The people could not possibly live. For considered final and definitive. 'The community and occupational studies instance, in the Phelps Dodge-Ajo regulation should provide for a generally do not have the statistical ' smelter analysis, people had been continuing examination of inorganic power to detect significant increases in assigned to uninhabited areas near the arsenic emissions from all sources at the lung cancer at the exposure levels that smelter such as tailings ponds, slag smelters, in onder to identify are predicted by the Agency's models. heaps and waste dumps. The EPA is opportunities for additional controL In Although they did not detect increases aware that the computer model may particular, the USWA thought that in risk, such studies could not conclude assign exposed people to unlikely places attention should be given to intermittent with a high degree of statistical near the smelter. This results from the ope ations and to process upsels. The confidence that risk increases were not format of the census data. Of necessity, EPA agrees that estimations of present. By applying the best the census data are provided to EPA in a available and using a emissions from a source should not be information summarized form so that the data base final, and that -continuing scientifically creditab!e exposure/risk considered will not overload computer storage examinations, as circumstances relationship that was based on capability. Instead of providing records warrant should be carried out in order occupational data, EPA has estimated on the location of each family dwelling, and accurate increased lung cancer risk to the public to have up-to-date the U.S. Census Bureau gathers a emission information on record. It was surrounding the smelters. These three commenters also number of people (up to 2,00 people) for this reason that the Agency's at one compared the ambient arsenic and locates this group of pnople estimates at proposal were fe-evaluated point caled a population centroid. Of receipt of public comments and the concentrations caused by the smelter's after course, most if not all of the people in revised estimates were published for emissions to the highest arsenic the group do not acutally dwell at this public comment ,Several emission concentrations measured in other places population centroid. Therefore, the estimates were revised to reflect new in the U.S. According to EPA's estimates computer program, when calculating information on feed inoiganic arsenic and ambient monitoring data, the exposure, considers that groups of concentrations, smelter confiurations, maximum concentrations of arsenic to do not live at a single point and, and process data. The final rggulation which people may be exposed near people s using a preselected formula that more was issued after considering the best smelters ranges from 0.13 to 0.3 pg/m information available. The regulation and the highest annual concentrations realistically reflects the actual people will be periodically reviewed after reliably reported in areas not affected population distribution, assigns promulgation and changes made as by smelters occurred in Ohio and to nearby points on the concentration appropriate to account for any new Atlanta, Georgia, where concentrations profile grid. Generally, this approach information relating to arsenic emission are about 0.01 Lg/m .The comparison causes the model's risk estimate for the at smelters in this source indicates that arsenic concentrations in most exposed person to increase since sources "spreading" out the population category. In addition, the final regulation most areas are wellbelow the predicted over a includes provisions that require steps to and measured concentrations near broader area increases the likelihood of be taken to minimize emissions during copper smelters. people being placed nearer points of converter upsets and emission control In the Administrator's judgment, maximum concentrations. After the risk equipment malTunctions. primary copper smelters are posing estimates are calculated, EPA staff significant risks, but in lig of the level review the computer printouts to ensure Health Effects of the estimated risks and the impacts that the estimation of the risk to, and the Phelps Budge, Kennecott, and requiring fuwher controls, most of those location of, the most exposed individual ASARCO stated that Section 112 was risks are not unreasonable. is reasonable. This judgment is based on intended to apply only when emissions a study of small-scale U.S. Geological pose a significant risk of increased Public Exposure and Health Risk Survey (USGS) maps and discussions mortality or serious irreversible, or Estimates with Agency personnel who have visited incapacitating reversible illness. Phelps Corrmeters on the proposed the plants. For calculating annual Dodge felt that the evidence presented standards for high- and low-arsenic incidence or aggregate risk for a large to EPA has established that inorganic primary ccpper smelters expressed both number of nearby people, such careful arsenic emissions from U.S. primary general and specific concerns regarding checking becomes very difficult to copper smelters do not present the exposure and risk estimates for perform. When the Agency has significant risks. The evidence that the primary copper smelters. The general attempted to make such corrections in Federal Register /-Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 27979 II the modeling, the results have not are primarily from the the south so the representative meteorological data, significantly changed. The computer highest concentrations should be EPA's experience has shown that the program simply assigns people in a more directly north of the smelter. We risk estimates may increase or decrease reasonable spot where the claimed areas north of the smelter are and because of the complexity of the concentrations may be larger or smaller largely uninhabited. These two dispersion and exposure models, the than at the centroid location. With commenters believed using the Tucson changes are difficult to predict in larger populations, the corrections result data caused overestimation of exposure. advance of completing the new analysis. in about equal positive and negative One also believed assumptions about Several commenters believed the changes to the estimated risks and thus atmospheric stability should be avoided, dispersion model overestimates ambient balance out. With smaller populations, and soundings should be taken at arsenic concentrations. Some the Agency reviews the reasonableness different heights to measure stability. commenters said EPA should have of the exposure results and where ASARCO also claimed that the measured background arsenic present deemed necessary, makes corrections Tucson data were not representative of when smelters were not operating and by hand calculations. The Administrator metorological conditions near its smelter compared this with ambient arsenic believes that the risk assessment at Hayden. ASARCO commented that concentrations measured when the techniques used as a basis for today's Tucson was over 100 km (60 miles) from smelters were operating to determine rulemaking produce reasonable Hyden, and is in a broad valley; the extent to which smelters contribute exposure and risk estimates given all whereas Hayden is mountainous with a to ambient arsenic levels. These the other uncertainties that are narrow valley, so wind patterns would commenters and others felt EPA should associated with the risk assessment be different. ASARCO also commented base its exposure estimates on process. that the El Paso smelter is on the other measured ambient concentrations rather Phelps Dodge commented that the side of a ridge from the meteorologic than dispersion modeling results. location coordinates for the Ajo smelter station EPA used to model that smelter, Some commenters presented ambient that EPA presented in the background so the data are not representative. It monitoring data and compared it to the document for the proposed standard are also cautioned that meteorologic dispersion model predictions in an inaccurate. In response, EPA checked its conditions at the elevation of a tall stack attempt to show that the dispersion location data on a small-scale USGS may be different from those at ground model is inaccurate. Phelps-Dodge map and has made the location level. Kennecott commented that the submitted ambient arsenic correction (less than a kilometer shift in Tucson airport was located too far from concentration data obtained using a position). The current risk assessment is their Hayden smelter for the high-volume air sampler for two periods: based on the new location data. meteorologic data to be representative. January through April 1982 and January Several of the primary copper smelter As discussed under the section through April 1983. Measurements were companies said EPA should present a entitled Additional Analyses, EPA made taken at the Ajo town plaza. During the table for each smelter that provides the several efforts to improve the Agency's first period the Ajo smelter was distribution of levels of exposure. (The estimates of risks near primary copper operating normally. During the second EPA only showed this information for smelters. However, the analysis at only period, the smelter was closed. These all smelters as a group, not for three plant sites (El Paso, Douglas, data were used to arrive at an estimate 3 individual smelters.) They said that Garfield) were affected by the of 0.0014 tig/m as the level of ambient without this information, the public is improvements. At other primary copper arsenic concentration caused by the not able to replicate or check the smelter sites, the Agency was unable to smelter at the plaza. Phelps-Dodge accuracy of EPA's exposure assessment. obtain more representative commented that EPA's model estimated Therefore, EPA has expanded its risk meteorological data in a format that maximum ambient concentrations 150 assessment portion in the BID for could be used by EPA's computer times greater, and average exposures 40 primary copper smelters (and the other models. These other smelters are times greater than these measured source categories as well) and has generally located in rather sparsely concentrations. included in the docket (Docket No. A- populated areas and are not near a Some commenters claimed ambient 80-40) copies of the exposure National Weather Service station that arsenic levels in Morenci are 10 percent assessment computer printouts. would collect and record the necessary of the levels reported by EPA in the Two commenters criticized the surface weather observations. As the proposed notice. ASARCO submitted appropriateness of meteorologic date commenters point out, the selected quarterly concentrations of arsenic EPA used in dispersion modeling. One surface weather observation measured using ASARCO's low-volume commenter stated that EPA did not use (meteorological data) may not be air sampling network around El Paso accurate meteorological data. A representative of the smelter area. In and Hayden in 1982 and 1983. The representative of Phelps Dodge this case, the Agency must use the best commenters said the mean measured commented that the Tucson available information to perform its concentration at the Hayden fire station meteorologic data used to model Phelps- analysis. Therefore, since more (near the town's population center) is Dodge smelters in Ajo and Morenci, representative meteorological data were 0.14 pg/m 3. According to ASARCO, this Arizona, were from a location over 160 not available for some smelter sites, measurement can be multiplied by 1.67 km (100 miles) from these smelters, and EPA tried to obtain ambient arsenic to yield an estimate similar to that the data are not representative of concentrations data for comparison with which would be obtained using a high- conditions at the smelters. He suggested the modeled exposure estimates. The volume air sampler. ASARCO that local meteorologic data should be following discussion explains the basis concluded that EPA's dispersion model used. Another commenter said the of the final exposure estimates. estimates a concentration of about 0.417 model, based on Tucson data, estimates The commenters suggested that the j.g/m 3 for this location, which is twice the highest concentrations to the estimated risks at sites where the the measured concentration. northwest and west northwest of the Agency may be using unrepresentative Some commenters criticized EPA's smelter. The commenter noted that meteorological data are overstated. dispersion model because it does not meteorological data show Ajo's winds When applying the more local or consider terrain. They'said terrain is not 27980 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

level around copper -smelters, in background concentration. In an attempt performed an additional site-specific particular Phelps Dodge's Ajo smelter, to improve the correlation between analysis that was similar to that - ASARCO's Hayden smelter, and predicted and measured concentrations, performed at the ASARCO-El Paso site. ASARCO's El Paso smelter. One EPA also performed a site-specific Although -the Agency believes that the commenter added that EPA's analysis of El Paso. This site-specific site-specific analysis will generally - background document for the proposed analysis used on-site meteorology and produce at any site the best estimate of standard states that failure of the model considered terrain features. However, ambient concentrations that occur as a to consider terrain will. result in the site-specific analysis also provided result of a source's emissions, EPA's underestimation of exposure in areas predicted concentrations that were human exposure model provides with uneven terrain. The commenter lower than the measured concentrations. ambient concentration estimates that said-this is not always the case. He said. There are three possible explanations are very similar to the site-specific measured concentrations in Hayden for this underprediction. First, as the analysis results and the available were lower than modeled commenters have suggested, there is. ambient data. (See Appendix C of the concentrations. some fraction of the arsenic BID of a detailed discussion of the As mentioned in the section entitled concentration that comes from other modelling.) Additional Analyses, EPA has made sources, such as-naturally occurring There were several primary copper serveral changes to improve or check arsenic in the local soil. Second, studies smelter-sites for which no nearby the exposure and risk estimates. (See - have shown that pollution from past ambient data could be found. When Appendix C of the BID IEPA-450/3-83- plant emissions has increased pollutant considering the results of the model 010b] for a detailed presentation of the concentrations in the surrounding soil confirmation efforts described above, risk assessment.) In addition to and this condition allows the - that the reentrainment of arsenic into the* the Administrator believes significantly reducing some of the ambient concentration estimates as smelter's emission estimates used in the atmosphere. Third, the Agency may are reasonable and. have underestimated emissions from the generated by HEM exposure model, comparisons between. represent the best estimates that can be predicted and measured values have plant. Some combination of reentrainment of local'soil and provided within the limited resources been made to demonstrate the exposure available. model's potential for estimating ambient underestimation of the plant's emissions arsenic concentrations. Because it is the suspected but undocumented Several commenters said that some generally does not provide a site- cause of the underpredictions. - populations are exposed to emissions specific analysis that accounts for local At the ASARCO-Hayden and Phelps from two or more smelters. They terrain features and meteorology and Dodge-Douglas primary copper smelter reasoned that since the model does not because there are 'other sources that sites, EPA's analysis indicated that the consider the combined effects of the emit arsenic into the atmosphere, EPA exposure model both over- and emissions from plants with overlapping expects that exposure model to both underpredicted the measured emissions, exposure and risk are over- and underpredict measured concentrations at those monitoring sites underestimated. This possibility, as concentrations; but, on the average, the where meaningful comparisons, could be identified by the commenters, could model should slightly underpredict the made between predicted and measured .occur in the Hayden area since two measured values. As a result of a concentrations. However, at the State- primary cooper smelters are located in computer data base search, limited operated monitors near the smelters, the this town. The EPA agrees that in this ambient arsenic data near the calculated long-term concentrations case, there is a potential for the risk ASARCO-Hayden, Inspiration-Miami, were based often on individual assessment to underestimate the Magma-San Manuel, Phelps Dodge-Ajo. measurements that were. below the maximum individual risk to the Phelps Dodge-Morenci. and Phelps minimum detectable level (MDL) of the population exposed to both smelter's Dodge-Douglas sites were identified, analysis technique. Rather than record emissions. Because the ASARCO- while at the ASARCO-EI Paso site, the zeros, EPA assumed that the actual Hayden facility emissions dominale the Agency located a number of arsenic concentration is one-half the MDL and concentrations, the additional risk monitoring sites operated by the State used that value in the analysis. Thus, (concentration) from Kennecott-Hayden Agency and ASARCO. when there are a number of measured has been shown to be small, about 16 For El Paso, EPA's computer exposure concentrations below the MDL in the percent of the ASARCO-Hayden model consistently underpredicted data base, the calculated long-term maximum individual risk. The concentrations at 20 monitoring sites concentration become more uncertain. commenter has made a valid point, but (included six company sites). At eight of When considering this uncertainty of the the maximum individual risk estimates these sites. the predicted concentrations available ambient data at the Phelps that account for the overlapping of-the were within a factor of tvo of the Dodge-Douglas and the ASARCO- ambient concentrations are essentially measured data and all but one of the Hayden sites, it appeared that on the same as the maximum individual remaining estimates were within a balance the exposure model was making risk based on only concentrations factor of ten of the measured data. At reasonable if not somewhat of an resulting from the ASARCO-Hayden the one remaining site. EPA has overprediction of the ambient emissions. To confirm this result, EPA underestimated the arsenic concentrations. modified the exposure model and concentration by a factor of 40. At those remaining primary copper performed as assessment that (However, the data at this one site were smelter sites [Inspiration-Miami, Phelps considered the combination of the two collected in one year enly and did not Dodge-Ajo, Phelps Dodge-Morenic, and plants. The Tesults substantiated the meet the air quality guidelines for Magma-San Manuel), much of the earlier estimates. For the annual calculating a representative annual ambient data showed concentrations incidence, the combined smelter average.) The amount by which EPA's below the MDL and at best, provided exposure assessment indicated that the exposure model underpredicted the only a qualitative comparison to confirm town of Hayden's annual incidence is measured concentration was higher than the model's predicted concentrations. At simply the sumof the annual incidence what EPA would consider a natural the Phelps Dodge-Douglas site, EPA associated with each plant's operations. Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 27981

Some commenters said that primary provides reasonable if not somewhat smelting operations on both sides of the cooper smelter risks were overestimated conservative estimates and is the best border. Arsenic emissions from the because EPA has applied a number of estimate that the Agency can reasonable smelters may be considered by the conservative assumptions that lead to make. A number of commenters have technical study group. made suggestions for improving the risk worst case risk estimates. The EPA Control Technology agrees with the commenters that some estimates, as mentioned in earlier of the Agency's assumptions are sections. The EPA has followed their Numerical emission limit. The conservative (e.g., the exposed people suggestions where feasible (e.g, use of American Lung Association (ALA) and remain at their residences for a lifetime). nearby ambient data to confirm the NRDC commented that the proposed However, in several cases, the exposure model's prediction). emission limit of 11.6 mg/dscm (0.005 gr/ assumptions are generally not Two smelter companies made their dscf) for the control device treating conservative. For example, the own risk calculations, which they converter secondary emissions or assumption of flat terrain may result in believed to be more accurate than those smelting furnace tapping emissions does EPA presented in the BID for the under-prediction of ambient not reflect the control levels achievable proposed standard (EPA 450/3-83-010a). concentrations for those located by best available technology. Hence, the in areas Their results are summarized in Table with local terrain features commenters thought the standard would elevated 111-4. At two sites (Hayden and McGill) above the source. allow application of less than best EPA's estimated risks are every similar systems. The NRDC further commented Upon review of the assumptions and to those estimated by the company. At that the emission limit should be their associated uncertainties, which are the two remaining sites (Garfield and established considering the best control discussed in Part II of this notice, the Ajo), there was substantially less efficiencies achieved by well-designed Agency cannot demonstrate that the agreement. The footnotes provide and -operated systems, not the worst analysis provides an overestimate, a possible reasons for the differences in efficiencies, and that EPA had not best estimate, or an underestimate of results. Since the standard does not explained why the emission limit was actual risks. Although not able to regulate any of these four smelters, the based on the highest emission rate quantify all the uncertainties, the companies' lower risk estimates have no rather than the average. In contrast to Agency believes that its risk assessment effect on the Administrator's decisions. NRDC's and ALA's position, ASARCO and Phelps Dodge argued that the TABLE 111-4--COMPARISON OF RISK ESTIMATES AS MADE BY THE SMELTER COMPANIES AND THE emission rate had not been EPA demonstrated to be achievable and the Baseline-maximumn Baseline-annual standard should be 50 mg/dscm (0.022 Individual lifetime risk incidence individual risk gr/dscfl to allow use of existing Smelter (cases/yr) Company electrostatic precipitators and fabric EPA Company EPA filter collectors. ASARCO cited test data - for other smelters and a retest of the El Phelp Dodge-Ajo (')...... 0-6x 10 2x 10-1 0-0.00044 0.0045 KennecottL.tah (b)...... 0. -5 d0' 6X 10 0.0006-0.003 0.14 Paso converter building fabric filter Kennecott.Hayden ...... 4.5-27X 10- 3x10-' 0.0017-0.025 0.016 collector to support its argument. The Kennecot-McGill ...... I ...... 1.7-13x10 1 4X10 0.005-0.1 0.006 average outlet particulate matter (a) Phelps Dodge's analysis was based on limited sampling data collected over 3 months at one site that was located concentration for these tests varied from approximately 1 km from the plant. The EPA's analysis was based on air dispersion models that estimate long-term (over several years) concentrations. 0.2 to 126 mg/dscm (0.001 to 0.05 gr/ (b) The EPA's risk analysis considered population exposure out to 50 km, while Kennecot's analysis went Out to 20 km. dscf). Phelps Dodge also cited EPA and There was a significant number of people that lived between 20 and 50 kmof the plant. This factor mayaccount for the difference inEPA's and Kennecott's estimates of annual incidence. company emission test data showing average particulate matter concentrations greater than 11.6 mg/ Considerationof TransboundaryAir crude estimate of Mexican exposure dscm. Pollution.Two commenters noted that near the Douglas smelter and found, The Administrator does not agree EPA's risk assessment did not consider based on this initial calculation, that with the commenters that the standards any Mexican populations that are being exposure was small enough so as to not are either too lenient or so restrictive as exposed to emissions from U.S. primary significantly change the risk assessment to be unachievable. As explained at the copper smelters located near the results presented in this notice. Similar time of proposal, to select the emission Mexican border. Also, commenters estimation techniques indicated that the limit, EPA reviewed the particulate noted that EPA's analysis did not Mexican population exposure due to matter source test results for the control consider U.S. public exposure to emissions from the ASARCO-EI Paso devices judged to represent best emissions from the Mexican primary smelter is more substantial, but not technology. The available source test copper smelters located near the border. great enough to justify any tightening of data for systems used to treat converter In regard to the first comment, the the standard. secondary emissions consisted of one Administrator has considered the In regard to U.S. public exposure to series of three test runs conducted on potential exposure to Mexican citizens emissions from Mexican 'smelters, the the fabric filter collector treating from the U.S. smelters (El Paso and Administrator notes that he lacks emissions from the El Paso converter Douglas) in his decisionmaking. At the authority to regulate these emissions. building. The particulate matter present time, the Agency does not have However, the United States and Mexico emissions from the control device outlet any Mexican census data in a form have entered into an "Agreement on the ranged from 1.1 to 11.6 mg/dscm. The similar to that supplied by the U.S. Environment in the Border Area" average value for the three runs was 5.1 Census Bureau, so the Agency was (signed August 14, 1983; entered into mg/dscm (0.002 gr/dscf). The EPA unable to perform its standard exposure force February 16, 1984). Under this believes that because an emission level analysis to evaluate exposures in agreement, delegations from the two 'of 11.6 mg/dscm (0.005 gr/dscf) is not an Mexico. Based on the very limited data countries have formed a technical study unexpected result during an emission available, the Agency did attempt a group on air quality that will deal with test of this technology, this is the 27982 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations appropriate level for the standard which Paso converter building fabric filter of conditions. Vendor guarantees of is not to be exceeded. It is EPA's collector also does not demonstrate the performance for control devices do judgment that the 11.6 mg/dscm (0.005 unachievability of the emission limit. include consideration of the expected gr/dscf) emission limit requires a well- The EPA's review of this test report minimum efficiency over the expected designed, -operated, and -maintained found that the condition of the control range of operating conditions. control device and does not allow use of device was not reported. In addition, the ASARCO's argument regarding the lack less effective control devices. concentration measured at the outlet of of any relationship between inlet and The level at which a standard should the control device exceeded the outlet arsenic concentrations is flawed. be set is a matter of judgment. As concentration measured at the inlet The data cited included one inlet test discussed above, the numerical emission during EPA's test program in 1978. that was reported to be biased low limit for converter secondary emissions Combined, all of these factors -suggest owing to loss of part of the sample is based on the test results for only one that the system tested by ASARCO in during analysis. When this test series is control device. Because of the limited 1983 differed significantly from the excluded from the data set, the amount of data, it is EPA's judgment system tested by EPA in 1978, and that remaining three inlet tests only vary by that a standard reflecting the lowest at the time of ASARCO's tests the about 20 percent. The measured level or even the average level measured control system probably was not collection efficiencies varied from 99.95 would not allow any margin for properly maintained or operated. to 99.97 percent. Thus, the data only differences among facilities and control The EPA believes that the emission show small random variations and do devices or for sampling and analytical limit of 11.6 mg/dscm (0.005 gr/dscf) is not support ASARCO's argument. errors in measurement of emissions. To further demonstrated to be achievable Converter work practices. Several provide this margin, the standard is by the test data available from other comments were received from ASARCO based on the highest outlet source categories which have emissions and Phelps Dodge on the proposed concentration that was measured. similar to converter secondary converter work practices. [No The Administrator considered the emissions and use comparable control substantive comments on the converter data and arguments presented by devices. Electric arc furnaces (EAF's] in work practices were received from other ASARCO and Phelps Dodge and the steel industry have particulate commenters.) ASARCO commented concluded that it would not be emissions with size distributions and that, since a rolled-out converter never appropriate to establish an emission concentrations similar to those of ceases fuming, the wording of proposed limit of 50-mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf) as converter secondary emissions. § 61.182(a)(2)(ii(B) should be changed to suggested. In reaching this conclusion, Emission test data for well-controlled- require the converter to be held in an the data base for the standard, the data EAF's show that emission rates of less idle position until fuming is minimized. cited by both companies, and data for than 11.6 mg/dscm (0.005 gr/dscf) are The EPA agrees with the commenter other source categories which have consistently achieved (EPA-450/3-82- that converters do not cease fuming emissions comparable to converter 002a). Consequently, EPA has entirely. The intent of this requirement secondary emissions were reviewed. established an emission of 12 mg/dscm was not to require zero fuming before This review is summarized here and (0.0052 gr/dscf) in the new source skimming but to require sufficient idling presented in the BID for the promulgated performance standard for EAF's in the of the converter to minimize the quantity standard (EPA-450/3-83-Olob). steel industry. of secondary emissions geneiated Emission test data for the ASARCO- An additional ASARCO comment on during skimming. Consequently, the Tacoma smelter and other facilities the achievability of the 11 mg/dscm language of this requirement has been show that uncontrolled converter (0.005 gr/dscf) standard for converter revised as suggested (now secondary emissions contain less than secondary emissions was that it is § 61.172(b)(2)(i}(B)). 50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf) particulate invalid to argue that the standard is ASARCO and Phelps Dodge also matter. Thus, an emission limit of 50 mg/ achievable merely because the commented that the proposed dscm (0.022 gr/dscf) would likely require concentration of the inlet fugitive requirement in § 60.172{a)(2}(ii)(C} to no control of converter secondary emission gas stream is low since there is position the ladle as close to the emissions. no direct relationship between the inlet converter as possible to minimize the Review of the test data submitted by and outlet concentrations of arsenic- drop distance would reduce the ASARCO and cited by Phelps Dodge containing particulate matter. To effectiveness of the air curtain, decrease showed that the data do not support this comment, ASARCO cited productivity, and increase safety demonstrate that the proposed emission emission data for the arsenic plant hazards. The commenters hypothesized limit is unachievable. Specifically, with fabric filter collector at the Tacoma that the hood capture efficiency would the exception of the test conducted on smelter that seemed to show that the be adversely affected because holding the El Paso converter building control highest outlet concentrations were the ladle off the ground will place the device, the data were for emission associated with the lowest inlet crane cable in the air curtain jet during streams which are not comparable to concentrations. The Administrator the skim. ASARCO and Phelps Dodge converter secondary emissions (e.g., considers the low inlet concentration to argued that productivity would be higher inlet concentrations and be relevant to selection of the emission decreased because: (1) coordination of significantly different particle size limit for several reasons. Inlet smelter operations serviced by the crane distributions) and for control devices concentration is considered along with is difficult due to the unpredictable with different design specifications. desired emission rate and other gas nature of smelting; (2) the crane would Therefore, the performance of these stream parameters in the design of a not be available to perform other duties control devices is not considered to be control device. Although particulate and it would block the converter aisle, indicative of the expected performance control devices do not tend to operate thus preventing part of the aisle from of a well-designed and -operated best with constant efficiency over the entire being serviced by other cranes; and (3) system of emission reduction controlling design range of conditions, they will at most smelters only one crane is converter secondary emissions. achieve a minimum collection efficiency available during the daily maintenance ASARCO's August 1983 test of the El when operated within the design range period, thus the requirement would Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 27983 hinder production during these periods. ladle-holding practice used. Thus, it is to evaluate the performance of the ASARCO argued that the requirement EPA's conclusion that the requirement prototype hood, two visible emission would create safety hazards because the that the ladle be held close to the observers usually evaluated the hood's secondary hood channels the heat converter during skimming could at capture effectiveness. The observations toward the crane aisle, increasing the worst decrease productivity only are presented in "Evaluation of an Air heat burden on the crane block, cables, slightly. Curtain Hooding System for a Primary and cab. As support for this comment, The EPA reviewed the comments on Copper Converter" (A-80-40/IV-A-4 ASARCO stated that it has had to install the safety hazard presented by the and IV-A-5) and are summarized in the additional heat shields on the crane cab proposed work practices considering BID for the proposed, standard (EPA at Tacoma and to replace wiring with available information on the practices. 450/3-83-010a). The visual emission special heat-resistant materials. Basically, the proposed practices were observations revealed that converter The proposed requirements are based observed in operation at the ASARCO- and crane operating practices can on EPA personnel's observations of Tacoma smelter and appeared to be introduce significant variability in converter operations at the ASARCO- routine operating procedure for some overall hood capture efficiency and that period, crane operators. The question of safety careful operations could minimize fume Tacoma smelter. Over a 1-week "spillage" and EPA personnel observed the operation hazards presented by the practice was provide capture of the prototype air curtain secondary also discussed with the USWA efficiencies of 90 percent or greater. hood during all converter operating industrial hygienist. It was the industrial Specifically, it was observed that hood modes. Work practices used by crane hygienist's impression from talking with capture efficiency increased and converter operators varied the local union that in the past some considerably (more than 90 percent) significantly from operator to operator. crane operators at the ASARCO- during skimming operations when the The work practices observed included Tacoma smelter routinely held the ladle crane operator held the ladle next to the the proposed practice of holding the close to the converter. Consequently, converter while the converter was ladle close to the converter and slow EPA concluded that, in spite of these slowly rotated to the discharge position. pouring rates during skimming as well comments, ASARCO has not judged the In contrast, when the ladle was placed as placing the ladle on the ground and practice to be sufficiently dangerous to on the ground during skimming rapid skimming rates. The EPA ban its use. The EPA also considered operations and the skimming rate was personnel observed that better capture ASARCO's remarks on the potential rapid, capture efficiencies were quite efficiencies were achieved when the hazard of additional heat stress applied variable (ranging from 50 to 95 percent). ladle was held close to the converter to the crane block, cables, and cab. It was also observed that during matte than when the ladle was placed on the Important considerations in the charging, capture effectiveness was ground, and better capture was obtained assessment of any additional heat stress improved if the crane was withdrawn with slow skimming of the converter from the requirement were (1) the fact slowly from the confines of the than with rapid skimming. Thus, EPA the requirements reflect ASARCO's secondary hood. Thus, EPA concluded personnel did not observe that the crane operating practice at one smelter and (2) that the converter work practices did cables adversely affected the secondary the fact that to the extent that a affect hood capture efficiencies and hood's capture efficiency. The EPA company concludes that the extra heat emissions escaping capture by the hood. personnel, however, observed that the burden may affect crane cables and When the recommended practices are crane block did affect the capture of blocks, it appears safety can be assured used, it is estimated that hood capture emissions when it was placed in the air by increasing the frequency of efficiencies of 90 percent and greater are curtain path. To achieve effective inspection of crane cables and achieved, thus reducing converter emission capture, the crane block must upgrading the maintenance program for secondary emissions. be placed above or below the air curtain the cranes. The EPA recognizes that some smelter during skimming, and the final Moreover, it should be noted that feed materials cause more fuming than regulation requires this. Section 112(e)(3) allows use of other feed materials. For example, The EPA reviewed the comments on alternative equipment or operation charging of dirty scrap (which contains the effects of the proposed ladle-holding practices upon demonstration that essentially no arsenic) has been requirements on productivity equivalent capture efficiency is observed generally to overwhelm the considering the range of typical achieved. The addition of doors to the secondary hood. In contrast, EPA does converter operations at copper smelters. air curtain hood is one specific example not expect that variations in matte or A converter generally completes a cycle of equipment which would preclude the slag composition should seriously affect in 8 to 24 hours, with slag blowing need to hold the ladle close to the capture efficiencies achieved by the air comprising 70 to 75 percent of the cycle. converter. curtain secondary hood. Consequently, The remainder of the cycle is spent in ASARCO and Phelps Dodge also for the requirements being established charging and skimming operations, and commented that EPA has not estimated under this standard, this variation in holding due to normal process the extent to which any of the proposed fuming could at most affect the time that fluctuations within a smelter. At the end work practices would reduce emissions a converter must be held in an idle of each slag blowing period, slag is and has not considered that some position but it does not affect the skimmed off the bath and returned to smelter feed causes more fuming than requirement to maximize emission the reverberatory furnace. Typically, the other feed. Hence, fuming will vary from capture. With a properly designed and ladle is filled 4 or 5 times during each time to time. (However, the commenters operated secondary air curtain hood, slag skimming which lasts less than 30 did not argue that this variation in this variation in fuming should not result minutes. Except for skimming into the fuming makes the standard in significant variations in secondary first ladle (which may be done when the unachievable.) The EPA's assessment of emission rates. crane is not in the area), the crane is the effect of work practices on emission ASARCO and Phelps Dodge also typically committed to skimming a reduction consisted of evaluation of the responded to EPA's request in the particular converter and is not available effect on capture efficiency of the preamble to the proposed standards (48 for other activities regardless of the secondary hood. During the test program FR 33134) for comment on establishment 27984 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations of minimum time periods for some of the control programs should be imposed in that EPA conduct a more thorough work practices. These companies the final standard. The EPA agrees with analysis of controls for process recommended that minimum time the commenters who argued that EPA emissions. periods for converter work practices not should identify all additional control At proposal, EPA used arsenolite be adopted because such time periods measures that will help reduce inorganic (As 4 06) saturation concentrations to are unwarranted and would necessarily arsenic emissions and exposures. For predict collectability of arsenic, be arbitrary. ASARCO and Phelps this reason in the development of the although it was recognized that other Dodge argued: (1) That the converter standard, EPA assessed the control factors, such as the presence of pre- and crane operators should be allowed measures used, the emission sources, existing nuclei in the gas stream, other discretion to determine the best methods and the feasibility of achieving any forms of arsenic, and residence time at to ensure capture of emissions, and (2) additional emission reductions. The lower temperatures, can also affect that smelter owners have ample final standard includes those control condensation. Saturation concentrations incentives to operate air curtain measures that EPA believes are were used because analysis of available secondary hoods in a reasonable technically feasible and are likely to data showed the two most important manner consistent with maintaining result in a reduction in risks that is factors were operating temperature of production. The incentives cited were proportionate to the cost. In deciding the control device and the arsenic that proper uses would aid in achieving which emission sources should be concentration in the gas stream. compliance with OSHA standards and regulated, EPA considered several Specifically, the contention that in controlling S02 fugitive emissions. factors. The principal consideration was temperature has a significant effect on - Time periods for converter work the emission reduction achievhble and the collectability of inorganic arsenic is practices are not included in the the remaining public exposure to supported by EPA test data, presented regulation being promulgated today. inorganic arsenic that will occur after in the proposal BID, showing the However, this does not preclude the application of controls. Other factors inorganic arsenic collection efficiencies Administrator from including time which were considered included the for three collection devices used on periods in any future amendment to the estimated health risks; the economic process streams at primary copper to the regulation establishing equivalent impacts of the additional control smelters. Emission test data for two work practices, as provided under measures, including the likelihood of control devices (one electrostatic § 61.12(d). Whether or not the work closure; and the costs of these measures precipitator [ESP] and one baghouse) practices for a facility specify minimum relative to the amount of risk reduction operated at about 100 °C (about 212 °F) time periods will depend on the achieved. Thus, in consideration of showed the devices achieved average evaluation of the work practices and the possible additional control measures for arsenic collection efficiences of about 98 Administrator's judgment of the need for low-arsenic smelters, EPA examined the and 99 percent. In contrast, an ESP such requirements. The Administrator feasibility of the measures, the operated at 327 °C (620 °F) only will propose preliminary determinations associated emission reduction and achieved about 30% arsenic collection of equivalent work practices in the expected reduction in health risks, and efficiency. The concentrations of Federal Register. During the public the costs to implement controls. These inorganic arsenic measured in the inlet comment period, the company analyses showed that further process streams to these three control devices management can submit information on and fugitive emission controls would not were comparable. Thus, EPA analyzed the adverse effects of time periods or be reasonable in light of the small the potential inorganic arsenic any other requirements the emission and risk reduction achievable emisisons reduction achievable if gas Administrator considers necessary to and the high costs of the controls. stream cooling in conjunction with an achieve equivalent emission capture. As Therefore, it is the Administrator's efficient particulate control device were with the safety question discussed judgment that the standard being utilized to control process streams at previously, the option of installing air addopted today will reduce inorganic several smelters that do not currently curtain secondary hoods that entirely arsenic emissions and hence risks to the use either this method of control or an contain the fugitive emissions is practical minimum and that additional acid plant to control process emission available to copper smelting companies measures are not warranted. streams. Cooling of the gas stream to 121 should they determine that practices As part of their arguments on the need °C (250 °F) was assumed in the analysis necessary to minimize emissions for additional control, NRDC disagreed because it was believed to represent a interfere with production. with the approach followed by EPA at reasonable estimate of operating Need for oditionalcontrols. The proposal to evaluate gas cooling as a temperatures for primary copper USWA and NRDC commented that control option for copper smelter smelters' process gas streams, although EPA's most important task is the process emissions. The two main points it was also recognized that acid dew identification of additional control of disagreement are: (1) EPA's points may be higher or lower than 121 measures. The USWA thought that the assumption that 121 °C (250 °F) is a °C (250 °F) at some facilities. An standard should provide for continuing reasonable lower limit for gas cooling additional consideration was that below evaluation of arsenic emissions from all because of potential corrosion problems; 125 'C (257 °F) saturation concentrations sources in copper smelters. Similarly, and (2) EPA's use of vapor pressure data are very small and further cooling would the State of New York thought that in predicting potential inorganic arsenic achieve very little additional emission additional control measures should be emission reduction achievable with gas reduction. Since no significant emission required. In particular, the State of New cooling. The NRDC suggested that EPA reductions were expected, EPA did not York objected to EPA's proposal to thoroughly examine the disagreement evaluate the feasibility and costs of allow many low-arsenic smelters to between emission test data and theory, process controls for these smelters. continue using existing controls, instead and that EPA reconsider the benefits of Following proposal, because of of requiring the best technology gas cooling as a control option. The comments on the approach used, EPA available. In contrast, ASARCO argued State of New Mexico also expressed assessed the maximum potential risk that no emission controls beyond the concerns regarding EPA's analysis of the reduction achievable by control of these secondary hoods and existing fugitive benefits of cooling and recommended emission sources. For the second Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 27985 assessment, the revised smelter arsenic TABLE 111-6.-Preliminary Estimate of Costs to rate from the converter building is balances were used to predict arsenic Apply Gas Cooling as a Control Option"- maintained after installation of the emissions from the process streams, and Continued converter secondary hoods the capture it was assumed that 100 percent of the efficiency of the building evacuation arsenic would be controlled (i.e., the risk Smelter Process stream(s) Annualized system should not be diminished. The was reduced to zero). The EPA EPA also recognizes that the converter estimated the-health risks associated Phelps Dodge- Roaster, Smelting 10,300,000 secondary hoods could, by altering the Douglas. Furnaces and with process emissions at all primary Converters. dispersion of emissions and gas flow copper smelters where gas cooling could Copper Range-White Smelting Furnaces '2,500,000 within the building, affect the potentially be applied to reduce Pine. and Converters. performance of the building evacuation inorganic arsenic emissions from one or -Annualized costs include cost ot reheating gas stream to system. Since the design of the stream temperature before cooling and, except as noted, it is more process streams. The estimates assumed that the existing particulate control device would ventilation system incorporating the not have to be replaced. were prepared using HEM. The smelters 'Includes cost of new particulate control device for the converter secondary hoods has not been for which these risk estimates were convener stream. established yet, EPA cannot determine 'Includes cost of new particulate control device for the prepared include the smelters for which smelting furnace stream. what the effects will be and whether it gas cooling was evaluated as a control is necessary to require maintenance of option at proposal plus Phelps Dodge- As can be seen from Table 111-5, the 90 percent capture efficiency in the Ajo. The estimates of annual incidence annual incidence associated with the converter building. The EPA also cannot associated with current process process emission streams to which gas determine whether it is necessary or emissions at these smelteis that could cooling could potentially be applied is reasonable to maintain 90 percent potentially be reduced if gas cooling very low in all cases, with 0.0036 capture efficiency owing to uncertainties were used are shown in Table 111-5. incidence per year being the highest. in the emission.factor for the anode Thus, even if gas cooling could reduce furnace and the converter fugitive 100 TABLE 111-5.-ESTIMATED ANNUAL INCIDENCE process stream emissions by emission factor and their effect on ASSOCIATED WITH PROCESS EMISSIONS AT percent, the reduction in risk would be estimates of fugitive emissions from the SMELTERS WHERE GAS COOLING COULD PO- very small. In addition, the cost of building. To determine the necessary in risk TENTIALLY BE APPLIED AS A CONTROL OP- achieving this small reduction level of control, it would be necessary to TION could be significant, as shown in Table monitor emissions, air flows, and system 111-6. These considerations led EPA to changes after installation of the Annual conclude that even if gas cooling to inci- converter secondary hoods. Smelter Process stream(s) dance 121'C (250°F) or below were a feasible (cases/ control option for process emissions at From discussions with ASARCO and yr) these smelters, the costs would be review of applicable State and SIP EPA concluded that Kennecott-Hayden . Smelting Furnaces ...... 0.0028 greatly disproportionate to the reduction requirements, Kennecott-McGil... Smelting Furnaces and 0.0008 in risk that could be achieved, and ASARCO will continue to maintain the Converters. converter building in its present Magma-San Manuel . Smelting Furnaces ...... 0.0013 therefore gas cooling should not be Phelps Dodge-Ajo. Smelting Furnaces ...... 0.0034 required. condition if this can be done without Phelps Dodge- Roaster. Smelting Fur- 0.0036 increasing worker exposures and Douglas. naces and Converters. The State of New Mexico commented Copper Range-White Smelting Furnaces ...... 0,0001 that if EPA uses emission estimates for creating unacceptably high temperatures Pine. ASARCO-EI Paso that reflect in the work area. While it appears likely improvement in the capture efficiency 'of that ASARCO will maintain a relatively The EPA has also estimated the building evacuation system to 90 closed building, neither EPA nor preliminary annual costs associated percent, EPA must include provisions in ASARCO can determine with certainty with process stream gas cooling. For the the regulation requiring maintenance of whether this will be technically feasible. 90 percent capture efficiency by the Therefore, the standard does not include purpose of these estimates, it was provisions requiring maintenance of 90 assumed that gas stream cooling to building evacuation system and 121°C (250°F) or below could be provisions to verify that the system is percent capture efficiency in the achieved without requiring that special being properly operated and maintained. converter building or maintenance of the measures be taken to prevent corrosion In response to this comment, EPA measures taken by ASARCO to seal the problems. The annualized cost estimates reviewed its analysis of emissions from building. The standard does, however, are shown in Table 111-6. It is important and operations of the converter building require ASARCO, or the owner or to note that these costs are approximate at the ASARCO-El Paso smelter to operator of any other facility that might and may not accurately reflect the ensure that decisions and analyses were be required to install converter actual cost of applying gas cooling. made based on the best information secondary hoods, to report any However, EPA believes these estimates available. The reassessment included: significant changes in the operation of - do provide a general indication of the (1) An on-site inspection of the the emission control system capturing relative magnitude of the costs of converter building ventilation system; and controlling emissions from applying gas cooling as a control option. and (2) discussions with ASARCO converter operations. Examples of regarding anticipated future operation of changes that must be reported are TABLE 111-6.-Preliminary Estimate of Costs to the system after installation of the reductions in air flow through the Apply Gas Cooling as a Control Option, converter secondary hoods and the, capture system of more than 20 percent impact of the computerized gas and an increase in the area of the is open to the Smelter Process stream(s) Annualized management system on fugitive converter building'that emissions. The on-site inspection atmosphere Because changes could' Kenndcott-Hayden. Smelting Furnaces. $ 1,200,000 showed that the converter building' affect the:capture efficiency achieved 'by Kennedott-McGill ...... Smelting Furnaces '11,800,000I evacuation system is achieving about 90 the secondary hoods and the building and Convrerters. percent capture efficiency and EPA evacuation system, EPA will evaluate Magma-San Manuel Smelting Furnaces. 4,700,000 they occur Phelps Dodge-Alo . Smelting Furnaces,.. 1,600.000 believes that if the existing total flow these if 2798.6 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

Standard-forNewSmel&ers The State the cost information supplied by the pollution control equipment. In general, of New Mexico corm-nented that EPA companies and analyzed the differences current interest rates on tax-exempt has failed to determinecontrol between these estimates and those bonds are below 10 percent. For requirements for new smelters that will made by EPA at proposal. Factors example, ASARCO, Phelps Dodge, provide ;an ample margin of safety for contributing to the cost differences Magma, and Kennecott have financed protection of public health. The State of included: (1) Site-specific factors, air pollution controls at interest rates New Mexico thought that a thorough requiring modification of the converter ranging from "3.75 to 11,8 percent. review :by EPA would result in secondary hood design; (2) installation Therefore, EPA believes that-a 10 additional control requirements beyond of new ductwork end fans rather than percent interest rate represents a those proposed for existing smelters. reuse of existing equipment; (31 different realistic assessment ofcapital cost of The EPA did not develop a separate assumptions regarding the control financing air pollution control standard for new smelters because it is .systems needed; and (4) different equipment. The cost analysis an EPA's best projections that no new assumptions for the annualized cost equipment service life of 20 years primary copper smelters will be built capital recovery factor (ie., the interest because that is the service life generally during the next.5 years. To determine rate and equipment service life). For assumed for sheet metal and this life the applicable control measures and the each case where the company provided had been used by ASARCO to amortize impacts and benefits of those measures, additional cost information, EPA the cost of installation of launder covers it is necessary to rely on reasonable reviewed the reasonablenss of the at Tacoma. The Agency recognizes that projections of possible new companies'. assumptions and the service life of the equipment to be construction, including projections of reevaluated the control costs. used in cost analysis is somewhat a process technologies and associated Comments on the revised cost matter of judgment. However, since emission rates which would be estimates were received from ASARCO, changing the interest rate from 10 to 15 associated with new plants. Kennecott, and Phelps Dodge. These percent and equipment life from 20 to 15 Consequently, EPA's analysis at comments consisted of comments on years will increase the annualized cost proposal was based on application of EPA's annualized cost factor (i.e., by only 18 to 27 percent, these control to the existing domestic primary interest rate and equipment service life) differences in the cost do not affect any copper smelters. Should any new as well as comments on EPA's decisions on the standard. primary copper smelters be constructed consideration of ,costs at the specific ASARCO commented that EPA's use and the converter arsenic feed rate is smelters. The EPA's consideration of the of incremental cost makes the proposed above the cutoff, the standard would comments on the cost estimates and the standard appear to be most costly for require control ofconverter secondary economic impact assessments is those companies that have installed the emissions. However, as is evident discussed under three areas: (1) General fewest controls in the past and penalizes throughout this rulemaking. the need for comments on cost estimating those that have installed controls. To and applicability of controls depends to assumptions; (2) comments on cost consider prior installation of controls, a large degree on knowledge of specific estimates for specific smelters- and (3) ASARCO thought that the cost of processes and feed materials.Thus, EPA comments on economic impacts. operating or scrapping existing believes that it is impractical to attempt General Comments on Cost equipment should be attributed to the to project emission control requirements Alt three standard. The Agency ,does not agree for technology that would be installed Estimating Assumptions. copper companies commented that that the method of cost analysis more than 5 years from now. EPA's annualized cost factor should be penalizes those companies that have Costs and Economic Impact based on 15 percent interest and 15-year installed controls. The assessment of Comments were received on the equipment life. The commenters argued whether to require further emission estimated costs to control converter that 15 percent interest represented real control at a facility considers the secondary emissions and on the interest rates that would be incurred effectiveness of existing control systems economic analysis of the affordability of today and that the 15-year equipment in the assessment of present risks and arsenic controls for low-arsenic copper life is more realislic for the conditions the risk reductions achievable as well as smelters presented in the July 20, 1983, under which the hoods would be the cost to achieve that emission notice of proposal. Owing to the operated. reduction (cost effectiveness). Thus, comments received on the initial cost The EPA'a assumption at proposal prior installation of control systems is estimates, EPA revised its estimates of was a 10 percent interest rate, and 2',- explicitly considered in the assessment control costs and published estimates year service life represented a of the need for additional emission for comment in a September 20, 1984, reasonable estimate of costs that would reduction and the approach does not Federal Register notice (49 FR 36877). be incurred with the installation of penalize those companies that have Comments on the revised estimates converter second&a'y crmtrols. The previously installed emission control were received from the three copper annualized cost estimates are developed systems. companies that had submitted assuming dollars of constart value and Regarding ASARCO's second point, comments on the initial cest estimates. hence, at the 5 to 6 percert inflatinmrate the Agencyt recognizes that some of the In comments on the initial cost experienced at the time of proposal, the cited costs (i.e., operating or scrapping estimates, ASARCO, Kennecott, and 10 percent interest rate rsresents a of existing equipment) may be legitimate Phelps Dodge commented that estimated constant dollar equivalent of the expense, however, EPAdid not consider costs for six of their smelters were nominal 15 percent interest rate. Thus, them in this analysis for several understated in the proposal and based EPA believes that the interest rate reasons. The EPA believes that to on faulty assumptions. The companies assumed is close to the rate suggested consider these costs it would be submitted their estimates of emission by the commenters. The use of the 10 necessary for EPA to evaluate the control costs for these smelters. In percent interest is further supported by validity of the claimed expenses in several cases, EPA obtained from the the interest rate being experienced with terms of justification and assigned companies additional information on tax-exempt municipal revenue bond value. To conduct such an analysis their cost estimates. The EPA reviewed issues, which most firms -use to finance would result in further -delays in Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 27987

issuance of this rulemaking. percent interest on capital and 15-year of the converter secondary controls Furthermore, there is no single equipment life, and attributed a prorated since the emission and cost analysis accounting procedures which is share for operation of the existing (i.e., cost-effectiveness] considers the universally used for depreciating control device to the cost of cost to achieve additional emission equipment. Thus, consideration of costs implementing the standard. ASARCO's reduction. The operating costs of the to scrap equipment is also subject to basis for calculating capital recovery existing ESP also were not included dispute. Consequently, EPA did not costs was not used in the reanalysis of since EPA could not verify that the evaluate these costs for the smelters. A control costs. The EPA's revised standard would significantly affect the prime consideration in this decision was estimate of annualized costs still reflects cost to operate this control device. the fact that consideration of these costs use of 10 percent real interest on capital Therefore, the final estimate of would not affect the decision whether to and 20 year equipment life because EPA annualized costs only reflects the higher regulate the specific smelters. believes this basis more realistically capital costs for installation of converter Comments on Smelter Specific Cost reflects actual capital costs and the air curtain secondary hoods at this Estimates. As previously indicated, EPA expected life for this equipment. smelter. reviewed each comment on the control Furthermore, on incremental costs of Kennecott-Utah: Kennecott cost estimates and where determined to operation of the control device were commented that EPA's estimate of be appropriate reevaluated the control attributed to this standard for the control costs for converter and matte cost estimate. The final cost estimates previously discussed reasons and since and slag tapping operations were low. are presented in Tables Ill-1 and 111-2, EPA is not in a position to realistically The EPA's review of a detailed along with the final estimates of evaluate these costs. Therefore, the final breakdown of the capital cost estimate emission reduction achievable by the annualized costs are the costs presented for converter controls showed the best emission controls. The bases of the in the September 20, 1984, notice which primary reason for the difference in the revisions to the cost estimates for each reflect the ASARCO's first capital cost two estimates was that Kennecott's smelter are summarized below and estimate of $1.8 million for installation estimate included costs for installation described in detail in the BID for the of converter secondary hoods. of new ductwork and fans. The EPA promulgated standard (EPA-450/3-83- ASARCO-Hoyden: ASARCO reviewed Kennecott's capital cost olob). commented that EPA underestimated estimates for accuracy and adherence to ASARCO-El Paso: In comments on the capital and annualized costs of sound engineering principles and EPA's initial cost estimate, ASARCO converter fugitive emission controls for concluded that the costs were submitted estimated capital costs for this smelter. ASARCO argued that reasonable. Therefore, Kennecott's installation of air curtain secondary EPA's estimates were too low because estimate of capital costs for converter hoods that were approximately 35 of site-specific differences that affect controls were used in EPA's revised cost percent higher than EPA's estimate at hood design (the costs at proposal were estimates. proposal. The EPA's review of the derived from actual costs incurred at the Kennecott's annualized cost of detailed breakdown of the cost estimate ASARCO-Tacoma smelter), and because converter controls also included a showed that ASARCO's estimate was several direct and indirect costs were capital recovery cost based on 15 higher primarily because it included not included. The principal difference percent interest and 15 year equipment costs for demolition and installation of between EPA's proposal estimate and life. For the previously described new ductwork. Since the cost ASARCO's estimate was the costs reasons, EPA's revised annualized cost differences reflected slight differences in pertaining to demolition of the existing estimate is based on 10 percent real engineering judgment and were based secondary hoods and to the actual costs interest and 20 year equipment life. on sound design and engineering of a new air curtain secondary hood and Thus, the revised annualized costs only practices, ASARCO's capital cost ductwork structures. The EPA evaluated reflect the increase in the capital costs estimate was used in the reanalysis of ASARCO's cost estimate and of the secondary hoods. annualized control cost. In comments on determined these costs to be reasonable, Kennecott's capital cost estimates for EPA's revised cost estimate of $1.8 considering the specific design matte and slag tapping controls differed million, ASARCO stated that changes in requirements at this facility. significantly from EPA's primarily the design of the ventilation system for Consequently, ASARCO's capital cost because costs for new ductwork, the converter secondary hoods have estimate of $3.66 million was used in :increased fan capacity, and a larger increased the estimated costs by EPA's reanalysis of control costs for capacity control device (11,500 acmm approximately 90 percent. The EPA did converter operations at ASARCO- [400,000 acfm]) were included. In the not further revise the capital cost Hayden. revised estimate of capital cost, EPA estimates from $1.8 million to $3.5 ASARCO's estimate of annualized assumed use of new ductwork and million to reflect these changes because costs differed from EPA's estimate in the increased fan capacity, but did not the validity of the cost estimate could use of 15 percent interest on capital, 15 assume use of the larger capacity not be determined from the information year equipment life, a pro rata share of control device since the capacity was provided. Additional information was the existing control device's operating significantly in excess of that normally not requested since this increase in costs, and a write-off of the value of the used. In comments on the revised cost capital costs in itself would not affect scrapped existing secondary hoods. estimates, Kennecott reiterated its belief the decision to require converter Again, EPA's revised estimate of that the higher capacity control device is secondary controls at this smelter. annualized costs is based on 10 percent needed. The EPA considered these ASARCO's initial estimate of real interest and 20 year equipment life comments and concluded that, annualized costs for the converter rather than ASARCO's basis. The considering costs and crane availability, secondary hoods was about 2.3 times revised costs also do not include the a reasonable design would provide EPA's estimate in the July 20, 1983, write-off cost or the prorata share of sufficient capacity to treat emissions notice of proposal. The EPA's and operating costs of the existing ESP. The from simultaneous tapping of one matte ASARCO's annualized cost analyses EPA did not consider it appropriate to *and one slag stream (i.e., the previo'isly differed because ASARCO assumed a 15 attribute the write-off costs to the cost assumed capacity of 5,600 acmm 27988 Federal Register / Vol. 51 No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations'

[200,000 acfmJJ. The EPA also the gas stream. The costs for demolition the acid dew point without creating *considered that furtherrevision of the of the existing system and installation of corrosion problems or predict the cost estimate would not be useful since new ductwork and fans were accepted emission reduction that could be the cost to control mnatte and slag since they were based on actual attained. Moreover, owing to the tapping emissions was disproportionate expenses incurred by Phelps Dodge in changes in the estimate of inorganic to the risk reduction at the lower installing a secondary hood on a arsenic emissions from this smelter, the capacity control device. Therefore, converter at Morenci. Therefore, EPA reduction in risk is very small and the EPA's ,estimated capital ,cost for the revised the capital costs for converter costs are'disproportionately high. control device was retained and the controls -usingPhelps Dodge's estimate Therefore, EPA is not requiring that gas final cost estimate reflects Kennecott's of costs to denmolish and replace existing stream cooling 'be used and is not estimatedcosts for new ductwork and ductwork. The revised capital cost for revising its cost estimates since this fan capacity. control of converter secondary option would 'not be selected at the The annualized costs for matte and emissions also reflects use of a lower cost. slag tapping controls estimated by baghouse rather than an ESP fabricated Comnients on Economic Impacts. Kennecott again used 15 percent interest of stainless steel to control emissions. Comments -on costs and economic and 15 year equipment life as the basis (The capital cost of a baghouse was impacts were also received from NRDC of the capital recovery factor. The final included in the cost estimate presented and the Sierra Club, Grand Canyon cost estimates reflect only .the higher at proposal). Phelps Dodge's comments Chapter. The 'NRDC commented that to capital cost for installation of matte and on the revised estimate were that a assess the affordability of controls EPA controls. slag tapping stainless steel ESP is -necessaryfor must obtain -verifiable documentation of Kennecott-Hayden: For its Hayden treatment of gas streams below the acid company claims of the economic smelter, Kennecott provided estimates dew point and is the proper basis for impacts of control measures, such as of capital and annualized costs for determining control costs for this financial planning documents for the converter secondary controls, which smelter. The capital cost estimate was affected smelters. The NRDC charged were only slightly higher than EPA's not revised to reflect use of a stainless that the existing economic information estimates at proposal. Kennecott's steel ESP as recommended since the on the facilities is incomplete and capital cost estimates were only 19 standard would not require the control. unsupported. The EPA believes that ;the percent higher than EPA's and were device to be operated below the dew cost and economic information is accepted as reasonable. 'Their estimate point of the gas being treated. In sufficiently complete and documented. of annualized costs was revised to addition, revision of the cost estimate for the'following reasons. The EPA's reflect a 10 percent interest rate and 20 would not affect the decision to require economic analyses for primary copper year equipment life basis for calculating .control of-converter fugitive emissions smelfer are based on data which are capital recovery costs.' at this smelter. The final capital cost available in the public domain or from Kennecott-McGill: Kennecott's. estimate, thus, reflects the cost to estimates of capital and annualized - the companies. Information was demolish and replace existing ductwork obtained from a wide variety of sources, costs for controls on converters and and the cost of a baghouse. The final matte and slag tapping operations were including past submissions of data by coste.stimate is the same as the estimate the copper companies, reports prepared slightly lower than EPAs estimates at used in the September 20, 1984'notice. information proposal. The EPA reviewed the cost Phelps Dodge estimated annualized by others on the companies, estimates provided by Kennecott and costs using a capital recovery factor on prices from standard reference, and concluded their estimates were based on 15 percent interest on capital engineering cost studies of the specific As previously described, reasonable. Consequently, the final cost and 15 year equipment life, their. operations. estimates reflect only minor changes estimate of capital costs, and utilities detailed economic and engineering information has been obtained under that resulted from Kennecott's required for an ESP. As with the cost comments. estimates discussed earlier in this Section 114 of the Act from several of Phelps Dodge-Morenci: Phelps Dodge section, EPA calculated the capital the copper companies since proposal. submitted capital and annualized cost recovery cost for the -revised capital cost Therefore, EPA believes that obtaining estimates for installing converter, estimate assuming 10 percent real further information such as internal secondary emission controls that were interest and 20 year equipment life. In planning documents is unnecessary and considerably higher than EPA's addition, Phelps Dodge's estimate for EPA's economic analyses of estimates at proposal. Phelps Dodge's electric power costs was adjusted to affordability are sufficient for capital cost estimate differed from apply to a baghouse rather than an ESP. decisionmaking purposes. EPA's-in its inclusion of: (1) costs to • The final estimate of annualized costs The Sierra Club -stated that the demolish the existing secondary hood primarily reflect the higher capital costs proposal should include sufficient system and to replace the existing of the control system. The final cost economic data for the public to judge the ductwork and fans; and (2) costs for a estimate is the same as the estimate economic feasibility and costs of gas treatment plant .(stainless steel given in the September 20, 1984 notice. controls, including income figures for all ESP's and lime spray pretreatment). The Phelps Dodge-Ajo. Phelps Dodge operations at a smelter such as gold and EPA reviewed the basis of Phelps commented that EPA's estimated costs silver production. in addition, the actual Dodge's cost estimates, and concluded. to cool the reverberatory furnace costa of plant closure should be detailed that only the additional costs for offgases and collect condensed for each smelter and ,compared to demolition of the existing system and inorganic arsenic particulate should benefits (e.g, health cost savings). The replacement of ductwork were Phelps Dodge not convert the furnace to EPA agrees with the commenter that reasonable. The costs for gas treatment . oxy-sprinkle smelting and install an acid sufficient information should be were considered to be unnecessary plant were too low. To support its presented to allow the public an because EPA would not require argument, Phelps Dodge submitted cost opportunity for meaningful participation operation of the converter secondary estimates. As previously discussed, EPA in the rulemaking. It is for this reason emission control system at a cannot presently determine the technical that detailed supporting information is .temperature below the acid dew point of feasibility of cooling gas streams below made available for public inspection in Federal Register / Vol. .51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 27989 27989 the docket and a document summarizing associated with a change in outlet mass the supporting an evaluation period that includes the information is made concentration. ASARCO and Phelps emission test. The EPA believes that available to interested parties. The EPA Dodge recommended revision of the believes that, since reference opacity levels defined in this the economic opacity monitoring requirement to a manner will be a useful indicator of analyses and their bases are available. requirement for keeping a record of all sufficient information has been significant changes in the performance maintenance of the control device and of the control device. provided. Because the financial health of for annual * the emission testing of the The Administrator would like to low-arsenic primary copper smelters device. The EPA agrees with the depends heavily on the price. of copper, emphasize that this opacity monitoring commenters that, if they occur, and reporting of excess emissions is EPA does not believe that consideration significant fluctuations in particle size of income from by-products and co- only a monitoring requirement and is not distribution of emissions could cause a directly enforceable opacity standard. products would significantly have variations affected the in observed opacities. However, excess emissions do provide conclusions of the economic However, the magnitude of opacity analysis for the low-arsenic smelters. evidence of possible violation of variations due to particle-size changes operation The EPA believes that the are and maintenance recommended expected to be small relative to requirements. In other standards, comparison of closure changes associated with the costs and benefits is beyond malfunctions or EPA establishes enforceable opacity the scope improper operation or maintenance of of this rulemaking. To perform the type the control device..Because limits based on visual evaluations of of analysis suggested by the the intent of opacities of gases exiting stacks and commenter the opacity monitoring requirement would require consideration of a large is to other conveyances, and on number of factors including. (1) detect increased emissions due to Costs malfunctions and improper consideration of the effect on opacities and economic impacts operation, of the to the affected EPA reassessed the opacity monitoring expected range of normal companies; (2)costs and economic operating variables. In addition, these impacts to businesses in the community; requirement and concluded that the most reasonable approach is to opacity limits are based on Method 9, (3) social costs, such as impacts on which establish a maximum 1-hour average determines opacity using human property values, health care costs, lost observers. At the primary copper development opportunities, and reference opacity level that considers the fluctuations in opacity levels. One- smelters, opacity limits could not be unemployment compensation costs: and established for the control devices (4) health impacts associated with hour average opacity levels above the reference opacity level would indicate because emissions from several control unemployment. Some of these costs such devices frequently are discharged in as closure costs are relatively easy to that the collection device may no longer be. meeting the particulate matter . common to the atmosphere through one quantify [data are readily available, can stack. Consequently. EPA established be developed, and require few value emission limit. A Method 5 test could then be performed to determine the monitoring requirements. judgements); while others such as ASARCO further commented that impacts on property values, quality of compliance. life, and health care costs are extremely ASARCO and Phelps Dodge also they have had frequent maintenance problems with their existing difficult to quantify (data are not disagreed with EPA's requiring the use available, and there is no generally of transmissometers for monitoring gas transmissometers and that these accepted method for quantifying the streams with low particulate problems are costly and undercut the impacts in economic terms). concentrations. ASARCO commented usefulness of the instrument. The EPA Consequently, EPA believes this type of that frequent Method 5 testing would does not agree that all transmissometers analysis cannot be reasonably done have to be performed to determine the will experience frequent maintenance within this rulemaking.'These secondary validity of using transmissometers to problems. Available information on impacts are considered qualitatively in monitor compliance with the 11.6 mg/ performance of transmissometers selecting the level of a standard. dscm (0.005 gr/dscf) emission standard indicates that transmissometers which Therefore, EPA believes that this type because opacity levels associated with meet 40 CFR 60 Appendix B analysis is not necessary for selecting concentrations of 11.6 mg/dscm (0.005 specifications have repeatedly the appropriate control level for the gr/dscf) are close to or at a demonstrated more than 95 percent standard. Taking all available transmissometer's limit of detection. The availability when properly operated and qualitative and quantitative information EPA agrees with ASARCO and Phelps maintained. Therefore, EPA believes into account, EPA judges that the social .Dodge that opacity levels associated that transmissometers are a useful and economic costs of closing the with concentrations of 11.6 mg/dscm means for ensuring continuous effective smelters would far outweigh the (0.005 gr/dscfj may be near the detection operation of collection devices. reswlting health benefits. limit of transmissometers. The intent of Magma Copper Company questioned the proposed whether the Emission Monitoring Requirements requirement was to waiver of the emission test monitor for significant changes in the requirements referred to in § 61.175(a)(4) ASARCO and Phelps Dodge took level of particulate matter emission could be used to waive the requirement issue on several grounds with the control resulting from operation or for collection and analysis of daily grab proposed opacity monitoring maintenance practices, and such samples of matte, slag, and total smelter requirement for converter secondary increased levels would be well above charge for any smelter that has arsenic emissions exiting a control device. First. the detection limit of the inputs well below the cutoff. The waiver ASARCO and Phelps Dodge commented transmissometer. Therefore, EPA of emission tests discussed in § 61.13 that opacity monitoring will not be revised the.method for defining excess and referred to in § 61;175(a)(4) of the useful for evaluating proper operation opacity levels. The revisions include proposed regulation for low-arsenic and maintenance of control devices using 1-hour averages of opacity data to copper smelters, applies to sources that because short-term variations in particle determine the highest.average and are required to demonstrate compliance size distributions due to combining of establishing the reference opacity level with the standards through periodic gas streams will cause variations in at 5percent opacity, above the highest 1- testing of emissions. Thus, this reference observed opacities that are not hour average opacity determined during in the regulation does not refer.to the 27990 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations, sampling requirements for The potential use of a panel to therefore, believes it is unnecessary and demonstrating applicability. evaluate hood performance was unreasonable to require tracer mass The EPA agrees that the daily discussed in the July 20, 1983, Federal balance determinations to evaluate collection and monthly analysis of grab Register notice of proposal (48 FR hood capture efficiencies. The study samples would prove burdensome for a 33112). The EPA requested comments on also found the transmissometer data to smelter that fell well under the the proposed use of a panel in be of limited usefulness because, again, applicability cutoff of 75 kg/h (164 lb/h) evaluating air curtain secondary hoods overall capture efficiencies for the entire converter arsenic charging rate. and in determining optimum operating converter-secondary hood area could Consequently, paragraph 61.174(g) has conditions. Based on comments received not be evaluated. (The transmissometer been included in the final regulation to on this "panel approach", the was mounted on top of the air curtain permit an owner or operator to petition Administrator thinks that the method for and measured emissions escaping the Administrator for a modified establishing optimum operating capture by the air curtain and passing sampling schedule if the analyses conditions for the hoods should be through the slot. It was not practical to performed in the first year of the clarified. The conditions will be monitor emissions escaping the lower standard show the source to have very determined by the Administrator based portion of the hood and pouring into the low arsenic processing rates in relation on visual observations of overall converter aisle.) Consequently, the to the cutoff values. An example of capture efficiency under different Administrator concluded that visual modified sampling schedule would be operating conditions such as different evaluation of fume capture efficiency weekly, instead of daily, grab samples face velocities in the exhaust hood, should be used to evaluate optimum being collected to form the composite horizontal slot dimensions, air velocity conditions for secondary hoods. monthly samples. through the horizontal slot, and other The use of observers to determine operating conditions specified Compliance Provisions by the hood capture effciencies would not Administrator. These observations may change the basic control requirements The proposed compliance provisions be made by EPA personnel alone or by a for the facilities. The standard requires have been redrafted to remove group of individuals (i.e., "panel") installation of an air curtain secondary provisions that were established as comprised of representatives of EPA, hood and use of operating practices that general provisions to 40 CFR Part 61 (see industry, and the State or local air maximize the capture efficiency 50 FR 46284) and to improve the pollution control agency. obtained. The EPA recognizes that organization of sections in the A variety of comments was received design and operating requirements will regulation. The final standard also concerning the method for determining vary among facilities and possibly includes specific provisions requiring optimum hood operating conditions. among converters at any given facility. the owner or operator to operate the Some commenters endorsed the concept These differences will occur because secondary hood system in a manner of the panel approach, while others each air curtain secondary hood will which will achieve maximum capture of opposed it. One commenter argued that have to be custom designed to fit each arsenic emissions. The optimum the panel approach is subjective and existing converter; It is expected that operating conditions necessary to thus will result in different requirements any differences resulting from achieve maximum capture of emissions for different facilities. The commenter differences in judgments of capture will be determined by the suggested that EPA use the tracer mass efficiency will be negligible relative to Administrator. The Administrator will balance procedure to determine capture differences imposed by design propose separate optimum operating efficiency of air secondary hoods. The constraints. conditions for each secondary hood EPA agrees with the commenter that ASARCO and Phelps Dodge argued system which will be based on an visual evaluation of fume capture that it would be costly and time assessment of capture efficiencies efficiency is a subjective procedure; consuming to use the proposed panel achieved by the hood under different however, EPA believes it is superior to approach to establish optimum operating conditions. The assessment of other procedures, including the tracer operating conditions for the converter hood capture efficiency may include an technique. In tests to evaluate the air secondary hoods. In lieu of the panel, evaluation of emissions by a panel as curtain secondary hood at ASARCO- ASARCO and Phelps Dodge well as evaluation of hood design and Tacoma, EPA characterized hood recommended that each company be performance by EPA personnel. After a performance by tracer mass balance required to optimize its hoods through period of public comment, the tests, visual evaluations, and trail and error and that the company be Administrator will publish final transmissometer measurements. The required to keep a log of the parameters optimum operating conditions for each tracer mass balance procedure used and emissions. during this period. The system. could not at any one time evaluate the record would be submitted to EPA for The standard requires ,the owner or capture efficiency within the entire review and assessment. The operator of each secondary hood system converter-secondary hood area. That is, requirements of the standard do not to submit to the Administrator a list of owing to technical limitations, the preclude an owner or operator from initial operating conditions for the capture efficiency could be evaluated conducting studies on the capture system that in the owner or operator's only within subregions such as near the effectiveness and operating parameters. judgment result in the greatest capture air curtain or near the converter. In In fact, EPA believes that such studies of converter secondary emissions. This contrast, the visual observations were by the owner or operator could expedite list must be submitted by September 3, overall assessments of the entire the Administrator's evaluation of 1986, or within 30 days of the initial converter-secondary hood area. The operating conditions. However, EPA operation of the system, whichever is average observations for the various does not believe that the optimum later. The system shall be operated converter operating conditions showed operating conditions should be solely under these conditions, or under the same trends as the tracer determined by the owner or operator of conditions specified by the experiments. In addition, tracer mass the source. The EPA believes that Administrator, until optimum operating balance determinations are difficult and optimum operating conditions should be conditions are established. expensive to conduct. The EPA, determined by the Agency since Federal Register / Vol. 51, -No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations S27991 evaluation of optimum operating The NRDC and the USWA supported in place. It is intended that optimum conditions for converter secondary the panel approach, but favored operating parameters will be proposed hoods is a further step in the expanding the size of the panel and its by the Administrator and established development of the regulation. This part responsibilities. These commenters after consideration of public comments. of the standard cannot be developed or recommended that the panel include Therefore, EPA has revised the established until the equipment required representatives of the union and local regulation to indicate clearly that the by the regulation is in place and environmental groups. It was also optimum operating conditions for the operating. The Administrator will suggested that the panel consider all secondary hoods are established by consider the assessment of the sources of arsenic emissions, EPA based on a case-by-case evaluation secondary hood's performance under a enforcement of the standard, and review of the hood's performance and public variety of operating conditions in the of monitoring data. The Administrator comments. At present, EPA plans to selection of operating conditions. The considered these recommendations and evaluate each hood's capture efficiency specific requirements that will establish concluded that they were inconsistent under varying operating conditions optimum capture of converter secondary with the intended approach and should using observers, as appropriate and emissions will then be proposed by EPA not be adopted as suggested. The EPA practicable, from EPA, the local air in the Federal Register and established views the determination of optimum pollution control agency, and industry. after consideration of public comments. operating conditions as a further step in The observers will only serve as a fact- Until optimum operating conditions are the regulatory development process of finding body and will not recommend established for the source, the standard this standard. Hence, EPA believes that operating parameters for secondary requires the owner or operator to this determination should be conducted hoods. Consequently, EPA does not operate the hood in a manner which will by EPA personnel considering believe the observers or "panels" need achieve effective capture of secondary assessments and information provided to be chartered under FACA or to report emissions. These operating conditions by EPA personnel, local air pollution annually to the Administrator. will be established by the Administrator control agency personnel, and the based on review of operating conditions affected industry. During the Impacts of Reporting and recommended by the owner or operator development of the optimum operating Recordkeeping Requirements of the source. conditions, there will be opportunities The EPA believes that the required ASARCO further commented that if for NRDC, the USWA and members of reporting and recordkeeping EPA decides to use a panel to evaluate the public to review and comment on requirements are necessary to assist the and optimize hood operations, EPA the basis of the suggested operating Agency in: (I) Identifying sources; [2) should take steps to ensure that the conditions. Therefore, EPA believes that determining initial compliance; and (3) panel is unbiased. ASARCO it is not necessary to include formally enforcing the standards. NRDC, the USWA, and other groups in recommended that the panel be The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) the standards development process. The composed of persons knowledgeable of 1980 [Pub. L. 96-511) requires that the suggested use of a panel to review about smelting and that it include at Office of Management and Budget least one neutral member who is control of all arsenic emission sources, of the standard, and the (OMB) approve reporting and selected and compensated jointly by enforcement recordkeeping requirements that qualify monitoring data is also considered to be EPA and the company. The as an "information collection request" unnecessary. Arsenic emissions from Administrator will establish optimum (ICR). To accommodate OMB review, sources in the primary copper smelters operating conditions based on visual EPA uses 3-year periods in its impact are presently being controlled under assessments of hood capture efficiency analysis procedures for estimating the consent decrees, SIPs and OSHA under a variety of operating conditions labor-hour burden of reporting and standards, and additional control of and consideration of public comments recordkeeping requirements. on the proposed requirements. Because other emission sources cannot be on EPA plans to use observations made by achieved at a reasonable cost. The EPA The average annual burden primary copper smelters to comply with more than one.observer and further believes that it would be measurements of operating parameters inappropriate to delegate enforcement of the reporting and recordkeeping (e.g., hood flow rate, horizontal slot the standard to a panel. requirements of the final standard over the first 3 years after the effective date dimension, etc.), significant The NRDC suggested that the discrepancies among observations by optimization panel may need to be is estimated to be about 8,000 labor- the different observers would be chartered under the Federal Advisory hours. detectable and, thus, considered in the Committee Act (FACA) and required to IV. Glass Manufacturing Plants selection of optimum operating report annually to the Administrator, the conditions. (Observations cf hood local air pollution control agency, and As indicated in the Overview section capture efficiency by EPA and local air the public on the status of arsenic of this preamble, a standard limiting pollution control agency personnel at emission control and prospects for inorganic arsenic emissions from glass the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter were additional emission control. The EPA manufacturing plants was proposed on generally in close agreement and EPA did not intend to create an advisory July 20, 1983, in the Federal Register [48 expects that observations by several committee with the proposed panel FR 33112). The public comment period individuals should be comparable and approach. The EPA proposed use of a for the proposed standard ended on any biases detectable.) Public comment panel to report data which can be used January 31, 1984. The public comment on the proposed standard .will also serve to identify optimum operating conditions period was reopened from March 20 to identify any bias in the basis for the for the converter secondary hoods as a 1984, to April 19, 1984, to allow comment proposed standard. Consequently, EPA means of continuing the development of on the proposed method for calculating does not agree that additional measures the regulatory requirements. Hood zero production offset and proposed are needed to ensure that the observers operating parameters cannot be control options for soda-lime glass and hence the assessments of hood evaluated, or determined, until the furnaces (49 FR 10278). This part of the capture efficiency are unbiased. equipment required by the regulation is preamble presents the-final standard, its 27992 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

basis, and a discussion of the public must reduce all opacity data to 6 minute to the standard must maintain records of comments on the proposed standard. averages and report any occurrence of all measurements, all calculations used Summary of PromulgatedStandard excess opacity levels above the to produce emission estimates, reference level to the Administrator. The monitoring system performance Applicability temperature of the furnace exhaust gas evaluations, any malfunction of process The promulgated standard for entering a control device must also be or control equipment, and any inorganic arsenic emissions from glass continuously monitored and recorded. maintenance and repairs made to the manufacturing plants applies to each controls or monitoring systems. All Recordkeeping glass melting furnace that uses and Reporting records must be suitable for inspection commercial arsenic as a raw material. It Requirements and retained for 2 years. does not apply to pot furnaces (i.e., In addition to the reporting Summary of Environmental,Health, furnaces that contain one or more requirements of 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart Energy, andEconomic Impacts refractory vessels and melt glass by A, owners or operators must report the indirect heating), nor does rebricking The standard being established today results of the continuous monitoring " will affect eight existing glass cause a furnace to become subject to the system evaluation, any excess opacity standard. manufacturing furnaces and any new or occurrence, and any change from modified glass manufacturing furnace. It Emission Limits compliance with uncontrolled emission is expected that control devices would limit provisions to percent reduction have to be installed on two of the The standard requires that the owner provisions. or operator of an existing Owners or operators who existing furnaces or the use of arsenic as glass melting choose to comply with furnace limit uncontrolled the annual a raw material would have to be arsenic uncontrolled emission limit must keep emissions (2.75 decreased and that the other six to 2.5 Mg tons) per year records of or less or reduce arsenic emissions by the arsenic emission factors, furnaces would be able to continue 85 supporting calculations, using percent. Similarly, new or modified glass and emission their existing control systems to melting furnaces must keep emissions forcasts for the preceding and meet the standard. Environmental, energy, and economic impacts of the below 0.4 Mg (0.44 ton) per year or meet forthcoming 12-month periods. All owners or standard are summarized in Table IV-1. the 85 percent reduction requirement. operators of a source subject Compliance Provisions TABLE IV-1.-SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL, ENERGY, AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR GLASS.. To demonstrate compliance with the MANUFACTURING PLANTS precent reduction option, the owner or Uflcof- Reduction operator must determine the nt lorolledtrla a rs e nici i. n Increasec in Increase in Decline in Plant location arsenic emissions solid waste energy use - profit concentration of arsenic in the inlet and emission(gy)(Mg/yr) (Mgyr) (Mg/yr) (MW-hr/yr) (percent) outlet gas streams to the control device and calculate the emission reduction. Martinsburg, West Virginia ...... 13.2 11.22 "2.0 185 <5 Charleroi, Pennsylvania Test Method 108 is used to determine ...... 3.4 b3.40 0 0 0 arsenic concentration, which consists Danville, Kentucky ...... 7.6 c7.40 0 0 0 of Charleroi, Pennsylvania ...... 7.3 '7.29 0 0 0 gas and particulate phase arsenic. Stale College. Pennsylvania ...... 6.9 "6.88 0 0 0 To demonstrate compliance with the Fall Brook, New York ...... 3.8 '3.73 0 0 0 Fall Brook, New York ...... 2.7 12.65 0 0 0 annual uncontrolled emission limits, an Central Falls, Rhode Island ...... 2.6 '2.41 0 0 0 owner or operator is required to conduct Total ...... 47.5 44.98 2.0 185 < 5 emission tests unless the amount of 'Assumes that 90 percent of waste Is recycled to furnace. arsenic added annually to be an existing 'Assumes that non-arsenic containing glass recipe will be used; no impacts. furnace is less than 8.0 Mg (8.8 tons) or 'Controls presently In place; no additional controls required. less than 1.0 Mg (1.1 tons) for new or modified furnaces, and the owner or Significant Changes Since Proposal the costs, risks, and potential risk operator can demonstrate through a associated with inorganic material balance that the applicable In response to public comments reductions received on the proposed rulemaking arsenic emissions and controls for uncontr6lled emission limit is being met. specific existing glass manufacturing Owners or operators of all affected and as a result of EPA re-evaluation, plants led the Agency to change the furnaces must estimate the uncontrolled five major changes were made to the regulation by establishing the limit on arsenic emissions for the forthcoming proposed standard. These changes uncontrolled arsenic emissions for 12-month period each 6 months by involve: (1) Revising the annual limit on existing glass melting furnaces at 2.5 Mg multiplying an arsenic emission factor uncontrolled emissions above which (2.75 ton) per year. The proposed limit for each type of glass produced by the add-on control is required for existing on uncontrolled arsenic emissions of 0.4 amount of each type of glass produced furnaces, (2) revising the format of the Mg/year (0.44 ton) is retained for new or during the 12 months. emission limits, (3) allowing the control modified furnaces. The rationale for this device to be by-passed for periods of revision is discussed below under Basis Continuous Monitoring maintenance, (4) eliminating the for Standard. An owner or operator who chooses to exemption to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart comply with the percent reduction CC for sources that comply with the Format of the Standard requirement must. continuously monitor NESHAP, and (5) establishing a the opacity.of emissions discharged provision to exempt certain sources The second major change in the from the control device. Opacity from testing requirements. regulation since proposal involves a monitoring must be conducted during Existing Furnace Annual Uncontrolled change in the format for emission limits. the compliance test to establish'a Emission Limit The proposed'standard was in the form reference opacity level. Following the of a particulate matter emission limit.' compliance test, owners or operators After proposal, further examination of' The promulgated standard requires F Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4,.1986 / Rules and Regulations 27993 / Rules and Regulations owners or operators of glass furnaces to emission limits are not exceeded under (35.4 tons) per year. Of the total arsenic ensure either that uncontrolled arsenic any circumstances. emissions from the source category, emissions are less than limits described Additional Analyses nearly 80 percent (25.2 Mg/yr) arise from above or that arsenic emissions are 11 uncontrolled furnaces each of which reduced by 85 percent. Compliance with As a result of public comments, EPA emits more than 0.40 Mg (0.44 ton) the percent reduction requirement is has conducted additional analyses to annually. These 11 furnaces are located determined using Test Method 108. The ensure that the promulgated standard is at 5 separate glass manufacturing rationale for this revision is discussed based on the most complete and plants. A complete listing of all furnaces below under Basis for Standard. accurate information available. These known to use arsenic is provided in Bypass of the Control Device additional analyses focused on the Appendix C of the BID. status of the industry, arsenic emission The third major change in the sources and characteristics, and risk Emission Sources and Characteristics regulation allows owners or operators of assessment. The scope and results of Several analyses were conducted to glass furnaces to petition the these additional analyses are estimate the magnitude of inorganic Administrator for permission to by-pass summarized below. The analyses and arsenic emissions the control device for a limited period from various sources conclusions are discussed in greater within the glass manufacturing plants, for purposes of maintaining the control detail in the Discussion of Comments and-to characterize the factors affecting device. However, the Agency has section of this preamble and in the BID included provisions to minimize arsenic inorganic arsenic emissions. These for the promulgated standard. analyses included: emissions during maintenance periods and will allow by-pass of the control Update of Industry Status (1) An estimate of the magnitude of device only upon demonstration of its At the time of proposal, the Agency - fugitive emissions of arsenic from glass necessity. The revision is fully discussed had identified a total of 32 glass melting manufacturing plants (A-83-8/IV-B-11). in the Discussion of Comments section furnaces that use arsenic as a raw Although several sources of fugitive of this part of the preamble. material. Five of these furnaces were arsenic emissions were identified, even under worst case conditions they were Elimination of Exemption from NSPS determined to emit arsenic at uncontrolled levels at or below 0.4 Mg found to be very small compared to In the proposed standard, particulate (0.44 ton) per year, which was the stack emissions. emission limits were identical to those proposed cutoff for requiring add-on (2) An analysis to determine if in the glass manufacturing NSPS (40 controls. Of the remaining 27 furnaces, furnaces that do not add arsenic as a CFR Part 60, Subpart CC), and no 13 were identified as being controlled by raw material could exceed the proposed furnace was allowed to operate with electrostatic precipitators or fabric 0.4 Mg/yr (0.44 ton/yr) emissions cutoff uncontrolled arsenic emissions in excess filters. Arsenic emissions from the 32 due to the presence of arsenic impurities of 0.4 Mg (0.44 ton) per year. The furnaces were estimated to be 36.7 Mg in other raw materials (A-83-8/IV-B- promulgated standard has been revised (40.4 tons) per year. The Agency also 12). It was concluded that the such that the emission limits are no noted at the time of proposal, however, concentration of arsenic impurities in longer identical and the exemption from that more arsenic-using furnaces other raw materials would be the NSPS is no longer appropriate. probably existed, although most of these insufficient to result in an exceedance of the proposed emission cutoff. Compliance Testing furnaces were believed to be small pot furnaces and all-electric melters or other (3) Estimates of the cost and emission In the final major change, EPA created furnaces that would not be affected by impacts of allowing furnaces to by-pass a provision which exempts owners or the proposed regulation. the emission control device during operators of certain furnaces from the Upon further investigation, a total of periods of routine maintenance of the requirement to conduct emission tests to 53 additional arsenic-using glass control device (A-83-8/IV-B-10). demonstrate compliance. Emission tests furnaces were identified. Total (4) An evaluation of the feasibility of are not required for existing furnaces emissions of arsenic from these 53 reducing or eliminating the use of that use less than 8.0 Mg (8.8 tons) furnaces were estimated to be 12 Mg arsenic in soda-lime glass (A-83-8/IV- arsenic per year and new or modified (13.2 tons) per year. Over 60 percent of B-13). furnaces that use less than 1.0 Mg (1.1 these additional arsenic emissions arise (5) A study of the factors affecting tons) arsenic per year if the owner or from a single glass plant which is arsenic emissions from glass melting operator demonstrates through a equipped with 9 individual arsenic-using furnaces, particularly those affecting the material balance that the applicable furnaces, 5 of which emit more than 0.40 proportion of arsenic that is emitted as annual uncontrolled emission limit is Mg (0.44 ton) of arsenic annually. Each particulate matter. Additional emission being met. Analysis has shown that at of the remaining 44 furnaces identified test data were obtained through EPA least 70 percent of the arsenic added to after proposal were estimated to emit testing and from industry the raw materials is retained in the glass 0.4 Mg (0.44 ton) or less of arsenic per representatives. The results of this study product. Therefore, the Agency believes year. Additional data were also are reviewed below under Basis for that existing furnaces to which less than gathered after proposal on the 32 Standard, and more detailed summaries 8.0 Mg (8.8 tons) of arsenic is added furnaces that had been previously of the emission test data can be found in annually, or new and modified furnaces identified. It was found that since Appendix A of the BID. to which less than 1.0 Mg (1.1 tons) of proposal the use of arsenic had been arsenic is added annually, would not be eliminated from 10 of these furnaces. Risk Assessment likely to exceed the respective limits on The information currently available to Risk assessment for all known uncontrolled inorganic arsenic the Agency indicates that a total of 75 arsenic-using furnaces had been emissions. The Administrator does glass furnaces located at 27 plants are performed at proposal. However, for reserve the right to require an emission known to use arsenic as a raw material. several of these furnaces stack test of any furnace using arsenic to Arsenic emissions from these 75 parameter data were not available and ensure that the annual uncontrolled furnaces are estimated to be 32.2 Mg model plant parameters were used. 27994 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

After proposal, stack parameter alternatives, as well as the associated arsenic emissions. For example, it was information was obtained for those health risks, risk reductions, and costs found that the largest arsenic emitting furnaces. In addition, more accurate and economic impacts. This section furnace, located in Martinsburg, West location (latitude/longitude] data were describes the application of this Virginia, could meet the proposed obtained for all furnaces. Risk approach in the development of the emission limit by reducing total assessments were then performed for standard for glass manufacturing plants. particulate emissions by about only 45 the actual furnaces known to use The points addressed here are: (1) percent. In this case, the corresponding arsenic rather than for model furnaces. Application of risk management reduction achieved in arsenic emissions Maximum individual risk and aggregate approach including consideration of would be no greater than 45 percent. In risk values were calculated for each risks and the effectiveness and cost of addition, data gathered from further plant at existing control levels and the control technology; and (2) selection of EPA emission tests and emission test levels required by the final standard. the format and the level of the final data supplied by industry These risk estimates also reflect standard. representatives indicated that inorganic extension of the analysis out to 50 km Application of Risk Management arsenic emissions from some glass (31 miles) from a plant and the use of Approach melting furnaces may occur less 1980 census data. predominantly in the particulate matter The risk estimates were developed The standard that is being established than previously believed. Therefore, a using the procedure described in Part I, today is based on the best technology requirement that only emissions of total Risk Assessment Methodology, of this which, in the Administrator's judgment, particulate be controlled would not preamble and a unit risk factor of 4.29 x is available and can be applied without guarantee that the most effective control 10-/ju.g-m. The Agency determined causing widespread plant closure or of inorganic arsenic emissions would be that most of the emissions and risks imposing costs that far exceed any achieved in all cases. were associated with 11 uncontrolled public health benefit. Accordingly, the Prior to proposal, consideration was furnaces emitting more than 0.4 Mg/yr standard reflects consideration of the given to two alternative formats for the (0.44 tons/yr) each. These furnaces are estimated risks, the costs and emission limits. One alternative located at 5 different plants. A sixth availability of further controls and the considered was to establish a limit on plant operating 9 uncontrolled furnaces, associated potential for risk reduction, the amount of arsenic emitted. This each emitting less than 0.4 Mg/yr (0.44 and the potential societal impacts of alternative was not adopted because the ton/yr] of arsenic, was also found to regulatory alternatives. The following wide variability in the amount of arsenic present relatively high aggregate risks. sections describe the principal factors added to the raw materials and the Because the proposed annual limit on considered in this decision. Consideration of Effectiveness of amount of arsenic retained in the uncontrolled arsenic emissions was set product glass results in considerable at 0.4 Mg/yr (0.44 ton/yr}, none of the Control Technology. At the time of proposal, it was believed that the most variability in the amount of arsenic furnaces at this plant would have been emitted from glass melting furnaces. subject to the proposed control effective technology for control of Therefore, if the arsenic emission limit requirements. However, risks to the arsenic emissions was identical to the were set high enough to allow for the population in the vicinity of a plant are best demonstrated technology for variability observed, the standard would a function of the emissions from an control of total particulate emissions not have resulted in application of the entire plant, rather than emissions from from glass melting furnaces, fabric filter control to all affected individual furnaces within a plant. collectors and ESP's. This determination most effective Therefore, EPA considered whether the was based on data obtained from two furnaces. Consideration was also given proposed annual limit should be tests on particulate control devices (one to an efficiency format that would lowered to include furnaces emitting fabric filter and one ESP) installed on require arsenic emissions to be reduced less.than 0.4 Mg/yr (0.44 ton/yr} when glass melting furnaces that use arsenic, by a specific percentage. An efficiency these furnaces contribute significantly to which showed that at least 90 percent of format was not proposed because It was plant-wide emissions, and thereby to the emitted arsenic was in the believed that a particulate emission plant-wide risks. particulate matter and captured in the limit would require the same level of The Agency also reviewed the control devices. Because only arsenic control without the additional costs availability of closer or more emitted in the particulate matter can be involved in measuring arsenic emissions representative meteorological sites from controlled with existing technologies, at both the inlet and outlet of the control those used in the proposal analysis. and because most of the arsenic emitted device. Meteorological experts within the from glass melting furnaces was In considering all of the available Agency identified four sites in which believed to occur as particulate matter, data, the Agency has concluded that, as more representative meteorological data it was concluded that application of the believed at proposal, well-maintained were available, collected the data, and best systems for control of particulate and -operated ESP's and fabric filters used it in the analysis which supports matter would result in the maximum represent the most effective today's rulemaking. The plant sites achievable control of arsenic emissions. technologies for controlling inorganic involved are located in Dunkirk, Therefore, the Agency proposed to arsenic emissions from glass Indiana; Baltimore, Maryland; Charleroi, require affected sources to reduce manufacturing plants. However, based Pennsylvania; and Moundsville, West emissions of total particulate to the on the data collected after proposal, the Virginia. levels required by the NSPS for glass Agency has also concluded that the manufacturing plants. effectiveness of fabric filters and ESP's Basis ForStandard Data gathered by the Agency after in controlling emissions of arsenic from As discussed in Part I of this proposal, and information supplied by glass melting furnaces can best be preamble, the risk management commenters on the propsed standard, determined by measuring the efficiency approach provides a comprehensive led to the conclusion that some furnaces of these control devices in reducing assessment 'of candidate source would be able to meet the proposed inorganic arsenic emissions. Only in this categories, including the evaluation of emission limits without installing the way can the Agency be assured that current and applicable emission control most effective technology for control of inorganic arsenic emissions from all Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 27995 affected furnaces will be reduced to the TABLE IV-2.-AVAILABLE ARSENIC EMISSION DATA FOR GLASS MELTING FURNACES WITH greatest extent possible. Therefore, the EXISTING CONTROL DEVICES Agency believes that the additional Con- Aver- costs involved in measuring the amount Uncon- age Control trolled trolled of arsenic at both the inlet and the outlet Plant Location Furnace device type emis- emis- cent sions sons of the control device are warranted (Mg/yr) (Mg/yr) reduc-tion given the increased effectiveness of control that would be achieved by Danville, Kentucky ...... A ESP 7.6 0.20 97.5 requiring emissions Cherleroi, Pennsylvania ...... C ESP 7.3 0.01 98.6 of arsenic to be State College. Pennsylvania ...... A ESP 6.9 0.02 99.7 reduced by a specific percentage. Fall Brook, New York ...... A ESP 3.1 0.05 98.5

As mentioned above, data made C available after proposal have indicated Fall Brook, New York ...... C ESP 3.8 0.07 98.0 D that arsenic emissions from some glass Central Falls, Rhode Island ...... A FF 2.6 0.19 92.6 melting furnaces may occur less Moundsville. West Virginia ...... A ESP 1.7 0.04 98.7 predominantly as particulate matter. Corning, New York ...... B FF 0.6 0.04 94.0 Circleville, O hio ...... A ESP 0.6 0.03 95.0 However, data collected during EPA S ESP 0.2 0.006 97.0 emission testing and additional data supplied by industry representatives did ESP= Electrostatic Precipitator, FF=Fabric Filter. not demonstrate any correlations between the proportion of arsenic Considerationof Costs and Economic incremental reduction in arsenic emitted as particulate matter and the Impacts. At the time of proposal, emissions could be achieved by further type of glass produced, the type of insufficient data were available to control. Therefore, the Agency furnace used, or the type of arsenic estimate the cost and economic impacts concluded that it would unreasonable to added to the raw materials. In light of of applying controls to specific furnaces require any additional control of this finding, the EPA examined further at specific glass manufacturing plants. arsenic-using furnaces equipped with whether cooling of the exhaust gases To more accurately evaluate the cost existing fabric filters or ESP's, and no would cause gaseous arsenic emissions and economic impacts associated with further cost or economic analysis was to condense and thereby increase the the final standard, detailed information conducted for these furnaces. overall efficiency of particulate control was gathered on the largest emitting Of the total 59 uncontrolled glass devices in reducing total arsenic furnaces and the plants at which those melting furnaces that use arsenic, about emissions. One emission test performed furnaces are located. This information 90 percent of the emissions and risks are by EPA after proposal indicated that enabled the costs associated with associated with 24 individual furnaces. cooling of the furnace exhaust gas might alternative control options to be Therefore, the cost and economic increase the proportion of arsenic estimated for specific furnaces and the impacts of applying controls to these 24 emitted as particulate matter, although economic impacts to be estimated for furnaces were investigated. The 24 the results were inconclusive. A the companies that operate those furnaces are located at 6 separate glass subsequent emission test performed on furnaces. manufacturing plants and are owned the furnace located in Martinsburg, The detailed cost and economic and operated by 3 different companies. West Virginia, did clearly demonstrate analysis was conducted only for The costs of controlling arsenic that, for that furnace, arsenic removal arsenic-using furnaces that are not emissions from the six plants are shown presently equipped with ESP's or efficiencies fabric in Table IV-3. Capital costs were could be increased by filters. Total arsenic emissions from the calculated to range from about cooling the furnace exhaust gas to a 16 arsenic-using furnaces with existing $2,239,000 to $4,650,000. Annualized temperature of 121°C (250°F) or below. control devices were estimated to be costs were calculated to range from The Agency also considered the about 1.3 Mg/yr (1.4 tons/yr), or less about $450,000 to $940,000. Assuming performance of existing control devices than 5 percent of the emissions from the that the costs of controls are absorbed in reducing emissions of inorganic source category. Moreover, the available by the companies operating these arsenic. Available performance data for data indicate that arsenic emissions furnaces (i.e., control costs are not arsenic-using furnaces that are presently from these furnaces are presently being passed on to consumers), the estimated equipped with ESP's or fabric filters are reduced to the maximum extent decline in profit ranges from less than 5 shown in Table IV-2. The average possible, although 4 furnaces were percent to more than 30 percent. A efficiencies in controlling total arsenic found to be emitting particulate decline in profit of 15 percent or more is emissions range from 92.6 percent to 99.7 emissions at levels higher than those considered by the Agency to be percent. The relatively lower removal required by the proposed standard. The significant, and could result in the efficiency achieved by the fabric filter costs of upgrading these control devices closure of a furnace. A more detailed system installed on the furnace located to meet the proposed emission limits discussion of the cost and economic in Central Falls, Rhode Island, is were estimated and found to be analysis is provided in Appendix B of attributable to the fact that a relatively excessive given that little, if any, the BID. larger fraction of the arsenic emitted from this furnace was in the gaseous TABLE IV-3.-COSTS OF CONTROL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS phase and not captured by the control Uncon- device. The fabric filters at this plant Number of trolled a Annualcost Decline in Plant uncontrolled emissions v iPalcos ($1,000 per profit achieved a greater than 99 percent furnaces (milligrams y000).ear) (percent) removal efficiency of particulate arsenic ___per year) _ emissions and the furnace exhaust gas is M artinsburg, Virginia ...... 2634 cooled to about 138°C (280°F) prior to Dunkirk, Indiana ...... 2,979 entering the existing control system. C harleroi, Pennsylvania ...... 2,628 27996 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE IV-3.-COSTS OF CONTROL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS-Continued concentrations actually measured near specific sites. Uncon- NumberNube ofo trolledtoled Capital cost Annual($11,000 costper Declineprofit in Estimated Risk-Using the approach Plant uncontrolled emissions 0 ( 0 p furnaces (milligrams year) (percent) and procedures described above, the per year) maximum lifetime risks and the annual incidence prior to control were Shreveport, Louisiana ...... 3 2.4 2,746 556 5-15 Toledo, Ohio ...... '9 1.6 4,650 938 5-15 calculated for the six highest emitting Corning. New York ...... 1 0.8 2,239 451 15-30 plants. Over 90 percent of the total J Four furnaces at plant each emit less than 0.4 Milligrams per year of arsenic; no controls were assumed to be applied to arsenic emissions from the source these four furnaces. * All nine furnaces at plant each emit less than 0.4 Milligrams per year of arsenic; controls were assumed to be applied to category arise from the 24 individual all nine furnaces. melting furnaces operated at these 6 plants. The residual risks that would from these Plants As mentioned above, cooling of the Administrator considered of particular remain if emissions exhaust gases from glass melting importance the present magnitude of were controlled to the maximum extent furnaces may, in some cases, be estimated risks and the degree to which possible were then estimated.. necessary to achieve the best control of risks can be reduced by control The results of the risk analysis are arsenic emissions. Because cooling of measures which are available. summarized in Table IV-4. Maximum lifetime risks prior to control range from the exhaust gases may result in The magnitude of the reduction in risk " corrosion of the metal surfaces in an achievable by application of control a low of about 0.3 X 10 for the plant system, the costs of located in Coming, New York to a high emission control technology was determined by 4 installing systems to remove corrosive comparing the maximum individual risk of about 9 x 10- for the plant located in substances (dry scrubbers) from the and the annual incidence before control Dunkirk, Indiana. Annual incidence was exhaust gas were also estimated (A-83- to the residual risks remaining after determined to range from 0.005 per year 08/IV-B-14). The use of dry scrubbing control. Any changes in the emission to 0.12 per year. With the exceptions of systems was found to increase source characteristics caused by the the highest emitting plant and the lowest annualized control costs by 40 to 50 application of controls, such as exhaust emitting plant, the magnitude of the percent above those for an ESP or fabric gas cooling, were considered in the risks were found not to correlate filter alone. However, no existing estimates of residual risks. The accuracy directly with the magnitude of the furnaces affected under the promulgated of the exposure analysis was evaluated emissions. This finding reflects the standard would need to install dry by comparing the results obtained from sensitivity of risk to the physical scrubbing systems. alternative dispersion models and, charcteristics of the emission source as Considerationof Risks. In reaching where possible, by comparing the well as to the location of the population the decision on the standard, the modelled concentrations to the with respect to the emission source.

TABLE IV-4.-BASELINE RISKS AND RESIDUAL RISKS AFTER CONTROL OF GLASS MANUFACTURING PLANTS WITH HIGHEST ARSENIC EMISSIONS

Uncon- Prior to control After control Number of trolled uncontrolled arsenic Plant emissions Maximum Annual Maximum Annual annual furnaces (Manulac- risk (X 10-1 incidence risk (X 10-1 incidence Incidence tured/year)

Martinsburg. West Virginia...... 1 13.3 8 0.12 0.5 0.013 0.11 Dunkirk, Indiana ...... '9 7.6 9 0.038 1.7 0.0085 0.03 Charleroi, Pennsylvania ...... 1 3.4 4 0.11 0.2 0.012 0.10 Shreveport, Louisiana ...... 3 2.4 0.7 0.035 0.06 0.0037 0.03 Toledo, Ohio ...... 29 1.6 3 0.07 0.09 0.0066 0.059 Corning. New York ...... 1 0.8 0.3 0.005 0.14 0.0016 0.003 Four furnaces at plant each emit less than 0.4 Mg/yr of arsenic; no controls were assumed to be applied to these four furnaces. 2 All nine furnaces at plant each emit less than 0.4 Mg/yr of arsenic; controls were assumed to be appiied to all nine furnaces.

The estimated reduction in annual estimated for a control system that downwash on stack emissions from incidence achievable through the included gas cooling. glass manufacturing plants. Glass plants application of emission controls were Validation of the Exposure often have short stacks that cause found to range from less than 0.01 per Estimates-The EPA has used HEM to effluents to be entrained in the building year to more than 0.10 per year. The estimate exposure and risks associated wake on the leeward side of the furnace estimated reduction in annual incidence with the glass plants. However, similar buildings or other adjacent structures. achievable from the plants located in to what the Agency did in the case of As a consequence, it was regarded as Martinsburg, West Virginia, and the primary copper smelter source likely that airborne arsenic Charleroi, Pennsylvania, were found to category, EPA has validated its HEM concentrations to which people might be be three to four times greater than the exposure assessment of the glass plants exposed near these plants could be reduction in annual incidence in several ways. First, at two sites, EPA underestimated. In addition, it was felt achievable from the other four plants. has conducted a more site-specific air that the extent of building downwash Because emission test data gathered at quality modeling analysis and compared could be expected to be different depending on the temperature of the gas the Martinsburg plant indicated that the results to the concentration profiles HEM stream exiting the control device. If so, cooling of the furnace exhaust gas that are predicted by the dispersion model. In the original HEM the relative reduction in risk achieved would result in more effective control of analysis, EPA did not consider terrain would be affected. For these reasons, arsenic emissions, residual risks were effects or the full effect of building more sophisticated dispersion analyses Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations - '27997 were carried out for two glass plant ' However, at the other four plants where parameters of the emission source (i.e., locations: Martinsburg, West Virginia, risk and achievable risk reduction stack height, exhaust gas temperature, and Shreveport, Louisiana. These two potential are lower, it was concluded and velocity, etc.), and the location of plants were selected because of that further control is not necessary, and the emission source with respect to the availability of representative if required, would impose costs which surrounding population. The Agency meteorological data that were collected are disproportionately high compared to does not anticipate that any new at monitoring stations.near the plants the benefits of-reducing the estimated " arsenic-using furnaces will be built, or and because of the availability of some current risks. Accordingly, the that any furnaces that do not at present limited ambient monitoring data to promulgated standard establishes an use arsenic will do so in the future. which the modeling results could be annual emission limit on uncontrolled Since proposal, the use of arsenic in compared. Although the concentrations arsenic emissions from existing glass some glass melting furnaces has been predicted by HEM were somewhat melting furnaces that would require only eliminated and the Agency believes that higher, generally the HEM and the site- the plants located in Martinsburg, West this trend is likely to continue. The specific analyses provided comparable Virginia, and Charleroi, Pennsylvania, to companies that operate these furnaces results. install add-on control technology. have indicated that they do not plan to Where possible at other glass plant Because emissions from these two resume using arsenic. The cutoff applied sites, the Agency has validated the plants arise from a single uncontrolled to new or modified glass melting results of the air dispersion models by furnace having emissions higher than furnaces is based on consideration of comparing the modeled concentrations any furnace at the other plants; and cost and economic factors and has been to ambient concentrations measured because no furnaces at any of the other. retained in-the promulgated standard to near the plants. Ambient data in plants emit more than 2.5 Mg (2.75 tons) discourage reintroduction of arsenic in sufficient quantities to make limited per year of arsenic, the limit on furnaces that have recently eliminated comparisons were found at four glass uncontrolled emissions of arsenic for its use and to discourage future use. The plant sites. Generally, EPA's dispersion -existing glass melting furnaces is Agency believes that this is appropriate modeling estimates were close to the established at 2.5 Mg/yr (2.75 tons/yr). to prevent risks from increasing near measured concentrations-or were *In establishing this limit, the estimated those furnaces that have recently overpredictions of the measured economic impact of applying .controls to eliminated arsenic Use and because concentrations. However, much of the ,the plant located in Charleroi, reasonable alternatives to exceeding available data were below the detection Pennsylvania, was given particular this cutoff level are available at these limit of the sampling and analytical consideration because the economic facilities. These include the use of low- techniques used in the ambient analysis indicated that possible closure arsenic glass recipes and the use of monitoring program. thus, limiting the would result. However, representatives controlled furnaces for production of usefulness of the comparison.. of the firm that owns this plant those glass types which would result in indicated that they do not intend to Selection of Standard uncontrolled emissions of arsenic of produce an arsenic-containing glass in more than 0.4 Mg (0.44 ton) per year. Based on EPA's interpretation of this furnace in the future (A-83-08/IV- Formatand Level of the Standard.As section 112, as previously discussed in E-58). Therefore, the Agency concluded discussed above under Consideration of Overview-Basis for Promulgated that establishing the limit at 2.5 Mg/yr. Standards, the following factors were the Effectiveness of Control Technology; (2.75 tons/yr) would not result in EPA believes that well-maintained and considered in the selection of the adverse economic impacts. The EPA has operated ESP's and fabric filters standard: (1) The magnitude of the risks; also identified six other glass melting (2) the costs and availability of further represent the most effective furnaces with uncontrolled inorganic technologies for controlling emissions of controls; and (3) the potentialeconomic arsenic emissions of more than 2.5 Mg/ and social impacts of the alternatives. yr (2.75 tons/yr). However, all six of the arsenic from glass manufacturing plants. However, based on information and Applicability of the Standard.In furnaces are presently equipped with assessing the need for further control, the control technology that would be data made available after proposal, the Agency has determined that a standard the risks and control cost estimates for necessary to meet the promulgated the six plants with the highest emission control requirements, and, as requiring arsenic emissions to be uncontrolled emissions were considered. discussed below, are not expected to reduced by a specific percentage is necessary to ensure that.these control These estimates are shown in Tables need any additional control to IV-3 and IV-4. The cost control at each demonstrate compliance. devices are applied and operated in a of the six plants is similar except for the The selected uncontrolled emission manner that best reflects their full Toledo, Ohio, plant which has an limit of 2.5 Mg/yr (2.75 tons/yr) applies effectiveness in controlling arsenic estimated annual control cost only to existing glass melting furnaces emissions. approximately double the others. In that use commercial arsenic. For new or Consideration was given to applying contrast, the estimated risks and risk modified furnaces, the proposed limit of the percent reduction requirement to reduction potential varies widely among 0.4 Mg/yr (0.44 tons/yr) of uncontrolled emissions of particulate arsenic rather the six plants. The reduction in annual arsenic emissions has been retained in than total arsenic. This option was incidence achievable from plants the promulgated standard. It is not considered because only arsenic emitted located in Martinsburg, West Virginia, feasible to establish an emission limit as particulate matter can. be collected by and in Charleroi, Pennsylvania (from for new or modified glass melting ESP's and fabric filters. However, Table IV-4), is three to four times furnaces on the basis of risk because it emission test data have indicated that greater than the reduction in annual is impossible to characterize the factors for some glass melting furnaces only a incidence achievable from the other four that affect risk estimates for glass relatively small proportion of the plants. furnaces that do not presently exist, or emitted arsenic occurs as particulate Based on a consideration of these risk do not-at present use arsenic. The risks matter. In these cases, a control and cost data, it was concluded that associated with emissions' of arsenic are requirement based on a percent further control should be required at the, a function of the amount of arsenic reduction in particulate arsenic would Martinsburg and Charleroi plants. - emitted, the specific physical result In some furnaces'meeting the 27998 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations standard without reducing emissions of ratio of particulate arsenic to gaseous by the control device decreased. total arsenic to the maximum extent arsenic, control efficiencies for total However, the total concentration of possible. Also, the results obtained from arsenic of from 89 to 95 percent would arsenic in the gas leaving the control a recent test on a glass melting furnace be expected. However, because EPA device remained constant at all furnace (summarized in Appendix A of the BID) expects that no arsenic will be used in production rates. Therefore, although indicated that the Test Method 108 this furnace in the future, no further the efficiency of the control device sampling train may not provide a analysis of the arsenic control decreased with decreasing production reliable indication of the ratio of efficiencies achievable for the Charleroi rate, the production rate of the furnace particulate arsenic emissions to gaseous furnace was performed. did not affect the amount of arsenic arsenic emissions in instances where the Emission test data supplied by emitted to the air. A detailed summary concentration of gaseous arsenic is Corning Glass Works on the furnace of these tests is provided in Appendix A sufficiently high to be sensitive to gas located in Martinsburg, West Virginia, of the BID. stream temperature. Therefore, showed wide variability in the In selecting the level of the final measurements of particulate arsenic, as proportion of arsenic emitted from the standard, the Agency considered the opposed to total arsenic, may be subject furnace as particulate matter. Data performance of existing control devices to error in some instances and may not collected over a five-year period installed on arsenic-using glass furnaces provide an accurate indication of the indicated that the proportion of arsenic in reducing arsenic emissions, the degree of emission reductions achieved emitted as particulate matter ranges factors affecting control device in all cases. For these reasons, the from a low of about 30 percent to a high performance, the control efficiencies Agency concluded that the standard of about 100 percent. Wide variability achievable for uncontrolled furnaces should be based on the reductions of was observed even for tests performed that would be required to install total arsenic achievable through the on the same day, under stable operating controls, and the cost and economic application of ESP's and fabric filters. conditions. Because the available data impacts of control. As reviewed above, As the data from furnaces with on the Martinsburg furnace did not the performance of ESP's and fabric existing control devices demonstrate provide the Agency with any clear filters installed on existing furnaces (see Table IV-2), the efficiency of a indication of the arsenic removal demonstrate that efficiencies of between given control device in reducing total efficiencies achievable fromi this about 92 percent and 99 percent are arsenic emissions may not be obtained furnace, additional testing was achievable. However, in considering the by a similar device installed on a performed by EPA. Simultaneous with factors affecting performance, the different glass melting furnace. The the EPA tests, Corning conducted a Agency determined that no basis exists variability observed in removal series of performance tests on a pilot- for concluding that existing control efficiency is primarily.a function of the scale fiber filter system that was devices with relatively lower arsenic proportion of arsenic emitted as installed on the furnace. In reviewing removal efficiencies could achieve particulate matter. As discussed above, the data from these tests, it was higher removal efficiencies by modifying no correlations have been identified concluded that cooling of the furnace either the design or the operation of the between the proportion of arsenic exhaust gas to a temperature of control system. In addition, the costs of emitted as particulate matter and the approximately 121 *C (250 *F}, or below, modifying any existing control systems type of glass produced, the type of glass was effective in increasing the efficiency would be disproportionate to the melting furnace employed, the type of of the pilot-scale fabric filter in reducing incremental reductions in arsenic arsenic added to the raw materials, or emissions of arsenic. When the control emissions that might be achieved, even other process characteristics. Although device was operated at temperatures if there were reason to believe that the available data do indicate that above 121 *C (250 *F), control these modifications would increase the cooling of the furnace exhaust gas prior efficiencies ranged from about 58 effectiveness of control. Therefore, the to entering a control device can percent to 82 percent and averaged 71 Agency concluded that the final sometimes be effective in increasing the percent. Control efficiencies at standard should be set at a level that proportion of arsenic emitted as temperatures below 121 *C (250 °F) would not require any additional control particulate matter, sufficient data are ranged from 75 percent to 97 percent and of furnaces equipped with existing not available to predict quantitatively averaged 87 percent. The variability control devices. In considering the data the extent to which cooling will increase observed in these results reflects the gathered from the emission tests on the the effectiveness of control. As a result fact that the operating conditions of uncontrolled furnace located in of these uncertainties, available data on both the furnace and the control device Martinsburg, West Virginia, the Agency the efficiencies of existing control were variable over the course of the test concluded that the level of control devices in controlling total arsenic program. achievable within the range of emissions cannot be generalized to glass The operating condition that exerted production rates typical for this furnace melting furnaces that are not presently the greatest influence on the percentage would be an 85 percent reduction in controlled. Therefore, the degree of of arsenic reduced across the control total uncontrolled arsenic emissions. emission reduction achievable from the device was the production rate of the Because the Agency also believes that two uncontrolled furnaces emitting more furnace. As the production rate all furnaces with existing control than 2.5 Mg/yr (2.75 tons/yr) of arsenic decreased, the concentration of devices affected under the emission were also investigated. particulate arsenic in the gas entering cutoff are capable of achieving an 85 Available emission test data for the the control device also decreased. The percent reduction in total arsenic furnace located in Charleroi, concentration of gaseous arsenic at the emissions without installing any Pennsylvania, showed that the fraction inlet of the control device did not additional control, the level of the final of total arsenic emitted from this decrease at lower production rates. standard was set at 85 percent. furnace in the particulate phase ranges Because proportionally less arsenic The Agency believes that the level of from about 89 to 95 percent. Assuming entered the control device in particulate the final standard will ensure that the that the stack gas sampling system used form at lower production rates, the most effective technology for reducing in these tests accurately measured the percentage of the total arsenic captured emissions of arsenic will be applied to Federal Re, ister / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, -1986 / Rules and Regulations -27999, , Feea eitrIVl 1 o 4 Mondy,.Agu. 4,18I ue n euain 79 the furnace that will be required to ...- furnace exhaust gas will be cooled to residual risks remaining after- , install add-on controls as a result of this below 121 °C (250 *F) prior to entering application of BAT to furnace that regulation. Because the factors affecting - the control device. The final standard would have been affected by the the performance of particulate control *includes provisions for continuous proposed limit (0.4 Mg/yr of arsenic devices in reducing emissions of arsenic monitoring and recording of the prior to control) were then considered to are variable and cannot be accurately operating temperature of a control determine if a more stringent standard predicted, any control device installed device to ensure that the temperature would be necessary to protect public as a result of thisorulemaking can maintained during the emission test to health. The Agency determined that reasonably be expected to be designed demonstrate compliance is also eliminating the 0.4 Mg (0.44 ton) per year and operated in a manner that ensures -maintained thereafter. exclusion level would not affect the estimated maximum lifetime risk and the most effective possible control under Discussion of Comments all furnace operating conditions. would have negligible effect on. Therefore, the Agency concluded that. Comments on the proposed standard estimated cancer incidence. Since setting the standard at a level higher -were received from 20 interested parties, proposal, Agency policy has evolved to than 85 percent would not result in the and three speakers commented on the place greater emphasis on risk and risk application of control technology any proposed standard for glass. reduction in determining which specific more effective than that which would be manufacturing plants at the public sources within a source category shall applied to reduce emissions by 85 hearing. In addition, four comment be subject to an emission limit under letters were received on the March 20, percent. If the level of the standard were section 112. Costs and economic impact 1984, Federal Register notice regarding set at a higher level, however, the are still considered in relation to the for controlling probability that a source may fail to options proposed by EPA reductions in risk achievable through. producing demonstrate compliance would be emissions from furnaces the use of selected control technologies. zero correspondingly higher, without soda-lime glass and calculating Because of various site-specific production offsets, The following providing any additional environmental factors, the degree of risk associated sections summarize'the Agency's benefit. The Agency believes that with inorganic arsenic emissions from responses to the major comments and reductions in arsenic emissions of at glass manufacturing plants does not, in the consideration given these comments will be typically all cases, directly correlate with the least 90 percent in formulating the standard being achieved by all existing controlled absolute magnitude of those emissions. established today. furnaces affected by the standard. To For instance, a fugitive emission source ensure that the intent of the standard is Applicability with a relatively low emission rate to the ground not circumvented by any existing or Several commenters raised questions released relatively close may have a similar air quality impact as future source, provisions are included in about the applicability of the regulation a stack with a higher emission rate and the final regulation that prohibit the to glass manufacturing plants, both Moreover, application of controls to only a portion generally and with respect to specific a higher point of release. in the vicinity of of the furnace exhaust gas. This circumstances. The major issues raised risks to the population a plant must be assessed in terms of provision will prevent the installation of by the commenters concerned the partial controls on those furnaces where consideration of risk in establishing an emissions of inorganic arsenic from an emissions from all of the arsenic is emitted as emissions cutoff, the applicability of the entire plant, rather than particulate matter under all furnace regulation of furnaces that are at present individual furnaces within a plant. operating conditions, and an overall 85 equipped with add-on control devices, Therefore, in establishing an emission percent reduction could be achieved by the applicability of the regulation to cutoff, the emphasis has shifted from applying controls to only a portion of the emissions arising from trace impurities consideration of the magnitude of the furnace exhaust gas. of arsenic in non-arsenic raw materials, emissions arising from individual The final standard does not require the reliance on OSHA standards for furnaces, and the costs of controlling cooling of furnace exhaust gases to any controlling fugitive emissions of arsenic, those emissions, to consideration of the specific level prior to entering a control and the applicability of various magnitude of the risks associated with device. The Agency has no basis for allowances and exemptions. specific plants and the degree to which determining under what conditions Selection of Annual Uncontrolled those risks can be reduced at a cooling would be effective in increasing Emission Limit. One commenter (the reasonable cost. The application of this control device performance or for New Jersey Department of policy in developing the final standard predicting the extent to which cooling Environmental Protection ) stated that was described above under Selection of might increase performance. Therefore, the proposed arsenic emission limit of Standard. a requirement that the exhaust gas from 0.4 Mg/yr (0.44 ton/yr) for uncontrolled Applicabilty to Furnaceswith all affected furnaces be cooled to some emissions was based entirely on cost Existing Control Devices. One specific level prior to entering a control and economic factors, with no commenter representing Corning Glass device would result in increased costs consideration given to the risks Works stated that all glass melting with no guarantee that additional associated with these emissions. furnaces that are currently equipped arsenic emission reductions would be At the time of proposal, the Agency's with add-on control technology should achieved. The Agency believes that both standard setting approach involved first not be required to install additional the level and the format of the final selecting a standard that was control. The commenter indicated that standard are sufficient to ensure that achievable through the application of the largest and most cost-effective furnace exhaust gases are cooled in best available technology (BAT). reductions in arsenic emissions could be those instances where the effectiveness Determination of BAT was based on the obtained from furnaces that are of control is dependent on the operating capability of existing technologies to currently uncontrolled. temperature of the control device. In the reduce emissions, as well as on the The promulgated emission limit case of the furnace located in costs of emission controls and on the requiring 85 percent reduction of arsenic Martinsburg, West Virginia, the Agency economic impact of applying the emissions applies to all existing glass expects that the temperature of the controls at specific facilities. The melting furnaces that emit more than 2.5 28000 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

Mg/yr (2.75 tons/yr) of arsenic prior to uncontrolled arsenic emissions arsenic as an ingredient of their batch an add-on control device. Thus, furnaces approaching the proposed emission composition would not emit enough with existing control devices must cutoff of 0.4 Mg/year (0.44 tons/yr). The arsenic to be affected by the achieve this limit if emissions of arsenic commenter is aware of only one promulgated uncontrolled emission from these furnaces would be more than conventional raw material that contains limits of 0.4 Mg (0.44 ton) per year for 2.5 Mg/yr (2.75 tons/yr) if controls were arsenic as an impurity. That one new and modified furnaces and 2.5 Mg not in place; EPA is aware of 6 such exception, an additive used in small (2.75 tons) per year for existing furnaces. furnaces. Available emission data amounts in producing body-colored The EPA agrees it would be indicate that arsenic emissions from glass, would result in arsenic emissions unreasonable to require demonstration each of these furnaces are currently of less than one pound per year. of this; and, therefore, the applicability being reduced by more than 85 percent; The EPA has examined the problems section of the promulgated regulation therefore, demonstration of compliance posed by the presence of arsenic as an has been revised to exclude all furnaces should be possible without installation impurity in various raw materials used that do not use commercial arsenic as a of additional control. in the production of glass, and has raw material. Commercial arsenic is concluded, based on available defined as any form of arsenic that is Trace Amounts of Arsenic in Raw by extracting arsenic from any including information, that this source of arsenic produced Materials.Three commenters, arsenic-containing substance and is the Glass Packaging Institute, addressed is not expected to affect significantly the emissions of inorganic arsenic from intended for sale or for intentional use the issue of whether the presence of in a manufacturing process. raw glass manufacturing furnaces. The arsenic as an impurity in the Emissions. The NRDC materials used to manufacture glass specific comment that appears to Fugitive should be considered in determining the indicate that the presence of arsenic representative objected to EPA's applicability of the standard. Each of impurities may result in emissions reliance on compliance with OSHA approaching 0.4 Mg (0.44 ton) per year standards for fugitive emissions of these commenters expressed concern The that it would be burdensome and costly was closely examined. It was inorganic arsenic in the workplace. to require facilities that do not use determined that the calculations present NRDC felt it was not appropriate to arsenic as a raw material to an unrealistic situation in presuming consider OSHA standards in deciding demonstrate that emissions arising from that all of the raw materials entering the not to propose standards for these furnace contain 2 to 3 ppm arsenic by emissions. The commenter stated that: trace arsenic contamination of other raw solely on materials would not result in weight, and that all of the arsenic (1) This reliance was based exceedance of the proposed annual entering the furnace is emitted. Because statements made by company of 0.4 Mg per it would be uncommon for all raw representatives, and had not been uncontrolled emission limit Agency; year (0.44 ton per year). The commenters materials to contain arsenic at that independently verified by the requested that EPA explicitly exclude level, and because at least 70 percent of (2) although OSHA standards, if regulation all the arsenic is expected to be retained in implemented, may provide protection to from the promulgated plants, furnaces that do not intentionally use the product, EPA has concluded that the workers in glass manufacturing arsenic as a raw material. One emissions calculated in the example they do not give persons living around commenter noted that the arsenic given in the comment are substantially the plants the enforcement power to content of raw materials is not routinely overstated and not indicative of an compel compliance with the standards specified by raw material suppliers actual condition that might occur. that would be available under the Clean since arsenic is not known to impair The EPA has also independently Air Act; and (3) the Agency should, at glass quality. However, the commenter investigated the concentration of arsenic the least, incorporate into a section 112 indicated that in a telephone survey of found in the bulk raw materials standard the equipment and work glass manufacturers and raw material commonly used in the glass industry (A- practice requirements needed to comply suppliers, no evidence was found that 83-08/IV-B--12). During an emission test with the OSHA standards. arsenic exists in significant quantities as of an arsenic-using furnace, samples of The Administrator believes that an impurity of raw material components. the bulk raw materials were taken and where standards established under The only detectable quantity of arsenic analyzed for arsenic content. With the separate authorities are effective in was found in Green River soda-ash single exception of barium carbonate, reducing emissions, redundant concentrations ranging from 0.03 to 0.5 the concentrations of arsenic in the raw standards need not be established by ppm. These concentrations would result materials from this plant were below the EPA. The Agency establishes separate in maximum uncontrolled arsenic detection limits of the analytical method standards when there is evidence that emissions of about 1.1 kilogram (2.5 used. The measured concentration of either the control measures are not pounds) per year from a typical 225 Mg/ arsenic in the barium carbonate sample likely to remain in place or are unlikely day (250 ton/day) glass container was 2.32 ppm. However, barum to be properly operated and maintained. furnace. This commenter concluded that carbonate is not widely used in large The EPA has again reviewed the EPA should give no consideration to the quantities within the glass industry. emission sources at glass manufacturing arsenic content of raw materials since Even assuming that the concentration of plants to determine any need for .there is no reason to believe that the arsenic in bulk raw materials is equal to controls beyond those required by arsenic content of raw materials used the detection limit of the analytical OSHA. for glass manufacture is any higher than methods used on the test samples, the Information gathered after proposal it is raw materials used in other process maximum uncontrolled emissions of during visits to glass plants that use industries. Another commenter, arsenic arising from raw material arsenic indicated that fugitive emissions however, pointed out that for the size of impurities would be about 0.19 Mg/yr from some plants may not be controlled. furnace typically used to produce flat (0.21 ton/yr) from a furnace producing As a result of this finding, EPA has glass (450 to 545 Mg/day [500 to 600 500 Mg/day (550 tons/day) of glass. estimated the magnitude of the tons/day]), trace amounts of arsenic in Based on all of the information emissions of inorganic arsenic that the raw materials on the order of 2 to 3 available to the Agency, glass melting could arise from fugitive sources within ppm by weight could result in - plants that do not use commercial glass manufacturing plants (A-83-03/. Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 28001

IV-B-11). These estimates were based provisions for conducting normal ton) of arsenic during this maintenance on published fugitive emission factors maintenance on control devices. Most period. The annual costs of furnace for various material handling glass furnaces operate continuously for shutdown were estimated to range from operations, as well as on data gathered a period of years, while emission control a low of $63,000 for a small furnace during visits to glass plants that use devices require frequent maintenance. producing a low-cost glass, to a high of arsenic. To be conservative, "worst The commenter stated that the $1,000,000 for a large furnace producing case" conditions were assumed in maintenance requirement on an a high-cost glass. Thus, the cost estimating potential fugitive arsenic electrostatic precipitator is about 144 effectiveness of requiring all arsenic- emissions. For example, in this analysis hours per year and that provisions using furnaces to be shut down while it was assumed that the plant uses should be made for by-pass of the maintenance is carried out on emission unusually high concentrations of arsenic control device while maintenance is control devices would range from about (7 kg/Mg [14 lb/ton]) in the batch raw being conducted. $463,000 per Mg ($420,000 per ton) of materials. The major potential source of The EPA has investigated the cost and arsenic removed to over $51,800,000 per fugitive particulate emissions at glass environmental impacts associated with Mg ($47,000,000 per ton) of arsenic manufacturing plants are the material performing routine maintenance on removed. handling operations associated with the emission control devices installed on .Because the economic impacts of unloading, storage, and weighing of the affected glass furnaces (A-83-08/IV-B- requiring furnaces to be temporarily bulk raw materials. However, arsenic is 10). Two alternatives were considered. shut down while maintenance is not present during these operations. The first alternative would be to require performed on emission control devices Arsenic is added later, just prior to the glass furnace to shut down during would be excessive in some cases, and mixing the batch. Fugitive emissions of these maintenance periods in order to because the use of well-maintained arsenic could occur during mixing of the avoid uncontrolled emissions of arsenic. control devices is essential in effectively batch materials, during the transfer of The second alternative would allow controlling arsenic emissions on a these materials to the furnaces, when furnace operators to by-pass the control continuing basis, the promulgated the materials are charged into the device for a limited period of time for standard allows emission control furnace, and when control devices (if maintenance purposes. Emissions of devices installed on furnaces affected used) are emptied and the waste arsenic during these periods would not by the standard to be by-passed for products are removed for disposal or be controlled. The EPA analysis purposes of conducting necessary recycled to the melting furnace. In compared the increase in the cost maintenance. The EPA has also considering all of the possible sources of incurred by a model manufacturing determined, however, that inorganic fugitive emissions from glass plant that would result from the first arsenic emissions from glass melting manufacturing plants, and employing the alternative to the increase in emissions furnaces can be reduced by best information currently available to that would follow from the by-pass implementing certain work practices the Agency, the EPA estimated that the alternative. In this analysis both large during maintenance periods. Therefore, maximum fugitive emissions of arsenic and small furnaces and high and low each owner or operator of an affected from a large, 545 Mg per day (600 tons glass production costs were considered. furnace who needs to by-pass the per day), plant would amount to 0.21 In total, the cost and environmental control device for maintenance purposes Mg/yr (0.23 ton/yr) if emission control impacts associated with the alternative is required to submit a plan to the devices were not used. For a plant of requirements were evaluated for eight Administrator that details (1) the.length this size, uncontrolled stack emissions different cases. of time it will be necessary to by-pass would be about 145 Mg/yr (160 tons/yr). In the first four cases, the impacts the control device; (2) the emissions of The same plant, if controlled, would were calculated for two furnace sizes arsenic that would occur during emit about 7 Mg/yr (8 tons/yr) out of the (45 and 136 Mg/day [50 and 150 tons per maintenance periods if no steps were stack(s); fugitive arsenic emissions from day]) and for two levels of specific taken to reduce them; (3) the procedures a 545 Mg/day (600 tons/day) controlled arsenic emissions (0.025 kg/Mg of glass and work practices that will be plant were estimated to be 0.33 Mg/yr produced and 0.05 kg/Mg of glass implemented to minimize arsenic (0.36 ton/yr) under worst case produced [0.05 lb and 1.00 lb ton/of emissions during maintenance periods; conditions. Because all of the plants glass]). In the first four cases, relatively and (4) the expected reduction in known to use arsenic have capacities low glass production costs were emissions of arsenic achieved by the less than 545 Mg/day (600 tons/day), assumed, on the order of $0.75/kg implementation of these procedures and and because the estimates summarized ($0.34/lb) of product. The second four work practices. Only after approval by above are based on "worst case" cases assumed the same furnace sizes the Administrator of this plan will the assumptions, the EPA has concluded and specific arsenic emission rates, but by-pass of an emission control device by that fugitive emissions of inorganic were based on the assumption of a glass allowed. arsenic from glass manufacturing plants with higher production costs of $4.19/kg In some cases, emissions of inorganic are negligible, and, hence, risks are ($1.90/lb). These values represent the arsenic can be prevented entirely while expected to be small; thus, fugitive low and high end of the ranges for control devices are undergoing emissions are not expected to endanger actual glass furnaces that use arsenic. In maintenance. For example, control public health. Therefore, the all cases, it was assumed that the time device maintenance should be promulgated standard neither requires required for maintenance of control scheduled during periods of normal controls for fugitive inorganic arsenic devices is 144 hours per year. furnace shutdown whenever possible. emissions at glass manufacturing plants The results of this analysis showed For some plants, it may be feasible to nor incorporates OSHA requirements that a large furnace with a high arsenic switch production temporarily during into the promulgated standard as emission rate could emit up to 0.41 Mg periods of control device maintenance to suggested by the commenter. (0.45 ton) of arsenic during the 144 hours glasses that do not contain arsenic. All Allowances and Exemptions. One that the control device is by-passed. facilities affected by the regulation commenter representing Corning Glass Small furnaces with low arsenic should make maximum use of control Works requested that the EPA include emission rates would emit 0.01 Mg (0.01 devices that are divided into two or 28002 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

more independently operated sections. proposed particulate emission limit by acid as a raw material showed that Use of so-called "sectionalized" control reducing particulate emissions by as more than 90 percent of the emitted devices enables maintenance to be little as 45 percent. In this case, the arsenic was in particulate form and performed on one section of the device corresponding reduction achieved in collected by the control devices. On the without affecting the operation of the arsenic emissions would be only 40 to 45 basis of these data; EPA concluded that other(s). Other steps that can be taken percent, even though all of the emitted cooling of the exhaust gases may not be to minimize emissions of inorganic arsenic may be in the particulate matter. effective in increasing the efficiency of arsenic during maintenance of control Therefore, EPA has found that control particulate control devices in reducing devices are the maximum use of cullet, equipment that would meet the arsenic emissions from glass melting the temporary reduction in arsenic feed, proposed particulate emission limits furnaces. The EPA acknowledged at the or the temporary reduction of furnace may not, in all instances, represent the time, however, that emissions from output. most effective control technology for furnaces using powdered arsenic arsenic emissions. Finally, EPA has trioxide rather than liquid arsenic acid Format of the Standard assembled all of the available data on might consist of substantially more Two commenters on the proposed control devices currently installed on vapor-phase arsenic. It was also regulation stated that using the emission arsenic-using glass furnaces. Many of uncertain whether the relationship rates for total particulate allowed under these control devices achieve more than between temperature and the proportion the standard of performance fornew 95 percent reduction in total arsenic of arsenic emitted in the solid phase sources (NSPS) as the basis of the emissions, although some of them are was the same for all types of glass. control requirement for an arsenic not capable of reducing emissions of In order to resolve these questions, NESHAP would lead to numerous total particulates to the level prescribed the EPA performed five emission tests problems in demonstrating compliance by the NSPS. The costs of upgrading after proposal on arsenic-using glass with the regulation. Corning Glass these control devices to meet the NSPS melting furnaces. The tests proved Works provided several examples in particulate emission rates were helpful in demonstrating that the use of which multiple furnaces, each melting a investigated and found to be excessive powdered arsenic trioxide instead of different type of glass, are exhausted to when compared to the additional arsenic acid had little or no effect on the a common stack. Because the proposed reduction in arsenic emissions that proportion of arsenic emitted in the solid emission rates were different for would be achieved. There is one phase. The results of these tests were different glass types, the commenter felt disadvantage of an emission limit based inconclusive, however, as to the effect of that it would be virtually impossible to on arsenic emission reduction temperature on the proportion of arsenic determine compliancefor each possible efficiency-the increased cost of testing in the solid phase for different types of combination of furnaces and glass types. the inlet and outlet of the control device. glass. The EPA presented a summary of The commenter also noted that some This type of testing using Test Method the data in the Federal Register on furnaces currently equipped with the 108 would cost about $13,250 for a March 20, 1984 (49 FR 10278), and best control technology available would typical furnace as opposed to about tentatively concluded that a decrease in not comply with the proposed emission $10,000 for particulate matter testing temperature would result in an increase rates for total particulates. The New using Reference Method 5. The EPA in particulate arsenic for soda-lime Jersey Department of Environmental believes, however, that the additional furnaces, but not for other types of Protection recommended that the testing costs involved in determining the furnaces. These data are discussed fully Agency establish an efficiency standard efficiency of a control device in reducing in that notice and in the BID for the for arsenic removal, rather than an arsenic emissions are warranted, promulgated standard. In developing the emission rate for total particulate considering the various problems and requirements in the final standard, EPA matter. impacts associated with the proposed considered public comments on the In carefully evaluating all of the emission limits for total particulates. March 20, 1984, Federal Register notice comments and available data, the Therefore, the format of the final and the results of two additional Agency has determined that a control standard is in terms of percent reduction emission tests that are discussed below. requirement based on a percent of arsenic emissions. reduction of arsenic emissions is ControlMethods for Soda-Lime preferable to a limit on emissions of Control Technology Furnaces.The representative for total particulates from glass melting Several commenters addressed the Corning Glass Works stated that data furnaces. Some furnaces in the pressed issue of the level of control of arsenic from one of the commenter's soda-lime and blown segment of the industry are emissions achievable by conventional furnaces indicate that the percentage of used to melt various types of glass. The particulate control technologies. Many arsenic in the particulate matter type of glass being melted in these of these comments were concerned with increases, rather than decreases, with furnaces may change frequently, causing the effect of temperature on the increasing exhaust gas temperature. The a corresponding change in particulate percentage of total arsenic emitted in proportion of arsenic found in the emission rates. No satisfactory approach particulate form, and, therefore, particulate from this furnace varied could be developed for determining available for removal by the control widely, however, from a low of about 50 compliance with a particulate emission devices. percent to a high of 99 percent. Data rate on a continuing basis under these As discussed in the preamble to the provided by the commenter for a circumstances, or for prorating proposed regulation, theoretical furnace producing aluminosilicate glass emissions from multiple furnaces that considerations indicate that all of the also showed a wide variability in the exhaust to a common stack. The EPA arsenic emitted from glass melting proportion of total arsenic that was has also found that particulate emission furnaces would be in the vapor phase at emitted as particulate matter. For 23 rates from arsenic-using furnaces that typical furnace exhaust temperatures. representative samples collected on this are currently uncontrolled are, in some At the time of proposal, however, data furnace, from about 30 to 100 percent of instances, significantly less than would from EPA tests on two particulate the total arsenic was emitted as be normally expected. Thus, these control devices installed on glass particulate. The commenter concluded furnaces could conceivably meet the melting furnaces that use liquid arsenic that temperature is not the only factor Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 28003 affecting the fraction of total arsenic gases at the inlet of particulate control any other source characteristics. In emitted as particulate matter. The devices. addition, EPA does not have sufficient commenter for Owens-Illinois After publication of the notice in the data to conclude that cooling of furnace challenged the validity of the data Federal Register on March 20, 1984, a exhaust gases would be effective in presented by EPA in the March 20, 1984, second arsenic emission test was incrasing the efficiency of a control Federal Register. This commenter stated performed on a soda-lime glass melting device in all cases. Therefore, a that the data were flawed and did not furnace. No significant amounts of requirement that the exhaust gas from conclusively demonstrate that there is a vapor-phase arsenic were found in the all affected furnaces be cooled to some relationship between temperature and emissions from this furnace regardless specific level prior to entering a control the fraction of total arsenic emitted in of the temperature of the filtered gas. In device would result in increased costs particulate form. The commenter all test runs, more than 99 percent of the with no guarantee that additional believes that EPA's earlier conclusion total arsenic was captured as particulate control would be achieved. The Agency that at least 90 percent control of matter. Therefore, even if the results of does believe, nonetheless, that both the arsenic emissions can be achieved by the first test on a soda-lime furnace had format and the level of the final particulate control devices is correct. quantified a relationship between standard are sufficient to ensure that The NRDC stated that the data temperature and the amount of arsenic furnace exhaust gases are cooled in presented by EPA demonstrate that emitted as particulate matter, this those instances where the effectiveness emissions of particulate arsenic increase relationship could not be generalized to of control is dependent on the operating sharply as the temperature of the all furnaces producing soda-lime glass. temperature of the control device. furnace exhaust gases decreases, and The EPA also performed emission Elimination of Arsenic in Glass that EPA should require exhaust gases tests on a glass melting furnace Manufacturing from soda-lime furnaces to be cooled to producing an aluminosilicate glass. 121°C (250°F) prior to entering a Although the furnace is not presently Four commenters representing particulate control device. equipped with a permanent control Owens-Illinois, the Glass Packaging a pilot-scale fabric filter system Institute, NRDC, and legal counsel for The results of the first test on a device, had been recently installed on the Container Glass Manufacturers, furnace melting soda-lime glass showed furnace. The test program included both discussed the elimination of arsenic as a that less of the total arsenic emitted EPA Method 108 and single-point raw material in the manufacture of from the furnace was in particulate form sampling, as well as a series of glass. Two of these commenters stated compared to the previous tests (about 74 performance tests on the pilot-scale that use of arsenic in the manufacture of percent compared to more than 90 fabric filter. The results of these tests glass containers has been completely percent) at the standard EPA Method did conclusively demonstrate that eliminated, and that there is no 108 sampling temperature of 121*C cooling of the furnace exhaust gases technical reason to use arsenic in the (250°F). In addition, samples taken caused gaseous arsenic to condense, manufacture of glass container products. simultaneously at three different and thereby increased the effectiveness These two commenters made no temperatures (121°C, 204°C, and 288°C) of the fabric filter in reducing arsenic objection to a requirement that arsenic showed that the amount of arsenic in emissions. When the temperature of the be eliminated from glass container the particulate matter generally exhaust gas was cooled to below 121°C manufacturing, as long as no additional increased as the filtered gas was cooled (250°F), control efficiencies ranged from administrative burdens were placed from 288°C (550°F) to 121°C (250°F1. about 75 percent to 97 percent and upon container glass manufacturers. The However, the amount of vapor-phase averaged about 87 percent. When the commenter for Owens-Illinois stated arsenic detected in these samples did temperature of the exhaust gas was that the use of arsenic in the not decrease in proportion to the maintained above 121°C (250'F), control manufacture of pressed and blown increase observed in particulate arsenic, efficiencies ranged from about 58 glassware is essential and that no and the total amount of arsenic percent to 82 percent and averaged acceptable substitutes are currently collected at 288°C (550°F) was uniformly about 71 percent. The data also available. Without arsenic, tableware less than the total amount collected at a indicated that the effectiveness of glass tends to have an objectionable filtered gas termperature of 121°C cooling is sensitive to the concentration green tint. The NRDC objected to the (250°F). The results of this test were also of gaseous arsenic in the exhaust gas contention that the elimination of complicated by the fact that some of the and to the residence time of the gas arsenic in pressed and blown glass filters used during the test were later stream at lower temperatures. However, manufacturing would have serious found to be torn. Because there was not the data collected during these tests are consequences for this sector of the glass a decrease in vapor-phase arsenic not sufficient to correlate specific manufacturing industry. The commenter emissions in proportion to the apparent temperatures to specific removal stated that the only benefit to the glass increase in particulate arsenic, no clear efficiencies. industry stemming from the use of basis exists for concluding that cooling Although the available data to arsenic is that it improves the cosmetic of the exhaust gases causes a significant indicate that arsenic emissions from qualities of the glass by making it amount of vapor-phase arsenic to some glass melting furnaces may occur clearer. The NRDC asserted that condense and form particulate arsenic. less predominantly as particulate matter cosmetic benefits are insufficient to For this reason, the Agency has no than was previously believed, and that justify public exposure to arsenic assurance that cooling of furnace cooling can be effective in increasing the emissions and urged that the standard exhaust gases would result in a proportion of total arsenic emitted as be amended to eliminate arsenic from significantly higher arsenic removal particulate matter, no correlations have the manufacture of pressed and blown efficiency. The Agency agrees with the been identified between the proportion glass. The commenter also stated that if commenter that the data obtained from of arsenic emitted as particulate matter there are specialized, nonsubstitutable the first test on a soda-lime furnace are and the type of glass produced, the type uses for arsenic that rise above the level inconclusive, and are insufficient to of melting furnace used, the type of of cosmetics, then EPA should set a support a limit on the temperature of the arsenic added to the raw materials, or standard requiring extremely stringent 28004 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations controls for a small number of furnaces some plants would close down if the One commenter for NRDC stated that dedicated to such uses. proposed standard were promulgated, the "worst case" economic analysis Based on the public comments but did not provide any data to support conducted by EPA has been grossly received and the information available that statement, Another commenter exaggerated in reaching a conclusion before and after proposal of the representing Owens-Illinois stated that that under certain conditions the standard, the EPA has concluded that the monetary costs required to comply proposed regulation could cause some the container glass, flat glass, and wool with the standard would severlly affect furnaces to close. Further, the fiberglass segments of the glass an already depressed market, which is commenter stated that the assertion that manufacturing industry do not use facing significant and increasing the elimination of arsenic from pressed arsenic as a raw material in the competition from foreign producers of and blown glass would make U.S. manufacturing process. Because the glass tableware. Between 1979 and 1982, manufactured glassware uncompetitive promulgated standard applies only to the compound growth in imports has with glassware imported from countries furnaces that use arsenic as a raw been 6.8 percent, while growth in the that do not restrict arsenic use has not material, no furnaces in the container, domestic share of the market has been supported by hard data or flat, or wool fiberglass segments of the declined by 0.4 percent. In addition, over analysis. The commenter stated that if glass industry would be affected. the past 10 years there has been a the regulation does impose a Owners or operators of furnaces that do decline in real total dollar market value competitive disadvantage on U.S. glass not melt a glass in which arsenic is for the U.S. tableware industry. Two manufacturers, other steps should be added as a raw material are not subject tableware manufacturers have recently taken to protect their position, such as to the requirements of this standard, closed plants. The strong U.S. dollar will the imposition of duties on imports of including those for reporting and continue to favor imports of glass arsenic-containing glass. recordkeeping. If an owner or operator tableware. The commenter stated that The revised economic analysis of the of a furnace in any of these segments of reducing emissions to the level proposed promulgated standard explains that cost the industry were to begin using arsenic, by the standard is estimated to cost absorption (profit reduction) by the furnace would be subject to the $15.65/Mg ($14.20/ton) of glass. These producers, rather than cost pass-through standard. costs would increase operating costs by to consumers, is more likely to result Arsenic is used in the manufacture of over $2 million per year. This represents because of the competitive role of some products in the pressed and blown an increase of 2.1 percent in production segment of the glass industry, however. imports. Using this assumption, all costs over 1982 levels, which would control costs were analyzed as A case-by-case assessment of the have decreased 1982 profits by 25 additions to baseline operating potential to eliminate arsenic use was percent. conducted by contacting all six major expenses. No closures are anticipated as manufacturers of pressed and blown The EPA recognizes that machine- a result of the promulgated standard. made glass tableware manufacturers soda-lime glassware (A-83-08fIV-B-13]. are The EPA's assertion that U.S. Although some companies have been facing competition from foreign manufacturers of pressed and blown successful in removing arsenic entirely producers of glass tableware; and in the glass would be at a competitive from their raw batch materials, other economic analysis conducted after disadvantage to foreign manufacturers if companies producing similar types of proposal, it was assumed that prices arsenic were eliminated as a glass glass have been unable to obtain a cannot be raised and that companies additive is based on the fact that the product of acceptable quality when must absorb the control costs as properties that arsenic provides for arsenic is removed. Although the decreased profits. (See Appendix B of glass products have an economic value. qualities achieved by the inclusion of the BID for promulgated standard.) The Such properties as clarity are desired by arsenic (clarity, elimination of unwanted costs cited by the commenter were for a the consumer and, thus, are considered color, etc.) are "cosmetic," they do have specific plant owned and operated by necessary for certain products to be economic value, and reflect certain the commenter. The costs and economic competitive in the market. The economic physical attributes of the final product impacts of the promulgated standard value of these properties has not been that are required by the consumer. were analyzed for this plant, and EPA quantified but is, nevertheless, real. The Demand for these products is inherently concluded that they would be commenter's suggestion that duties be connected to their physical appearance disproportionately high compared to the imposed on imports of pressed and which, therefore, has a tangible risk reduction that would be achieved blown glass that contain arsenic cannot economic value. The EPA expects that through compliance with the standard. be implemented because EPA does not producers of pressed and blown Therefore, while the plant is one of have legislative authority to impose glassware will continue to try to several that would have had to install such duties or to take any similar eliminate arsenic from their batch control devices to achieve the proposed measure to reduce possible competition recipes to avoid being subject to the standard, it is expected to have average to U.S. glassware manufacturers by requirements of this standard. It is not annual arsenic emissions below the foreign glass. revised emission limit for existing clear, however, when (and if) these Monitoring and Measurement Methods efforts will be successful. Because a furnaces in the final standard. requirement to eliminate the use of The economic analysis indicated a One commenter for the Toledo, Ohio, arsenic in the pressed and blown glass potential closure for only one furnace Environmental Services Agency segment of the industry could cause currently using arsenic and with arsenic supported EPA's position that a material severe economic impacts for some emissions above the revised cutoff. balance or other non-stack test data be producers, it is not included in the final Company representatives have informed used to establish whether a facility is standard but will be evaluated as part of EPA, however, that they plan to affected by the proposed regulation and the 5-year review of the standard. eliminate the use of arsenic at this to monitor compliance. However, the furnace: therefore, it would not be commenter requested clarification on Costs and Economic Impact affected by the standard, The EPA's two points. First, how much confidence The Coming Glass Works analysis indicated that no other furnace does the EPA have in the estimates of representative stated the belief that closures would result from the standard. arsenic retention in glass? Specifically, Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 28005 should the low end of the estimate, 70 to the percentage retained in the glass. presented to the Agency that indicates percent retention, be used in estimating Thus, the arsenic entering with the cullet that continuous monitoring of opacity uncontrolled arsenic emissions? Second, would not have any impact on inorganic represents-an unjustifiable cost burden. how should the arsenic content of the arsenic emissions. When this The promulgated standard does not cullet be determined? Is it accurate to assumption is made, however, care must set any specific limit on stack gas assume that all of the arsenic entering be taken to calculate the amount of opacity based on correlations between with the cullet remains in the glass, and arsenic retained in the glass on the basis opacity and emissions of either thus has no impact on arsenic of the percent of product weight that is particulate matter or of arsenic. Rather, emissions? derived from fresh raw materials rather the promulgated standard requires that The estimates of the amount of than on the basis of the total product a 6-minute average reference opacity arsenic in the glass product were weight. This is discussed in more detail value for a given furnace be determined provided by the glass industry. Data in the BID for the promulgated standard. during compliance testing. Any of the reference obtained from tests conducted by EPA Opacity Monitoring subsequent exceedance have been found to be reasonably opacity value established during a consistent with data supplied by Two commenters (Owens-Illinois and compliance test must be reported industry representatives. It should be Coming Glass Works) stated that the semiannually. If excess opacity occurs noted, however, that the amount of proposed requirement for opacity as a result of a change in the monitoring of emissions exiting the arsenic retained in the glass can vary composition of the glass being melted in significantly according to the specific control device in unnecessary and a furnace, this cause should be cited in with the NSPS for glass recipe used in making glass. inconsistent the report. Alternatively, if multiple manufacturing, which does not require The 70 percent retention value types of glass are typically melted in a opacity monitoring. The commenter for single furnace, and stack gas opacity is published in the proposal BID (EPA- Owens-Illinois indicated that opacity 450/3-83-011a) was supplied by expected to be significantly higher for monitoring would represent an one type of glass, the initial compliance industry representatives as a typical unjustifiable cost burden. The retention rate for lead silicate type test may be performed while this glass is commenter for Coming stated that being melted. Finally, paragraph glass. Data gathered by the EPA after opacity monitoring is administratively proposal have demonstrated that at 61.163(h) of the promulgated standard burdensome, and readings cannot be allows owners or operators of affected least 70 percent of the arsenic is correlated with emissions of either retained in the glass product, regardless furnaces to petition the Administrator inorganic arsenic or particulate, for approval of any alternative of its composition. However, the amount especially when multiple furnaces are of arsenic retained in the glass product continuous monitoring system that can exhausted to a common stack. The be demonstrated to provide accurate is not strictly a function of the type of commenter noted that excessive stack glass produced. For any given type of and representative monitoring of a opacity occurs in one of the properly operating control device. glass, the percentage of arsenic retained commenter's furnaces as a result of Several commenters suggested in the product can vary widely. For • gaseous fluoride emissions from melting in the proposed Method 108. example, data collected by EPA show one type of glass, and that this opacity is changes that the percent of arsenic retained in unrelated to inorganic arsenic or total These suggestions and the rationale for discussed in the BID for the soda-lime glass can range from about 70 particulate emissions. changes are percent to about 90 percent. Therefore, The requirement for opacity promulgated standard. Briefly, changes in estimating uncontrolled arsenic monitoring was proposed as a means to in Method 108 include deletion of all emissions the arsenic retention value ensure that emission control devices references to SO2 collection and should be based on actual laboratory installed on arsenic-using glass-furnaces analysis, a change in the sampling analysis of the glass produced in a are continuously operated and temperature for glass furnaces to specific melting furnace. If analytical maintained in a manner consistent with 121°C--14°C (250°F±25°F), a revision data are not available, an assumed the procedures followed to comply with requiring that audit samples be analyzed retention value of 70 percent would the standard initially. These at least once per month, and elimination provide an estimate of the maximum requirements have been retained in the of the digestion procedure when Method rate of uncontrolled arsenic emissions promulgated standard. Under the glass 108 is applied to glass furnaces. from the glass melting furnace. In manufacturing NSPS promulgated One commenter for the Department of developing a material balance for October 19, 1984, opacity monitoring is Environmental Resources in Harrisburg, monitoring compliance, it is the not required for glass furnaces equipped Pennsylvania, saw no reason to responsibility of the furnace owner or with control devices. However, opacity differentiate between sources firing operator to provide a theoretical monitoring is required for furnaces using fuels with more than, or less than, 0.5 emission factor that accurately takes process modifications to meet the NSPS. percent by weight sulfur content. The into account the amount of arsenic The NSPS requirement for glass Agency agrees that there is no reason to retained in the glass. Retention values manufacturing plants has no bearing on differentiate between sources firing fuel should be based on actual analytical this action because the intent of this with greater than 0.5 percent by weight data for the specific type(s) of glass regulation is to control a hazardous air sulfur from those with less than 0.5 produced by the affected furnace. pollutant that is not specifically percent, and has revised the standard The amount of arsenic entering the regulated under the NSPS. With respect accordingly. furnace in the cullet should be explicitly to the costs of opacity monitoring, EPA The commenter for Coming Glass accounted for. Some furnaces may add has determined that the costs involved Works stated that the time allowances mixed cullet that is not exactly similar are reasonable in light of the additional for testing under the proposed § 61.163 in chemical composition to the type of information provided to the owner and were inflexible and inadequate, and that glass being melted. When the cullet operator of a control system and the the specified testing procedures were added is identical to the glass being improved effectiveness in enforcement inflexible and unnecessary. In support, produced, the percentage of arsenic in that will be gained as a result of this the commenter provided data showing the cullet can be assumed to be identical requirement. No information has been that other analytical methods can 28006 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations provide similar results to those obtained reporting, recordkeeping, and other several different modifications to its when using the specified EPA Method requirements contained in the standard arsenic trioxide production process 108 procedures. are both necessary to the including the use of a wet leaching The major difference between the implementation of the regulation and process or enclosure of the Godfrey procedure proposed by the commenter reasonable in their impact on the glass roasters and control of emissions using and the EPA Method 108 procedure was manufacturing industry and individual a fabric filter collector. ASARCO in the method used in determining furnace owners and operators. expects that these modifications will arsenic concentration of the samples. significantly reduce arsenic emissions The procedure proposed by the Impacts of Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements from the facility, but has not yet commenter employed the colorimetric completed detailed plans or a schedule molybdenum blue method instead of The EPA believes that the required for this change. Consequently, the atomic absorption. There were also reporting and recordkeeping Administrator decided that the proposed slight differences in the types of requirements are necessary to assist the reagents fugitive emission standard for arsenic employed, and the procedures Agency in (1] identifying sources; (2) plants should be promulgated. This part followed in leaching the materials determining initial compliance; and (3) of the preamble presents the standard collected by the probe, filter, and enforcing the standard. impingers. In the example for arsenic trioxide and metallic arsenic provided, the The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) production facilities, its basis, and a amount of arsenic detected when using of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-511) requires that the the molybdenum discussion of the comments on the blue method was 21 Office of Management and Budget proposed standard. mg, 5 mg, and 0.2 mg in the filter, probe, (OMB) approve reporting and and impingers, respectively. These recordkeeping requirements that qualify Summary of Promulgated Standard results compared to detected arsenic as an "information collection request" Applicability levels when using EPA Method 108 (ICR). To accommodate OMB review, procedures of 21 mg in the filter, 1 mg in EPA uses 3-year periods in its impact The standard that is being the probe, and 0.4 mg in the impingers. analysis procedures for estimating the promulgated today applies to each new Under 40 CFR 61.14 in Subpart A- labor-hour burden of reporting and and existing arsenic trioxide production General Provisions, the Administrator recordkeeping requirements. facility processing low-grade arsenic may allow the use of any alternative The average annual burden on owners bearing materials by a pyrometallurgical method that he has determined to be and operators of glass maunfacturing (roasting and condensation) process and adequate for indicating whether a plants to comply with the reporting and to each new and existing metallic source is in compliance. Anyone wishing recordkeeping requirements of the arsenic facility. Facilities that produce to have a method approved as an standard over the first 3 years after the arsenic trioxide solely by wet leaching alternative may submit comparative effective date is estimated to be about or extraction processes are not subject date between the candidate method and 23,100 labor-hours. to this standard. the reference method for evaluation by the Administrator. V. Arsenic Trioxide and Metallic Standard Arsenic Production Facilities Reporting Requirements The standard requires the As discussed in the overview section identification of potential arsenic The commenter for Owens-Illinois of this preamble, on July 20, 1983, EPA emission sources and preparation and stated that it is unreasonable and proposed a standard in the Federal implementation of a detailed inspection, irrational to require 12-month Register for primary copper smelters maintenance, and housekeeping plan projections of arsenic emissions from procesing feed materials with 0.7 that will be used to minimize emissions glass plants and that semiannual percent or greater arsenic. This from the arsenic trioxide and metallic reporting of past emissions should be proposed standard would have affected arsentic production facilities. The sufficient for enforcement purposes. only the ASARCO smelter in Tacoma, standard requires the plan to fulfill the The requirement that inorganic Washington. The EPA proposed for stated objectives of: (1) Cleanup of arsenic emissions be projected over a comment additional controls for fugitive arsenic containing materials; (2) regular 12-month period is necessary in order emission sources in the copper smelter maintenance and inspection of process, for the operator of the glass and the arsenic plants at the ASARCO- conveying, and air pollution control manufacturing furnace to anticipate the Tacoma facility in a Federal Register equipment; and (3) reduction of level of control that will be required for notice on December 16, 1983 (48 FR emissions during malfunctions to the each facility. Only in this way can 55880). On June 27, 1984, ASARCO maximum extent feasible. possible instances of noncompliance announced plans to close its primary with the standard be prevented. The copper smelting operations at Tacoma, Requirements for Periods of Excess calculation of past emissions may reveal Washington by June 30, 1985; and Emissions actual instances of noncompliance, but subsequently ceased copper smelting During periods of startup and only after unacceptable levels of- operations at Tacoma. In the June 1984 shutdown, the standard requires that inorganic arsenic have been emitted into announcements, ASARCO also stated emissions of inorganic arsenic be the atmosphere. This result would be that it will continue to operate the minimized to the greatest extent inconsistent with,the objectives of arsenic trioxide and metallic arsenic possible. The standard also requires the section 112 of the Act. plants at the site and that the plants will following measures to minimize The commenter for Corning Glass be operated in an environmentally emissions from malfunctions and upsets: Works stated that many administrative acceptable manner. From discussions (1) All steps necessary to limit problems could result with EPA's with ASARCO personnel, EPA has emissions, including curtailing semiannual reporting requirements concluded that there is some uncertainty operations until the equipment is under the proposed § 61.163. The regarding the process to be used and the repaired or the process is operating administrative problems referred to in future configuration of the arsenic normally; (2) establishment of a plan this comment have not been specified. trioxide plant. According to public that describes specific actions to be However, it is EPA's conclusion that the statements, ASARCO is considering taken during malfunctions and upsets: Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 28007 and (3) a routine maintenance program Summary of Enviromental, Health, the inspector to follow a prescribed for process, conveying, and emission Energy, and Economic Impacts route. In addition, the proposed control equipment. The standard being established today requirement to shut down Compliance Provisions affects new and existing arsenic trioxide malfunctioning equipment until it is and metallic arsenic production repaired has been modified to require The standard requires compliance facilities. It is expected that the the source to describe the time and within 90 days of today's date, unless a standard will affect one facility, the, actions required to curtail increased waiver of compliance is obtained from arsenic plant at ASARCO-Tacoma. emissions due to malfunctions; and (3) the Administrator. If a waiver of The standard is expected to reduce Clarification of the recordkeeping and compliance is granted, the plan shall be emissions from malfunctions and upsets reporting requirements provisions and submitted on a date set by the in the arsenic plant and to reduce inclusion of minor new provisions. The Administrator. Waivers can be granted reentrainment of arsenic-containing standard requires quarterly reporting of for a period of time needed to install materials from plant surfaces. However, excess opacity readings and of ambient controls to comply with the standard, the impact of the standard on fugitive arsenic concentration monitoring data not to exceed 2 years from today's date. emissions from the arsenic plant cannot and semiannual status reports on pilot Continuous Monitoring be quantified because of the difficulties plant studies on alternative arsenic inherent in estimating fugitive trioxide production processes. The basis Continuous opacity monitoring is emissions, the unpredictability of for the changes is described in the required for process emissions that exist malfunctions, and the considerable Discussion of Comments section of this from a control device. The standard uncertainties regarding the processes part of the preamble. requires that a reference opacity level and operations that will be used at the Additional Analyses be established for each emission stream facility in the future. The standard is based on the highest 6-minute average based on application of control Since proposal of the standards on opacity level monitored during a 36-hour measures that are necessary and are July 20, 1983 (48 FR 33112), EPA has evaluation period. Thereafter, applicable at this time, and is not based developed estimates of process and occurrences of opacity readings above on application of a quantitative risk fugitive emissions from the arsenic plant the respective reference level must be management approach. and has identified additional control reported as exceedances to the Application of the required measures to reduce arsenic emissions Administrator along with information housekeeping and maintenance from the facility. These revised emission describing the cause of the exeedances. provisions should have no effect on the estimates'are based on an on-site Recordkeeping and Reporting solid waste, water, or energy impacts of emission inventory and emission testing. Requirements the facility. Annualized costs required to Emission estimates for the arsenic comply with the standard are estimated plant fabric filter collector are based on Owners or operators of sources to be about $265,000. The primary the results of EPA emission tests covered by the standard will be subject economic impacts associated with the conducted in September 1983. Operation to the reporting and recordkeeping standard are projected small decreases of the arsenic trioxide plant and the requirements of the standard as well as in profitability for the ASARCO-Tacoma metallic arsenic plant were closely those prescribed in the General arsenic plant, if costs cannot be passed monitored during the tests to ensure that Provisions (Subpart A) of 40 CFR Part through. If costs are passed forward in testing was conducted during normal 61. Reporting and recordkeeping the form of a price increase, it is operations. These test results showed requirements of the General Provisions estimated that the standard will result in average outlet arsenic concentrations were discussed in the preamble to the less than a 5 percent increase in the and mass emission rates of 3.17 mg/ proposed standards (48 FR 33112). price of arsenic trioxide. This standard dscm (0.0014 gr/dscf) and 0.15 kg/h (0.33 Specific reporting requirements of the is not expected to cause closure of the lb/h), respectively. These results promulgated standard include: (2) affected plant. represent an average collection Quarterly reports of occurrences of efficiency for the fabric filter collector excess opacity readings and ambient Significant Changes Since Proposal greater than 99 percent. arsenic concentrations; and (1) A number of major changes have been Potential sources of low-level fugitive semiannual status reports on pilot plant made to the requirements proposed on emissions in the arsenic plant were studies on alternative arsenic trioxide July 20, 1983, and December 16, 1983. assessed during extensive on-site production processes. Owners and These changes are: (1) Deletion of inspections during June 1983, and operators are also required to submit the specific equipment requirements for the emission estimates were developed. following reports for the opacity arsenic plant. The proposed Based on these assessments, it is monitoring system: (1) Evaluation to requirements for modifications to estimated that approximately 15 Mg/yr verify the operational status of the equipment in the arsenic plant have (17 tons/yr) of fugitive arsenic emissions opacity monitors; and (2) report of been removed from the standard. These were released from operations of the reference opacity level and supporting modifications are not being required arsenic trioxide plant at ASARCO- data. because either the equipment is in place Tacoma in 1982. These estimates are Records of supporting data for the and likely to remain in place or there is based on visual observations of the reports described above must be a more cost-effective means of achieving sources and operations and on maintained at the source fora period of ,.the emission reduction; (2) Modification engineering judgment since fugitive 2 years and made available. to the ,ofthe.proposed work practices. While emissions from these sources cannot be Administrator upon request. These the proposed requirement for- measured readily. Consequently, these records will include the logs preparation of an inspection, estimates are-subject to significant demonstrating compliance with the maintenance, and housekeeping plan imprecision. general work practices and records of has been retained, specific aspects-have -The EPA conducted further all opacity measurements and repairs to, been modified. The final requirements - investigations:to identify controls that the monitoring device. for an approvable plan do not require could ieduce fugitive arsenic emissions 28008 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations from the arsenic plant as well as from control measures are required rather presented in the Discussion of other sources at the ASARCO-Tacoma than a numerical emission limit. These Comments section of this part of the smelter. The on-site inspection revealed control measures reflect application of preamble. From the consideration of that specific equipment modifications general housekeeping procedures to the public comments, it was concluded that and housekeeping practices would facility, and represent a level of control none of the proposed equipment reduce arsenic emissions. The list of that can be required at this time in the requirements should be imposed and potential control measures for fugitive absence of certainty on the future that the proposed work practices should arsenic sources was published in the production process. Control measures be slightly modified. Also identified December 16,1983, Federal Register beyond this minimum level of control were recordkeeping requirements that notice (48 FR 55880). The EPA reviewed are not being required because EPA is will be useful in determining probable the condidate control requirements not in a position to identify the causes of high ambient arsenic considering public comments on the processes and applicable controls at this concentrations and steps that. must be requirements. The final requirements are time. The standard was based on taken to prevent their reoccurrence. based on this review and on consideration of the need to minimize Combined, the identified control options consideration of whether the controls arsenic emissions through use of for low-level fugitive emission sources are already installed or required by additional control measures, as well as are expected to redu,e emissions from another regulation or agreement, and are on the feasibility and cost of these fugitive sources (and to maintain them) likely to remain in operation or good measures. The control measures below current levels. The estimated repair. The final requirements are considered include improved combined annualized cost for inspection summarized in the Summary of housekeeping practices and curtailment and maintenance requirements is about Promulgated Standard section and are of emissions during malfunctions. $265,000. In the Administrator's discussed in the Basis for Standard and Equipment and Work Practices for judgment, this cost is reasonable and Discussion of Comments-Control Fugitive Emission Control affordable. Therefore, these Technology sections of this preamble. requirements are included in the final Cost estimates were also developed for During the evaluation of additional standard. the fugitive arsenic emission controls. controls, EPA conducted onsite inspections of processes and operations Curtailment During Malfunctions Basis for Standard at the ASARCO-Tacoma facility. The At the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter, A standard is being established for on-site investigation identified several ambient monitoring data for monitors at the arsenic trioxide and metallic arsenic low-level arsenic emission sources or near the plant boundaries have production facilities at ASARCO- where additional emission control is shown that arsenic concentrations Tacoma because with current possible. Specifically, it was noted that dramatically increased when production processes and operations the overall housekeeping in the arsenic malfunctions and upsets occurred with arsenic plant is a significant contributor trioxide process area was poor with the converters, the reverberatory of dust on to ambient exposures to inorganic light to heavy accumulations furnace, the arsenic plant, or the liquid arsenic. Fugitive emissions from the all surfaces. Since this dust can be re- sulfur dioxide (SO 2) plant. Furthermore, arsenic plant are estimated currently to entrained and release emissions to the on occasion these malfunctions have atmosphere, it was concluded that be about 6 Mg per year (7 tons per year), persisted for several days. The need for and improved due to recent implementation of controls emission controls prompt attention to malfunctions was housekeeping practices are needed. The required by the Tripartite Agreement also demonstrated during EPA's ASARCO, the sources to total (i.e., the agreement among contribution of these emission test program conducted in of Washington emissions from the facility cannot be union, and the State testing Department of Labor and Industries). accurately estimated. However, high September 1983. During emission that is being established ambient arsenic concentrations of the arsenic plant baghouse, EPA The standard the air slide today is based on available fugitive measured at the close-in ambient air personnel observed that emissions control measures that can be monitors have been attributed by conveying system, which transfers arsenic-laden dust back to the process, 112(e)(1) of the ASARCO, in part, to re-entrainment of readily applied. Section was blowing dust into the air. A large Act authorizes design, equipment, work dust from buildings and plant surfaces. practice, or operational standards when Furthermore, in the public hearings on quantity of arsenic-laden dust (white (a) the pollutant cannot be emitted the proposed standards, testimony by dust) had accumulated under and through a conveyance designed and representatives of ASARCO indicated around the air slide. No ASARCO constructed to emit or capture the that no formal operations and emissions personnel were in the immediate area, pollutant; or (b) the application of a logging procedure is used by ASARCO and based on EPA's understanding of measurement methodology is not to assess the causes of high ambient the operations, none would have been in practicable due to technological or arsenic concentrations. the area until the next day. (ASARCO economic limitations. The fugitive Potential equipment, work practice, personnel were located and the process emissions that are being controlled and recordkeeping requirements for was taken out of service until the air through the arsenic plant standard sources of fugitive emissions were slide was repaired.) would result from poor housekeeping described in the December 16, 1983, The Administrator recognizes that practices and poor maintenance of Federal Register notice (48 FR 55880). malfunctions cannot be completely process and emission control equipment. Comments were received on the need prevented. However, there are measures They cannot be emitted through a for these additional controls and on that can be taken to reduce emission conveyance designed and constructed to their technical feasibility and costs. The rates significantly and to minimize the emit or capture them, and their comments were reviewed, and the time during which increased emissions frequency and magnitude would vary to equipment and work practice occur due to malfunctions. The most such an extent that measurement would requirements which are feasible and effective of these emission reduction not be practicable. Therefore, the format likely to result in significant additional measures is to shut down the affected of the standard is one in which work emission reduction were identified. This operations when malfunctions occur. practices and preventative maintenance assessment of the control measures is Therefore, in the December 16, 1983, Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 28009

Federal Register notice (48 FR 55880) Emission Estimates estimates continue to overstate arsenic EPA proposed that a housekeeping plan Throughout the public comment emissions from the arsenic plant. The be submitted that would include period, comments were received EPA believes that, although provisions for: (1) Regular inspection of concerning EPA's estimates of inorganic uncertainties persist, these estimates all process, conveying, and emission arsenic emissions from the ASARCO- represent a good approximation of the control equipment; and (2) repair of Tacoma copper smelter and arsenic actual emission rates. These emissions malfunctioning or damaged equipment plant. Initially, the comments concerned can be significantly reduced through as soon as possible and shutdown of the emission estimates presented in the improved housekeeping practices. any operation involving material having July 20, 1983, Federal Register notice of Control Technology an arsenic content greater than 2 proposed rulemaking and the BID for the percent until the equipment is repaired. proposed standard (EPA-450/3-83- Low-level fugitive sources. Several Because the inclusion of a 009a). Several commenters, including commenters, including PSAPCA and comprehensive list of all potential ASARCO and PSAPCA, claimed that Washington State Department of malfunctions in a regulation is the emission rates presented by EPA Ecology (DOE), recommended that EPA impractical, the Administrator significantly overstated the amount of establish standards which require concluded that it would be more arsenic being emitted. During the public control of low-level fugitive arsenic effective if the owner or operator of the comment period, EPA published several emission sources. The Administrator source were to identify potential revised estimates of arsenic emission agrees with the commenters and has emission sources and the steps to be rates in 1982. Additional comments were established work practice requirements taken to minimize emissions (including received regarding these revised to reduce fugitive emissions. These final shutdown) when they occur. Therefore, emission estimates. These commenters requirements were selected from those the final standard requires the owner or primarily focused on the emission published in the December 16, 1983, operator to submit a plan for EPA estimates for the smelter's converter Federal Register notice, considering approval that outlines the steps that can fugitive emissions and other low-level public comments on their need, and will be taken to curtail operations sources. The commenters still thought feasibility, and costs. The requirements when equipment malfunctions or that EPA's emission estimates are expressed as work practice and process upsets occur. The plan will overstated the amount of arsenic being operational standards because include all operations, processes, and emitted from the ASARCO-Tacoma emissions from these sources cannot be control equipment that handle material copper smelter and arsenic plant. measured accurately. having an arsenic content greater than 2 Since proposal, EPA has conducted General and specific comments on the percent. The program will describe the emission tests of the arsenic plant fabric proposed equipment, work practice, and specific steps that will be taken to take filter collector. New information on operational requirements were received out of operation or idle the affected sources of low-level arsenic emissions from ASARCO and the USWA, and are operations, and the minimum time in was also obtained by EPA during discussed in the following paragraphs. which this can be accomplished. For the extensive on-site visits to the ASARCO- ASARCO commented that the listed purpose of this standard, a malfunction Tacoma smelter. The EPA also reviewed control measures were developed is defined as any sudden failure of the comments and evaluated the without considering the likelihood of the process or air pollution control supporting information provided by the material being emitted into the ambient equipment or of a process to operate commenters. Based on the emission test air, their technical feasibility, cost, or normally which results in increased results, observations, and the improved the cost effectiveness of the measures in emissions of arsenic. Shutdown means understanding of plant operations, EPA reducing any health risk. The proposed the cessation of operation of the revised its emission estimates. These additional control measures were based equipment or the addition of materials revised emission estimates were on EPA's assessment of controls that to process equipment. submitted for review to representatives could be used to reduce fugitive of national and local environmental emissions from the arsenic plant and The EPA would consider a failure of groups, PSAPCA, the USWA, and smelter. The likelihood of fugitive equipment or a process upset caused ASARCO who had attended a emissions being released to the entirely or in part by poor maintenance, December 20, 1983, working level atmosphere was considered by the EPA careless operation, or other preventable meeting. The emission estimates were in developing the requirements. The upset condition or equipment further revised and EPA now estimates generally open configuration of breakdown, to be the result of improper that arsenic emissions from the arsenic buildings and EPA observations show operation and maintenance. Improper plant in 1982 were about 15 Mg (17 tons) that emissions released inside buildings operation and maintenance is a and current emissions are about 6 Mg (7 at the ASARCO-Tacoma facility are violation of the standard. The provisions tons) per year. The emission rate of likely to be released to the atmosphere. pertaining to malfunctions which are fugitive sources in the arsenic plant will In some cases, such emissions disperse discussed above do not excuse such be less than 6 Mg (7 tons) per year when directly to the air outside buildings. In violations. all control measures required by the other cases, the emissions may settle on Discussion of Comments standard are in place. The actual supporting structures and surfaces emission reduction cannot be estimated within the buildings. These deposits of This section presents a summary of inasmuch as the required control dust on buildings and plant surfaces can the specific comments pertaining to the measures are for unpredictable events of be re-entrained during periods with high arsenic plant at the ASARCO-Tacoma varying emission potential. The basis of winds. In fact, ASARCO has attributed smelter. The comments were made in the final emission estimates is presented some episodes of high ambient arsenic letters and in hearing testimony on the in the BID for the promulgated standard concentrations to re-entrainment of dust proposed standard for ASARCO- (EPA-450/3--83-010b). from plant and building surfaces. Similarly, EPA believes that spills of Tacoma's copper smelting operations. The EPA recognizes that the emission materials The comments are discussed by major estimates retain some uncertainty, and can also serve as a source of topic area below. some commenters may think the fugitive emissions through re- 28010 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No, 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

entrainment of dust from building and and USWA commented that all the ASARCO's comments on this objective plant surfaces-Thus, the additional arches have been installed. The final of the management plan were: (1) This control measures addressed all known standard does not include this provision requirement can only be intepreted as sources or potential sources of fugitive because the controls are in place and it meaning the entire plant would have to emissions. is EPA's judgment that thecontrols are be placed within an enclosure; and (2) In developing the additional control likely to remain in place. the costs of such an enclosure would be measures, EPA also developed estimates "Calcine conveyor system"-In astronomical. The USWA commented of the costs. These control measures response to the proposal to require a that dry, dusty materials with arsenic were briefly discussed in the meeting pneumatic conveyor system for transfer concentrations well below 2 percent held December 20, 1983, and were of calcine from the Godfrey roaster may contribute significantly to fugitive placed in Docket Number A-80--40 for water-cooled screw conceyors to the emissions from the plant, while damp public inspection. (In response to railcar loading station, ASARCO and materials with higher arsenic content comments, these estimates were revised USWA commented that this system has would not contribute significantly. The and the revised estimates were also, been installed and is operating. Thus, it. USWA recommended that the regulation distributed to the.meeting attendees for is EPA's judgment that there is no need require clean-up or stabilization of dry comment and to the public docket). The to.require this system since it is-in-place materials containing more than 0.2 final control requirements are estimated and likely to remain in operation. percent arsenic. to cost about $265,000 per year (increase "Arsenic kitchen pulling area"- The rationale for requiring no in costs due to controls). These control ASARCO commented that the enclosure accumulation and clean-up of arsenic- measures were selected based on around the kitchen pulling area that EPA containing materials is that, as consideration of the need for the proposed to require would be extremely previously discussed, re-entrainment of measure, the technical feasibility, and large and expensive and is not part oi all of the material is possible and the estimated costs. The bases for the justifiable. The USWA's industrial re-entrained material is likely to be specific requirements are summarized hygienist commented that the enclosure released to the atmosphere. The intent below along witL ASARCO's and the might exacerbate worker exposure to of the requirement was not, as suggested USWA's comments. arsenic without any clear benefit to by ASARCO, to require enclosure of the 1. Equipment Standards-"Arsenic community air quality. The final entire plant, which is obviously not plant, raw dust conveyor system"- standard does not require enclosure of practicable. Instead, the intent was to ASARCO's comments on the proposed the kitchen pulling areas because of the focus attention on control of potentially requirement for a dust-tight conveying potential for significantly increased significant sources of fugitive arsenic system for the arsenic plant were: (1) It worker exposure in this area. This emissions from sources such as arsenic is not possible to use an enclosed conclusion is based on a review of the kitchen pulling or handling of baghouse pneumatic conveying system to transfer conceptual design and calculations of dust and to exclude nonarsenic-bearing wet dust (the dust is wetted because the expected arsenic concentrations within materials. The EPA considers the Godfrey roasters cannot accept dry the enclosures where the kitchen pullers USWA's comment that the requirement dust); and (2) the present covered belt must work. Although, workers in this should be limited to dry, dusty materials conveyor system is best available area use full face respirators, this to be valid. Consequently, this objective technology. The USWA also commented protection is not sufficient to fully has been reworded in the general work that pneumatic conveying would require isolate workers from, exposure to arsenic practices standard to require cleaning relocation of the zig-zag blender and because of the difficulties associated up or wetting of dry, dusty materials. recommended as. an alternative that with the use of respirators. While it is The objective has not been revised as ASARCObe required to maintain the theoretically possible to prevent suggested by USWA to include fullest possible enclosure of the zig-zag increased exposure using respirators, it materials with more than 0.2 percent blender and belt transfer system and to is more probable that employee arsenic because limiting the requirement ensure that leaks are promptly identified exposures would significantly increase. to materials with more than 2 percent and repaired. The EPA considered these Furthermore, EPA believes that arsenic essentially requires cleanup or comments and believes that a pneumatic substantial emission reductions can be control of, all sources in the arsenic conveyor could be used as proposed by achieved by improved housekeeping and plant. relocating the zig-zag blender closer to maintenance of the arsenic plant "Immediate cleanup of any spilled the Godfrey roasters. The EPA, without increasing worker exposures. material having an arsenic content however, also concluded that there were Consequently, the regulation requires greater than 2 percent"-ASARCO's other more cost-effective ways of emissions from arsenic kitchen pulling comments on this objective were: (1) reducing emissions from transfer of raw to be minimized by cleaning up, wetting, There is a housekeeping program in dust from the arsenic plant storage or stabilizing dry, dusty, arsenic-bearing place as part of the OSHA/WISHA bunkers to the Godfrey roasters. materials in the area. arsenic compliance requirements; (2) Specifically, the objective could be 2. Work Practices-Five general work. any clean-up requirements should be accomplished through improved practice objectives were listed in the directed toward specific sources and housekeeping and maintenance of the December 16, 1983, Federal Register materials and should be handled by a existing system. Since EPA is notice. Only ASARCO and the USWA regulatory agency compliance establishing provisions that require a commented on these proposed requirement; and (3) the objective does routine maintenance and repair objectives for an inspection, not consider whether the material is program-, the standard does not require maintenance, and housekeeping plan. likely to become airborne. The USWA installation of a dust-tight conveyor The comments on each objective, and comments on this proposed requirement system in:the arsenic plant. the objective, are discussed below. were the same as its comments on the "Godfrey roasters"-In response to "No accumulation of material having preceding requirement. The EPA the proposal to require installation and an arsenic content greater than 2 reviewed ASARCO's housekeeping plan maintenance of a solid refractory arch percent on any surface within the plant submitted to the. Washington State on each Godfrey roaster, both ASARCO outside of a dust-tight enclosure"- Department of Labor and Industries and Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 28011 J found that its scope was much narrower The EPA believes that regular inspection hydrometallurgical process as the best than intended by EPA's proposal. Thus, and documentation is necessary approach to reducing low-level arsenic at present the existing housekeeping because ASARCO's correspondence emissions. Another commenter (the program cannot be considered an with PSAPCA and EPA suggests that USWA) recommended that EPA require adequate substitute for the proposed equipment malfunctions and upsets and ASARCO to research alternative objective. other causes of higher than normal technologies for the production of The EPA believes this objective of the emissions are not systematically arsenic trioxide and metallic arsenic. general work practice plan should be documented. Further, during the public The EPA has examined the status and included in the standard to ensure that hearing in Tacoma, ASARCO applicability of hydrometallurgical prompt attention is given to clean-up or representatives confirmed that they do processes to materials processed in the control of spilled materials containing not have procedures which document all ASARCO-Tacoma arsenic production greater than 2 percent arsenic. It would observed emissions and their causes. facility. The EPA is monitoring the not be practicable to identify every The EPA believes that such development of hydrometallurgical potential source in the regulation documentation is necessary to processes and is aware of a number of because of the large number of sources objectively pursue an effective emission processes that are being developed. and materials processed at the facility. control program. As suggested by the Since flue dusts used in the ASARCO- Unless this requirement is part of the USWA, the inspection procedure has Tacoma arsenic plant vary considerably regulation, EPA believes there would be been expanded to include observation in composition and contain impurities no means of ensuring the attendant and documentation of housekeeping not found at other smelters, there is no emission control. Therefore, the practices. The EPA believes that the known established process that can be requirement has been included in the inspection procedure and its required readily applied at Tacoma. At this time, regulation. documentation will increase awareness ASARCO is researching several "Regular scheduled maintenance of all of and emphasis on emission control. processes for extracting arsenic from smelter process, conveying, and "Repair of malfunctioning or damaged various flue dusts and is operating a emission control equipment to minimize equipment"-ASARCO commented that pilot plant to evaluate further the equipment malfunctions"-Both they oppose the proposed requirements feasibility of several processes ASARCO and USWA commented that because the urgency of the repair is not recommended by the research this proposed objective is currently related to the quantity of emissions to department. Pilot plant operations began required by the Tripartite Agreement, the air or impact on air quality. in September 1984. and USWA further commented that it ASARCO also considered the proposal The EPA is not requiring ASARCO to should be included in the final standard. to be unreasonable because it would research alternative technologies for the This provision is being required to remove from ASARCO the discretion production of arsenic trioxide and establish more explicit requirements for and authority to determine and take metallic arsenic for two reasons. First, the arsenic plant than does the appropriate action. The USWA the Tripartite Agreement among Tripartite Agreement. The standard commented that it is not always ASARCO, OSHA, and USWA already includes this as a necessary part of an practicable or necessary to shut down requires ASARCO to monitor and approvable housekeeping, inspection, operations involving releases of material evaluate the development of alternative and maintenance plan. with more than 2 percent arsenic. The technologies for the production of "Regular inspection to ensure EPA considered these comments and arsenic trioxide and matallic arsenic. As equipment is operating properly"- consequently revised the proposed previously indicated, EPA does not ASARCO commented that there is an objective to require the company to believeit is necessary to establish inspection procedure in place, and it is submit a plan, subject to the approval of redundant standards when the measures unreasonable to require the proposed the Administrator, describing the required would be implemented even in inspection routine and documentation. actions that will be taken to curtail the absence of EPA standards. Second, In contrast, the USWA agreed with the operations when process upsets and such a new requirement would have no proposed objective and recommended malfunctions of process, emission impact because ASARCO is committed that the inspector document general control, or material handling equipment to, and is, in fact, already conducting housekeeping in each area to ensure occur that will result in increased pilot plant tests. Today's regulation plant surfaces are kept free of dry, dusty emissions of arsenic. This plan will does, however, require ASARCO to materials. Both ASARCO and USWA describe the time and actions required report to the Administrator the findings commented that it is unnecessary to to curtail increased emissions due to of studies conducted on the feasibility of require the inspector to follow a malfunctions. The plan will also alternative processes for producing prescribed route. The EPA believes that describe any technical limitations on arsenic trioxide. The EPA plans to the proposed regular inspection curtailments. The EPA believes that this continue to monitor the development of objective is a necessary element of the approach will allow sufficient flexibility hydrometallurgical processes and the management plan to miminize fugitive to consider technical limitations and to process changes to the arsenic trioxide and excess emissions and thus shoiuld consider whether specific individual plant, and to revise the regulation when be included in the standard. The malfunctions would increase emissions appropriate. proposed requirement of a prescribed of inorganic arsenic to the atmosphere. Compliance Provisions route, however, has been deleted as it is Arsenic trioxideproduction unnecessary as long as all equipment techniques. Both PSAPCA and NRDC The Washington State DOE and areas are inspected. The inspection recommended that EPA consider recommended that requirements for and documentation of equipment status alternative arsenic trioxide production good operation and maintenance for will ensure that malfunctioning processes in the evaluation of best process controls be included in the final equipment is quickly detected and will available controls for the ASARCO- regulation. The EPA agrees with DOE create a record that can be used to Tacoma facility. These commenters and, as described in the Summary of evaluate possible causes of higher than recommended replacing the existing hot Promulgated Standard section of this normal ambient arsenic concentrations. roasting process with a preamble, the regulation includes 28012 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations provisions that require good operation commenters argued that EPA should not presently and will continue to be and maintenance of process, conveying, establish an ambient standard for monitored; (2) ambient concentrations and emission control equipment inorganic arsenic. The Washington DOE around a source vary, depending on associated with the arsenic plant. said that while it intends to establish 24- factors other them emissions, including Reportingand Recordkeeping hour and annual average community meterological conditions and local exposure standard to limit inorganic terrain; (3) fugitive emissions are The Washington State DOE. arsenic emissions, it did not recommend already will-controlled; and (4) there are recommended thatfthe standard include that EPA adopt an ambient, or no medical criteria that can- be used to recordkeeping and reporting community exposure, standard. The establish the level and averaging period requirements for malfunctions, upsets, DOE believes there is a need for of a standard. A further argument and spills, and operation and flexibility in implementing such a againstan ambient standard. presented maintenance provisions for control standard applied to the ASARCO- byASARCO was that an ambient equipment The Administrator Tacoma facility. Hence, in April 1984 the standard would not be an effective considered this comment (and DOE adopted an interim ambient means of reducing arsenic emissions. comments made at the public hearing standard and plan to adopt permanent ASARCO commented that an ambient that additional controls were, needed) standards after evaluation and study of standard would have to be.achieved and concluded that additional the causes of high ambient arsenic either by emission controls or by inspection, maintenance, and concentrations in the Tacoma area. The production: curtailments, and that EPA recordkeeping requirements would be interim standard limits maximum 24- helpful in achieving better control of would have ta identify sources of hour ambient concentrations of arsenic emissions causing high ambient arsenic arsenic emissions. Consequently, the 3 to 2.0 ig/m and maximum final standard requires regular annual levels and determine the controls average ambient inspection and maintenance of process, concentrations of required to attain the standard arsenic to 0.3 jtg/m. The USWA and conveying, and emission control ASARCO pointed out that, in the case of NRDC equipment as well as reporting of all commented that an ambient a 24-hour standard, it would be difficult malfunctions and process upsets that standard for carcinogens is to determine what controls should be inappropriate and is not authorized result in increased arsenic emissions. required because it is not possible to ASARCO commented that it considers under the Act. These commenters determine retroactively the causes of the monitoring, recordkeeping, and argued that an ambient standard is high ambient arsenic values. It was also reporting requirements to be extremely inappropriate because no safe level can argued that maintaining an ambient burdensome and far beyond what is be established for zero-threshold arsenic standard by intermittent necessary, considering that emissions pollutants. These commenters did, production curtailment was not feasible. are negligible. The EPA believes that however, believe that an ambient Curtailment is not a feasible approach recordkeeping and reporting monitoring requirement and an "action to arsenic control because: (1) There is requirements are necessary to assist the level" used as an adjunct' to currently no real~time monitoring system Agency in identifying emission sources enforcement would be useful and is for arsenic; (2) it is not practicable and to assist in enforcing the standard authorized under the Act. The USWA because of lack of knowledge about after the initial compliance specifically recommended: (1) That the which sources should be curtailed; and demonstration. The final recordkeeping action level should be achievable when (3) arsenic emission sources require and reporting requirements will require all controls are working properly and lengthy shutdown periods before they on the average about 800 labor-hours should be revised periodically and (2] cease.emitting arsenic. per year over the first 3 years after the that exceedances of the action level Since an enforceable ambient effective date of the standard. These should trigger an investigation by the standard is not being established in the requirements have been imposed company and a report to EPA. The standard being promulgated today, because ambient arsenic concentrations USWA also recommended that the ASARCO's comment (that section 112 of around the facility are high, and fugitive ambient monitoring requirement include the Clean Air Act does not give EPA the emissions from the various operations in, provisions which require ASARCO to authority to set enforceable ambient the facility, and in particular the arsenic study and estimate regularly fugitive standards) is not pertinent to this plant, contribute significantly to ambient emissions from all sources in the plant, rulemaking. The EPA agrees that an arsenic concentrations. and to prepare and implement a ambient standard cannot be established management plan for control of fugitive Ambient Limits for inorganic arsenic based solely on emissions. health effects or risk estimates. The EPA A number of commenters, local ASARCO commented on the legal does believe, however, that an governmental agencies (PSAPCA and authority and recommendations for an enforceable ambient limit, which is an Washington, State Department of Social ambient arsenic standard or community indicator of proper operation and. and Health Services (DSHS)), and exposure level. ASARCO commented maintenance of emission control environmental groups,, recommended that the language and legislative history systems and is developed considering that EPA.establish an ambient arsenic of the Clean Air Act shows that section all relevant factors, is consistent with standard which the ASARCO-Tacoma 112 does not empower EPA to set an the goals of Section 112 and may facility must achieve. It was also enforceable ambient standard. consider establishing a limit.at a later suggested that the standard should ASARCO maintained that the clear date. This limit would serve as a direct specify the monitoring and analytical thrust of section 112 is that EPA is measure of the degree to which fugitive techniques to be used. The PSAPCA responsible for adopting standards that arsenic emission sources at the arsenic specifically recommended that EPA limit continuously the amount of production facilities are being establish 24-hour and annual average emissions of hazardous air pollutants controlled. The EPA intends to review arsenic "action levels" to enforce from individual sources. ASARCO ambient arsenic monitoring data in the implementation of a fugitive emission argued that an ambient standard would future to determine if additional control control program at theASARCO- not be useful or appropriate because: (1) measures are needed, and the standard Tacoma facility. Conversely, other Ambient arsenic concentrations are requires quarterly reporting of ambient Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 28013

arsenic concentration monitoring data to standard over the first 3 years after the Additional Analyses facilitate this review. Among the effective date is estimated to be about measures that would be considered 800 labor-hours. As a result of public comments. EPA would be an enforceable boundary limit conducted additional analyses to ensure providing sufficient information and VI. Negative Determinations that the decision whether to regulate data are available to establish a limit. On July 20, 1983, EPA proposed not to primary lead smelters, primary zinc The enforceable boundary limit would establish standards limiting emissions of smelters, zinc oxide plants, arsenic be used to evaluate the effectiveness of inorganic arsenic for six categories of chemical manufacturing plants, required control measures and would sources. These sources were primary secondary lead smelters, and cotton gins not impose any additional emission lead smelters, secondary lead smelters, is based on the most complete and control requirements. Thus, the primary zinc smelters, zinc oxide plants, accurate information available. enforceable boundary limit would not cotton gins, and arsenic chemical Additional information on arsenic require production curtailments to manufacturing plants. The public emissions and control technology was achieve compliance with the limit. comment period on these negative collected and analyzed for primary zinc Hence, ASARCO's comments regarding determinations ended on January 31, smelters and secondary lead smelters. the utility of an ambient standard are 1984. This part of the preamble presents For primary zinc smelters, plant visits not applicable to the concept of the the basis of the Administrator's decision were conducted to verify the emission enforceable boundary limit. to reaffirm the decision not to establish estimates and use of emission control Depending on the steps which emission limits for these sources and equipment. During the plant visits, ASARCO takes to reduce emissions in responds to comments on the preposed feedstock samples and process future operations of the arsenic plant, action. information were obtained to develop a EPA plans to determine the need for material balance for estimating additional control measures and the Summary of Decisions emissions. For secondary lead smelters, need for an enforceable boundary limit The EPA identified the following six additional information was collected after the effects of the required control inorganic arsenic source categories, but concerning the secondary lead industry. actions are assessed. This assessment concluded that standards were not The current level of control practiced will involve comparison of ambient warranted at this time: Primary lead throughout the secondary lead industry levels of arsenic measured near the smelters, primary zinc smelters, zinc was assessed in-depth. New nationwide plant with ASARCO's records of oxide plants, arsenic chemical plants, arsenic emission estimates were made operation at the arsenic plant. The EPA secondary lead smelters, and cotton for secondary lead process sources and believes that this information will help gins. The EPA has not developed process and area fugitive sources based to identify operating practices that standards for these source categories for on EPA source testing. Risk analyses cause high ambient concentrations, and the following reasons: were performed based on these revised the agree to which additional controls 1. As a result of the existing level of secondary lead emission estimates. might reduce ambient arsenic control for these six source categories, These additional analyses undertaken concentration levels. In particular, maximum lifetime risk and annual for primary zinc smelters and secondary exceedances of the DOE standard would incidence for each source category are lead smelters are described in the be investigated to determine the cause generally small. responses to public comments. and to determine possible control 2. Requiring further controls under Risk estimates, both maximum measures. The review may also consider lifetime risk and annual incidence, for the need for requiring periodic review of section 112 beyond OSHA and SIP requirements for either individual all six categories were revised by emissions and control measures to sources or for the six categories would increasing the distance modeled from 20 ensure the continued effectiveness of km to 50 km (12 to 31 miles) from the the housekeeping plan. not result in a significant reduction in maximum lifetime risk or annual source, by incorporating 1980 population Impacts of Reporting and incidence. data, and by more exactly locating the Recordkeeping Requirements 3. The EPA analyses indicate that coordinates of some plant sites. The EPA believes that the required severe economic impacts, including Basis for Decisions reporting and recordkeeping plant closure, could result if further requirements are necessary to assist the control were required. The Agency does This section presents the application Agency in: (1) Identifying sources: (2) not believe that plant closure is a of EPA's risk management approach in determining initial compliance; and (3) reasonable alternative. the review of the decision not to develop enforcing the standards. The EPA believes that the cost of any standards for the six source categories. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) additional controls that may be possible The factors considered in the review of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-511) requires that the appear to far exceed any small were the risks posed by the sources, Office of Management and Budget incremental health benefit which might both maximum lifetime risk and annual (OMB) approve reporting and result. For the above reasons, the incidence; the emission and risk recordkeeping requirements that qualify Agency believes that Federal regulation reductions achievable through as an "information collection request" under section 112 of these six categories application of additional emission (ICR). To accommodate OMB review, of sources of arsenic emissions is not controls; and the costs and economic EPA uses 3-year periods in its impact currently warranted. impacts of these control measures. The assessment of the risks and control analysis procedures for estimating the Significant Changes Since Proposal labor-hour burden of reporting and options is summarized below. recordkeeping requirements. No changes have-been made in the Although the Agency did not perform The average annual burden on owners Agency's decision not to regulate site-specific air dispersion analysis for and operators of arsenic trioxide and primary lead smelters, secondary lead any of the six source categories which metallic arsenic production facilities to smelters, primary zinc smelters, zinc the Administrator has decided not to comply with the reporting and oxide plants, cotton gins, and arsenic regulate under section 112, EPA has, recordkeeping requirements of the final chemical manufacturing plants. where possible, made comparisons 28014 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations between the predicted and measured appropriate model gin exposure 4. Primary lead smelters. The annual values. Generally, ambient data were analysis, EPA found that the predicted incidence is small for all of the existing not available in sufficient quantity to values were reasonably close to smelters under current levels of control. allow meaningful comparisons, but concentrations measured very near the The highest predicted maximum lifetime when obtained, the measured ambient gins. The monitoring study data also risk which occurs at one smelter is values tended to be slightly higher than showed that the arsenic concentrations 2X10 .3. Controls implemented at this predicted by HEM for these source fell off very rapidly with distance from plant as a result of recent tripartite categories. This result is expected and the gins. This result suggests that people agreements among OSHA, smelter reasonable since the ambient monitors living at some distance from the gins are management, and labor have already would be affected by naturally- not being significantly exposed to the resulted in reduced ambient arsenic occurring arsenic in the soil and by gins' emissions. Such a result, coupled levels at this plant. Moreover, EPA has other local arsenic sources that were not with the observation that many gins are not identified any controls beyond those considered in EPA air dispersion in rural areas, supports the Agency's necessary to comply with OSHA and analysis. The risk estimates ae given in conclusion that the aggregate risks for lead SIP requirements that could further Table VI-1. this source category are small. reduce arsenic emissions to a significant More detailed information regarding The estimated maximum lifetime risks degree. Thus, the Agency has concluded the risk assessments for the source associated with the current level of that section 112 regulation is not categories that remain unregulated process emission control from cotton warranted at this time. under Section 112 may be found in the gins is also small. There is not sufficient 5. Primary zinc smelters. Annual background information document information available on the incidence and maximum lifetime risk (EPA-450/5-85-002). An explanation of effectiveness of fugitive emission control estimates are small for this source EPA's risk management approach is techniques and such techniques have category under existing levels of control. found in the Overview-Basis for not been demonstrated to be applicable No technology has been demonstrated Promulgated Standards section of this to all operational variabilities of cotton that can reduce emissions further. Thus, preamble. gins, leading the Agency to conclude the Agency has concluded that 1. Secondary lead smelters. Maximum that additional fugitive emission control regulation under section 112 is not lifetime risk and annual incidence are is not reasonable. Taking these factors currently warranted. small for most plants in this source into consideration, the Agency has 6. Arsenic chemical manufacturing category under the existing level of concluded: (1) That the existing level of plants. Annual incidence and maximum control. The highest annual incidence' control is acceptable because of the lifetime risk estimates are small for this which occurs at one secondary lead potential economic and societal source category under existing levels of smelter is 0.14, associated with a large consequences of gin closure and (2) that control. There are no demonstrated exposed population (8.86 million within regulation of cotton gins under section control techniques that would result in a 50 km radius). The EPA expects that 112 is not currently warranted. further emission reductions. Thus, the OSHA and SIP requirements will lead to 3. Zinc oxide plants. Annual incidence Agency has concluded that regulation of additional control to be implemented at estimates are small for both existing this soruce category under section 112 is this smelter as well as at many others. zinc oxide plants under current levels of not currently warranted. Fugutive sources are now largely control. controlled so that improvement, if Discussion of Comments possible, would be iecessarily site- TABLE VI-1.-RISK ESTIMATES FOR SOURCE Comments on the decision not to specific, and not practical or reasonable CATEGORIES FOR WHICH THE AGENCY IS propose standards for these source in a national standard. Due to the small NOT PROPOSING STANDARDS categories were solicited in the July 20, maximum lifetime risk the probable 1983, Federal Register (48 FR 33112). inability to achieve further significant Num- Maximum Aggregate Source category ber of individual risks Eleven letters were received pertaining reductions in emissions and incidence, plants risks (cases/yr) to these source categories. One of the the potential negative societal and parties who testified at the public Secondary lead economic impacts that would result smelters ...... 35 4x10-4 0.39 hearing alluded to these source from additional control, and the Cotton gins ...... -...... 300 5X10-1 ...... categories, and later submitted more difficulty in developing a uniform Primary lead smelters 5 20x 10-1 0.07 Primary zinc smelters 5 0.07x 10-' 0.004 detailed written comments. Comments national standard, EPA has decided that Zinc oxide plants ...... 2 IOX10×1 0.08 concerned general topics that pertained regulation of secondary lead smelters Arsenic chemical to all six source categories as well as to under Section 112 is not currently plants ...... 8 2x10-4 0.004 particular source categories. Comments warranted. and Agency responses are presented 2. Cotton gins. For cotton gins, EPA The one plant where maximum here in the following order: General developed "model" plants located in lifetime risk is highest has process and comments, secondary lead smelters, "model" locations for use in estimating fugitive controls in place. Existing cotton gins, zinc oxide plants, primary maximum lifetime risks. However, with controls and those planned for the near lead smelters, primary zinc smelters, this approach, which was used since future to comply with OSHA and SIP and arsenic chemical manufacturing detailed location data were not regulations will reduce emissions and plants. The docket reference is indicated available for all plants, the Agency associated maximum lifetime risk from in parentheses in each comment. cannot reasonably calculate aggregate both plants. The EPA cannot identify General Comments or total risks to those living within 50 km any control requirements beyond those (31 miles) of the gins. To look more established by OSHA that would not The Attorney General's Office of the closely at this category, EPA conducted result in closure of the plant associated State of New York (A-83-09/IV-D-9, A- an ambient monitoring study around with the highest maximum lifetime risk. 83-10/IV-D-12, A-83-11/IV-D-9, A-83- two gins in the Texas area. When Thus, EPA has decided that regulation 23/IV-D-9) submitted a list of comparing the measured arsenic values of zinc oxide plants under section 112 is companies located in New York and to the predicted concentrations from the not warranted at this time. New Jersey, some of which are in the Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 28015 source categories EPA has identified as The State of New York Attorney are currently in operation at all plants. potential sources of inorganic arsenic General's Office (A-83-09/IV-D-9, A- The types of existing fugitive control emissions. The commenter claimed that 83-10/IV-D-12, A-83-10/IV-D-9, A-83- systems vary from plant to plant EPA has neither identified these 23/IV-D-9) also commented that because of differences in the physical companies as inorganic arsenic sources, fugitive emission sources and the status configurations of plant equipment and nor demonstrated that they. do not emit of their..control.had not been because of variations in production inorganic arsenic. statisfactorily characterized and that processes and emission points among The list of companies, provided was this information.is needed to support plants in the. various source categories. reviewed by EPA. The list apparently EPA's claim that fugitive sources are The EPA investigated the effect of involves firms which fall under the same well controlled. The commenter stated existing regulations on reducing fugitive industrial source classification as the that control techiques such as secondary arsenic emissions from all source sources which emit arsenic. However, in hood systems, dust control, building categories (A-83-08/II-A-5). Applicable general, the list contained companies enclosures, and fines agglomeration may regulations include OSHA lead and that did not fall into the source be applicable to many types of sources inorganic arsenic standards; lead, SO 2. categories identified as potential arsenic of fugitive arsenic emissions and should and particulate National Ambient Air emission sources. A good example of be applied wherever those controls Quality Standards (NAAQS); and New this misclassification was observed would reduce fugitive arsenic emissions. Source Performance Standards (NSPS) when reviewing the secondary lead The EPA attempted to characterize for some source categories. The smelter category. Of the 27 companies controls used on the major fugitive conclusion of this investigation was that included on the secondary lead -smelter sources from all source categories many sources of fugitive emissions list submitted by the State of New York, (Preliminary Study of Sources of within all source categories are only two were included on EPA's list of Inorganic Arsenic [EPA-450/5-82-005]). currently well controlled, and industry secondary lead smelters. These Plants were contacted for information compliance with existing regulations companies (Federated Metals, Newark, on fugitive emissions and controls. As will result in the application of effective NJ, and Roth Brothers Smelting, E. described in the preliminary study, the control to all remaining fugitive Syracuse, NY) are also the only two magnitude of fugitive arsenic emissions emission sources. After this companies recognized as secondary was estimated quantitatively or characterization of fugitive emissions lead smelters by the Secondary Lead qualitatively for all source categories. and controls, EPA concluded that the Smelting Association. Upon receipt of The quantity of fugitive emissions from risks associated with fugitive arsenic the listing, EPA- initiated an additional primary lead smelter was based on emissions from primary and secondary data gathering effort to obtain previously conducted fugitive arsenic lead smelters, primary zinc smelters, information pertaining to the nature of and lead emission tests at two primary zinc oxide plants, cotton gins, and business conducted by the remaining 25 lead smelter. Fugitive arsenic emissions arsenic chemical plants are generally companies. After the investigation, EPA from secondary lead smelter were small; and additional control at the identified the majority of these estimated based on measured lead Federal level through a Section 112 companies as remelters (plants that emissions and estimated lead to arsenic standard would not result in significant operate a melting pot) and/or companies ratios. The OSHA arsenic measurements reduction of inorganic arsenic emissions that produce special allos. The provide an indication of the quantity of and associated risks. majority of these companies produced fugitive arsenic emitted from arsenic The Attorney General's Office of the zinc, aluminum, copper, or other nonlead chemical manufacturing, primary zinc, State of New York (A-83.-09/IV-D-9, A- alloys. Also included on the list of and zinc oxide plants. Based on 83-10/IV-D-12, A-83-11/IV-D-9, A-83- potential secondary lead smelters was: workplace arsenic levels reported, EPA 23/IV-D-9) thought that EPA has not (1) A company that recovers precious concluded' that fugitive emissions from adequately taken into.consideration the metals (gold, silver, and platinum) from these sources were well controlled. physical properties of the arsenic scrap jewelry, (2) a fabrication and Fugitive emissions are difficult to trioxide that affect efficiency achieved construction company that uses lead measure and limited data are available, by control devices. This commenter felt fabricated products in various so there is uncertainty in EPA's that EPA did not adequately consider construction applications, (3) a company characterization of both area and emission controls for vapor phase that produces metal decoration for process fugitive emissions. Where arsenic. The commenter noted that churches, (4) a company that weaves quantitative control efficiency data were arsenic trioxide is appreciably volatile industrial wire cloth for reinforcing not available, EPA qualitatively at 100 'C (212 'F). Since most industrial washing machine hoses, and (5) a paper analyzed fugitive capture and control processes involve temperatures well in company. Six of the companies listed by efficiency based on engineering design. excess of 100 'C (212 °F, they concluded the commenter were either permanently The preliminary source study did that any arsenic in a feed material will closed or had no current telephone identify secondary lead smelters as a be found in the vapor phase. listing. category warranting further study. The State of New York also said that The EPA finds no reason to believe Fugitive emissions from secondary lead when gas streams saturated with that any of these companies use smelters were investigated further after arsenic trioxide vapor are cooled, significant quantities of arsenic or the July 20, 1983, proposal, and the condensation does not occur as arsenic bearing materials in processes results are summarized in Docket A-83- expected. Depending on the quantity of that would release arsenic to the 09, item IV-A-4. arsenic present in the feed material, atmosphere. The EPA, therefore, The EPA agrees that the control they felt that process vapors may not be concludes that all significant sources of -technologies mentioned by the - . saturated with arsenic trioxide. The inorganic arsenic emissions have commenter have been effective. in. commenter stated that when the vapor previously been identified, and the list achieving reductions in fugitive is not saturated with arsenic trioxide, provided by the State of New York does emissions. in various applications. substantially lowering the temperature not identify any additional companies in However,, fugitive arsenic emission will not force arsenic trioxide to any of the subject source categories. controls to meet OSHA requirements condense. Therefore, since arsenic 28015 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 /'Rules and Regulations trioxide remains in the gaseous phase, 390 'F) (A-83-09/IV-A-2). Simultaneous controls must be efficient at collection of they concluded that particulate control inlet-outlet measurements conducted on the fine particulate fraction. methods dependent on arsenic trioxide the process baghouse indicated an The State of New York said that even condensation will be ineffective. average total arsenic removal efficiency though fabric filters can achieve The commenter presents two of 98.86 percent. Based on arsenic removal efficiencies of 90 to 99 percent conflicting ideas. The first is that EPA trioxide saturation theory, the measured for particulate matter, EPA cannot has not proposed controls that remove arsenic concentrations entering the assume that this represents 99 percent vapor phase arsenic in hot (>100 °C) baghouse correspond to less than one removal of arsenic. They noted that: (1) offgas streams (removal by percent of the concentration required for Arsenic occurs preferentially in the fine condensation). The second idea vapor saturation. Arsenic emissions particulate fraction that escapes presented and conclusion drawn by the from glass manufacturing have also collection, and (2) fabric filters will not commenter is that control of gaseous been shown to be predominantly in the remove arsenic in the vapor phase. New phase arsenic trioxide by condensation solid phase. A series of tests on glass York State contended that if fabric is ineffective unless the vapor is furnace offgas demonstrate that for most fileters are operated properly, saturated. types of arsenic containing glasses, particulate emissions can be reduced to The commenter also stated that more than 90 percent of the arsenic 23 mg/dscm (0.01 gr/dsc and a because of the high temperature exists in the particulate phase at typical concurrent fine particulate (less than 2 required for industrial processes (100 stack gas temperatures of 288 °C (550 °F) micrometers) reduction to 18 mg/dscm *C), any arsenic in the feed material will (A-83-08/II-A-5). (0.008 gr/dscfo. They note that if the be found in the vapor phase. In contrast, These data apparently contradict equipment is well maintained, one can EPA found, based on samples collected theoretical considerations (based upon expect arsenic control of approximately by the Agency and information provided arsenic being present as arsenic 90 percent with the use of state-of-the- by plants in each of the subject source trioxide), which predict all of the arsenic art fabric filters. The commenter felt categories, some arsenic is typically to exist in the vapor phase at the that such filters must be required as a found in the product metal, slag, matte, measured temperatures. However, minimum control device, and that design and flue dust. theoretical considerations are based and maintenance standards should also Process arsenic emissions from zinc only on arsenic in the form of arsenic oxide plants, arsenic chemical be specified. trioxide and do not consider the Thus, the State of New York manufacturing, primary lead and zinc presence of other chemical species smelters, and secondary lead smelters concluded that among technologies for (chlorides, etc.) in the stack gas or particulate control, fabric filters are the are controlled by either wet scrubbers, adsorptive interactions with particulate most effective. They also concluded that contact acid plants, or fabric filters. matter. The presence of other Because of the presence of vapor phase fabric filters are the only acceptable components changes the way arsenic method of arsenic control and that arsenic in these offgas streams, EPA would react alone in the furnace offgas arsenic control with wet scrubbing investigated the feasibility and streams. systems is ineffective and expensive. effectiveness of low temperature Therefore, EPA concludes that arsenic this commenter noted that controls for all "hot" process sources. emissions from some processes are However, Preliminary calculations based upon the effectively controlled by particulate EPA has not specified fabric filters as BAT for all arsenic sources. limited data available at the time of the control devices even at elevated initial survey showed that additional temperatures. Despite theoretical Two conflicting viewpoints are cooling of the offgas streams from zinc predictions, exhaust stream presented by the commenter. The logic oxide plants, secondary lead smelters, measurements demonstrate that arsenic behind recommending fabric filters as and glass manufacturing plants could can be controlled from some processes BAT for all arsenic sources is potentially result in additional arsenic by particulate capture and that high inconsistent with the commenter's trioxide condensation. These removal efficiencies can be achieved earlier statements concerning the preliminary calculations demonstrated even at temperatures exceeding 260 °C physical properties of arsenic emissions that offgas cooling could potentially (500 °F). In addition, the data available (i.e., vapor phase arsenic and size reduce arsenic emissions by condensing to EPA do not conclusively demonstrate fraction of the arsenic-bound the vapor phase arsenic and capturing it a correlation between temperature and particulate). However, previous as particulate arsenic. arsenic in vapor or solid phase and, statements by the same commenter Following the preliminary thus, cannot serve as the basis for any indicated that arsenic control based on calculations, emission tests were requirement to cool gas streams. condensation "is ineffective," and performed at glass manufacturing plants The Attorney General's Office of the arsenic bound particulate occurs in the and secondary lead smelters (see State of New York (A--83-09/IV-D-9, A- fine particulate fraction "which escape "Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from 83-10/IV-D-12, A-83-11/IV-D-9, A-83- collection." Glass Manufacturing Plants- 23/IV-D-9) commented that EPA has The EPA agrees that for a control Backgound Information for Promulgated not adequately dealt with the special device to be effective in reducing Standards," EPA 450/3-83--011b, and control problems associated with arsenic emissions it must be effective in "Secondary Lead Smelter Tests of Area arsenic particulate matter. They stated collecting fine particulate matter. Source Fugitive Emissions for Arsenic, that there are much higher Control devices currently used in these Cadmium, and Lead; Chloride Metals, concentrations of arsenic in small source categories are effective in Tampa, Florida," EMB 84-SLD-3, A-83- particle size fractions (1-2 micrometers) collecting fine particulate matter. 09/IV-A-4) than in larger size fractions. They noted The EPA has not assumed that since Results from the process emission that the concentration of arsenic in fabric filters are capable of achieving 99 tests at a secondary lead smelter particulate matter with a diameter percent collection of particulates, they demonstrated that arsenic entering the greater than 11.3 micrometers is 680 ppm are also capable of achieving 99 percent process baghouse was primarily and the concentration in the 1-2 collection of arsenic. Therefore, EPA associated with particulate matter at micrometers range is 1,700 ppm. The agrees with the commenter that such an temperatures of 175 * to 200 °C (350 to commenter concluded that arsenic assumption cannot be made. However, Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 28017

EPA believes fabric filters to be an concentrations. For oil combustion, sources within the categories. For effective fine particulate control EPA's review of the literature indicated example, the State of New York technique with efficiencies in the 90 that arsenic concentrations in oil were mentioned that the municipal percent range for arsenic bound substantially lower than those measured incinerator and rockwool manufacturing particulate less than 10 micrometers. in coal, and estimated that the exposure emissions were estimated by assuming The EPA disagrees with the commenter associated with oil combustion would that the arsenic concentrations in the regarding the effectiveness of wet be even lower than those concentrations collected particulate matter were scrubbing systems. Wet scrubbing given above for coal combustion. Based equivalent to the arsenic concentrations systems use a liquid stream to recover on further analysis of available data, the in the emitted particulate matter. The small particles from a gas stream. Wet Agency continues to believe that the commenter suggested that this scrubbing systems also serve to cool the ambient concentrations of inorganic assumption leads to emission rate offgases and promote some degree of arsenic associated with emissions from estimates that are lower than actual condensation. In one test conducted on coal and oil combustion are low. emissions because, based on a wet scrubber which followed a fabric Inorganic arsenic, however, is only one measurements made at other source filter that achieved about 99 percent of several trace elements of potential category facilities, arsenic control, approximately a 60 percent concern that are present in combustion concentrations in the emitted particulate reduction in remaining arsenic was emissions. Taken together, the Agency matter are generally higher than those in noted. The commenters did not provide has concluded that such emissions the collected particulate matter. Also, any information to support the claim warrant further study. The Agency is the commenter pointed out that the that wet scrubbers are ineffective. conducting exposure analyses for number of incinerators will potentially It is unclear what the commenter inorganic arsenic and a number of other increase in the future. means by the statement that EPA has pollutant emissions from this source For these source categories, EPA had not "specified" fabric filters as BAT for category. performed a preliminary study ("Study all inorganic arsenic sources. The EPA The NRDC stated that EPA has the of Inorganic Arsenic Sources," OAQPS- has, however, concluded that effective obligation to regulate under section 112 79-8/IV-A-2) and had concluded that control is in place or will be in place in all source categories of inorganic these source categories emit very small the near future for the subject source arsenic (A-83-08/IV-D-18a, A-83-08/ quantities of inorganic arsenic and pose categories due to lead SIP's and OSHA IV-D-18b). The commenter's concerns small risks. For example, 102 municipal requirements; and the level of control would apply to two classifications of incinerators emitted about 5 Mg of that would have been required by a source categories that the Agency had inorganic arsenic per year and 43 NESHAP is no more stringent than decided not to regulate. The first rockwool production plants emitted 0.5 currently exists and thus would not classification of source categories Mg of inorganic arsenic per year. The have resulted in any additional includes those source categories with Agency reviewed the commenters' inorganic arsenic emission reduction. risks that, in the Administrator's information and, although several of the Three commenters mentioned that judgment, are small or not significant. suggestions were potentially valid, the EPA had omitted any discussion at Regulating these source categories Agency's emission estimates would not proposal of the need to regulate coal would provide only a small measure of be significantly increased. Based on the and oil combustion sources (A-83--08/ risk reduction and as previously Agency's understanding of the nature of IV-D-17, A-83-08/IV-D-18a, A.-83-081 discussed, the impacts of control the emissions, the low emission rates, IV-D-18b). Two of these commenters outweigh the benefits. The NRDC agreed and the number of plants, the felt that EPA has unjustifiably ignored to this approach in one of their Administrator has concluded that this potentially significant category and comments (A-83-08/IV-D-18a), but standards are not warranted for these wanted the Agency to carefully study or there is a disagreement over when the categories. regulate it. In the case of coal Agency should stop consideration of a Secondary Lead Smelters combustion, EPA had reviewed the source category and move on to another. literature in 1979-80 and made a simple The second classification includes One commenter (A-83-09/IV-D-8) but conservative risk analysis with a source categories that pose somewhat stated that EPA does not know how series of model plants. Because of the greater risks but, in light of the small many secondary lead smelters there are, large number of utility and industrial benefits and large impacts of requiring and, as a result, EPA has no basis for boilers that burn coal or oil and the lack further emission reduction, the risk statements referring to the level of of specific location data, EPA could not levels are thought to be not control exhibited throughout the perform its normal nationwide exposure unreasonable. industry. analysis; however, EPA was able to Two commenters listed a number of Following the publication of the estimate the maximum concentrations potential inorganic arsenic sources that negative determination proposal, an in- and concluded that risks associated were not mentioned in the July 20, 1983, depth study was initiated by EPA to with those ambient concentrations were notice of proposal (A-83-08/IV-D-17, obtain additional information about the small. The report, entitled "Human A-83-08/IV-D-18a, A-83-08/IV-D-18b). secondary lead industry and to assess Exposure to Atmospheric Arsenic" For instance, municipal incinerators, the current level of control practiced (OAQPS-19-8/II-A-9) concluded that rock wool manufacturing, and oil shale throughout the industry. The information because the realistic worst-case annual reporting were identified as inorganic gathered in this study is contained in A- average environmental arsenic arsenic source categories for regulation. 83-09/IV-A-5, "Control of Arsenic exposures for coal-fired power plants One commenter (A-83-08/IV-D-17) felt Emissions from Secondary Lead (and industrial boilers) are less than that the Agency may have Smelting Industry-Technical 0.003 pg/m 3 for all power plants and underestimated the emissions from Document." less than 0.001 /g/m 3 for most power these source categories. This commenter The EPA defines a secondary lead plants, power plant (and industrial contended that the Agency failed to smelter as any facility operating a blast, boiler) emissions do not add appreciably adequately address fugitive emissions rotary, or reverberatory furnace for the to nominal urban background and did not identify many individual purpose of reclaiming lead from lead 28018 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations bearing scrap. Facilities that simply with the lead NAAQS (1.5 /g/m 3 ] potential fugitive area sources identified remelt lead in a melting pot for refining demonstrated ambient arsenic levels of at secondary lead smelters, the only or recasting were not included in this less than 0.03 jig/m 3 . significant source of arsenic emissions category since these plants do not The Administrator believes that was flue dust handling. Data on flue engage in smelting operations. where standards established under dust arsenic content from different A preliminary list of secondary lead separate authorities (e.g., the OSHA smelters range from 0.001 to 5.0 percent smelters was developed based on inorganic arsenic standards) are by weight arsenic. The arsenic content information obtained from previous EPA effective in reducing emissions, of material from other potential fugitive studies. It was soon learned that several redundant standards need not be sources.were all approximately one secondary lead smelters had recently established by EPA. The EPA order of magnitude lower. closed. The remaining facilities were establishes separate standards when Additional data were gathered on flue contacted by EPA and subsequently there is evidence that either the control dust handling and storage practices (A- requested to respond ta a questionnaire measures are not likely to remain in 83-09/Il-A-1). It was determined that, at regarding process and fugitive emission place or are unlikely to be properly the majority of plants, flue dust is controls, arsenic usage, and.emissions. operated and maintained. The Agency controlled by enclosed and ventilated Additional closures were identified has concluded that adoption of screw conveyors, and flue dust storage during this survey. At the conclusion of redundant EPA standards would result is either controlled by enclosure, or flue this information gathering tDecember in no emission reduction or other public dust is recycled directly to the furnace. 1983), it had been determined that there health benefit beyond that achievable Only three of the plants (less than 5 were 43 secondary lead smelting plants under OSHA standards. percent) have open flue dust storage, in the United States (either open or One commenter (A-83-09/IV-D-20) and these facilities are in the process of temporarily closed). Confirmation of the stated that the process fugitive capture eliminating this process. Thus, the accuracy and completeness of this and control equipment used in the Agency has concluded that additional listing was provided by both industry has not been characterized control of area fugitive sources is not representatives of the Secondary Lead adequately (e.g. hood design, capture warranted. Industry Association and of several of efficiency, etc.), and, consequently, EPA the secondary smelters (A-83-09/lI-B- Two commenters (A-83-09/IV-D-8, cannot validly conclude that process A-83-09/IV-D-10) said that EPA should 25, A-83-09/11-1-6, A-83-09-11--7). fugitive emissions are well controlled. The level of emission control at each consider requiring that secondary lead During plant visits to 14 of the.43 smelters be controlled with fabric filters of the 43,plants was characterized using. secondary lead smelters, EPA information obtained from responses to qualitatively followed by wet scrubbers. The assessed the effectiveness commenters pointed out that the July 20, the questionnaire, telephone contacts of the fugitive capture and control with plant officials, and previously 1983, Federal Register notice of proposal equipment for process fugitive (48 FR 33112) stated that "a fabric filter/ conducted trip reports or tests. In emissions. Based. on these visual addition, EPA conducted plant visits to inspections, the industry-wide survey, wet scrubber is a demonstrated 14 of the 43 smelters (A-83-09/II-B-18, and records demonstrating compliance technology in the industry." The A-83-09]I-B-17, A-83-09/II-B-19, A- with OSHA inorganic arsenic standards, commenters thought emissions might be 83-09/Ir-B-21, A-83--O9[II-B-28). As a EPA concluded that process fugitive significantly reduced by requiring this result of this study, EPA is confident emissions are well controlled. During a technology. that it has up-to-date information on fugitive arsenic emissions test at a Based on calculations in the emissions and controls for secondary lead smelter, samples were Preliminary Source Survey document, characterizing and basing decisions on collected inside the smelter building EPA estimated at proposal that arsenic the secondary lead smelting industry near process fugitive emission points. emissions from a fabric filterfscrubber (A-83-09/IV-A-5 and A-83-09/IV-B-1). The results from this study are combination could be approximately 60 One commenter (A-83--09/IV-D-9) summarized in "Control of Arsenic percent less than, arsenic emissions from expressed. strong objection to EPA's Emissions from Secondary Lead a fabric filter alone. reliance on OSHA workplace standards Smelting Industry-Technical Document Subsequent to the publication of the for inorganic arsenic, and the NAAQS (A-83-09/IV-A-5)." July 20, 1983, Federal Register notice, for lead to control inorganic arsenic- One commenter (A-83-09/IV-D-10) EPA conducted performance tests on a emissions from secondary lead smelters. pointed to apparent conflicts between control system in which furnace offgases In response, EPA notes that data statements in the Preliminary Source are controlled with a fabric filter and a derived from a long-term ambient Survey document and statements in the wet scrubber (A-83-09/IV-A-2). Total monitoring program near a large July 20, 1983, Federal Register notice (48 inorganic arsenic removal efficiency of secondary lead smelter demonstrate a, FR 33121) concerning the current degree 98.86 percent was achieved by the fabric correlation between ambient lead and of area fugitive control. The commenter filter, while the fabric filter/wet arsenic concentrations (A-83-09/II-A- noted that the Preliminary Source Study scrubber combination removed 99.61 2). The 758 measurements demonstrate a indicates that most of the area sources percent of the inorganic arsenic from the statistically significant relationship are currently uncontrolled, whereas the furnace offgases. These performance between the measured ambient arsenic conclusion drawn by the preamble is test results are in agreement with the and lead concentrations. (i.e., high that fugitive sources are already preliminary estimates of arsenic arsenic, corresponds to high lead). Based controlled at the BAT level. emission. reduction associated with the on this. correlation and. on.ambient Consequently, the commenter felt that use of a wet scrubber after the fabric arsenic levels measured near 19 fugitive emission sources and the status filter However, the test results showed secondary lead smelters (approximately of their control had not been that arsenic concentrations in the inlet 10 measurements for each plantl, it is satisfactorily characterized. to the scrubber are much lower than had estimated that arsenic levels would be After preparation of the Preliminary been estimated originally from lead to decreased by controls installed to Source Survey document, a more arsenic ratios. Therefore, arsenic achieve the lead NAAQS. Secondary detailed study of area fugitive sources emissions from fabric filter-controlled lead smelters which were in compliance and control was initiated. Of the process sources at secondary lead Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 28019 smelters are much lower than originally magnitude lower than the impacts techniques would cause many cotton gin estimated. presented in the July 20, 1983, Federal plants to close. Following the July 20, 1983, Federal Register notice. One commenter (A-83-10/IV-D-6) Register notice, new nationwide arsenic The Agency believes that the fugitive said that the State of California emission estimates were made for emission sources in this industry are produces one-third of the cotton grown process sources at secondary lead now largely controlled. Additional in the United States and does not permit smelters. Requiring fabric filters to be emission reduction, therefore, would be any chemicals which contain inorganic followed by wet scrubbers would result through increasing the efficiency of arsenic to be used on cotton. The in an estimated nationwide inorganic existing controls. A nationwide uniform commenter concludes that no inorganic arsenic emission reduction of about 1.6 standard to effect such controls would arsenic is emitted from cotton gins in Mg/yr (1.8 tons/yr). This level of control be difficult, if not impossible, to develop California, and that, therefore, cotton would reduce inorganic arsenic emission and improvements that can be made gins should not be regulated. estimates from about 7.2 to 5.6 Mg/yr would be necessarily site specific. The The Agency agrees that cotton gins (7.9 to 6.2 tons/yr). These estimates absence of site-specific engineering and should not be regulated. However, correspond to a 22 percent reduction in emission information, the small although arsenic acid may not be used inorganic arsenic emissions from maximum risk, the probable inability to as a desiccant on cotton in California, it secondary lead smelters resulting from achieve further significant reductions in is used in other cotton-producing states, the use of scrubbers. However, the risks emissions and incidence, and the such as Texas and Oklahoma. associated with all sources of inorganic difficulty in developing a uniform Therefore, cotton gins were identified as arsenic emissions at secondary lead nationwide standard, have led EPA to a potential source of inorganic arsenic smelters would be reduced by a conclude that Federal regulation of emissions. Farmers in Texas and considerably lower percentage because secondary lead smelters under section Oklahoma grow varieties of short the fugitive emissions which are 112 is not warranted. season cotton that have been released at or near ground level have specifically adapted for stripper Cotton Gins the greatest effect on maximum lifetime harvesting. A desiccant must be applied risk. One commenter claimed that there is to short season cotton prior to stripper As indicated in the Federal Register, no valid basis for listing cotton gins as a harvesting to dry out green plant leaves the cost effectiveness of the fabric filter/ point source for inorganic arsenic to prevent fiber staining and wet scrubber control would correspond emissions under section 112 of the Clean to approximately $600,000 to $12 million unacceptable levels of fiber moisture Air Act (A-83-10/IV-D-5). The per Mg of drsenic removed depending content. In California, on the other hand, commenter stated that the usage of different varieties of cotton suited to the upon total arsenic reduction achieved. arsenic acid as a desiccant was climate are grown and different According to a preliminary economic impact analysis, these control costs overstated in EPA's study and, harvesting techniques that do not therefore, the Agency overestimated require the use of arsenic are used. would have a severe effect on the arsenic emissions and exposure from secondary lead industry (A-83-09/IV- The NRDC (A-83-09/IV-D-10) cotton gins. Another commenter stated A-l). believes that the appropriate way to Based on the small reduction in that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, control cotton gin emissions is to maximum lifetime risk and annual and Rodenticide Act [FIFRA) restriction prohibit the use of arsenic acid as a of arsenic acid application to 0.35 liters desiccant. The commenter added that incidence associated with installing and 2 operating a fabric filter/wet scrubber (1) per 1,000 m (3 pints per acre) of the Preliminary Source Study only combination and the adverse economic cotton field was sufficient to protect the briefly mentions what seems to be a impact, EPA has concluded that a public (A-83-10/IV-D-4). perfectly adequate alternative (i.e., heat Federal standard requiring this system is The Agency, when developing treatment), while the preamble in the not warranted. Thus, the Agency is not emission estimates for the cotton gins, Federal Register does not mention this requiring additional process control at did not use the usage data to which the technique at all. The commenter said secondary lead smelters. commenter refers, but instead used the that according to the Preliminary Source Although maximum lifetime risk for available data on measured arsenic in Study, cotton can be desiccated by sedondary lead smelters is small the cotton gin trash. Gin trash application of a relatively intense heat (4X10- 4), the estimated annual concentration data are directly related for a short time, and that experiments to to gin emissions and provide a better incidence is higher (0.39 cases per year) date have required approximately 9.4 2 than the other five sources for which estimate than arsenic acid usage figures. liters of liquid propane gas per 1,000 m standards were not promulgated. This The Administrator agrees with the (10 gallons per acre). The commenter higher estimated annual incidence is second commenter and believes that, as believes that commercial scale units for largely comprised of the incidence of a result of the arsenic acid restriction, such desiccation would be more 0.14 associated with a particular the estimated arsenic emissions will not efficient, but gives no evidence to smelter. All other annual incidence increase over current levels. support this conclusion. estimates are below 0.01, with most Several commenters (A-83-10/IV-D- In response, EPA notes that the use of below 0.0047. One reason for the higher 3, A-83-10/IV-D-4, A-83--10/IV-D-5, A- heated air for cotton desiccation was incidence estimates at the one smelter is 83-10/IV-D-6) expressed support for considered in a recent study which that the population exposed to EPA's decision not to propose an evaluated the potential economic emissions from that smelter is quite inorganic arsenic emission standard for impacts of restricting inorganic large (8.86 million within 50 km) cotton gins. One commenter (A-83-10/ arsenicals (A-83-10/IV-A-1). The study compared to the entire category. The IV-D-5) agreed with EPA's reports a pilot test in which intense heat highest maximum estimated lifetime risk determination that the existing level of application was investigated as an associated with any single secondary control for process emissions from alternative to arsenic acid for cotton -4 lead smelter is estimated to be 4X10 . cotton gins is BAT. Another commenter. desiccation. Preliminary estimates of The current estimate of emissions and (A-83-10/IV-D-4) stated that the high heat desiccation provided by the 2 health impacts are almost an order of cost of requiring any further control commenter were $1.23 per 1,000 M 28020 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations mm

($4.98/acrel (arsenic acid is $0.62 per Zinc Oxide Plants filters. According to the Preliminary 1,000 m2 [$2.50/acrel]). Source Study as cited by the commenter, However, heat One commenter (A-83-11/IV-D-8) all streams except the Walez kiln offgas desiccation has not been commercially recommended that EPA again review demonstrated. Among the chemicals the control technologies on zinc oxide stream are controlled at EBC. This investigated, paraquat was identified as plants. The commenter thought that an stream is passed through a fabric filter the only acceptable alternative to inorganic arsenic emission standard operated at 140 °C (285 °F). The study arsenic acid for cotton desiccation. should be applied to zinc oxide plants. states that lowering the temperature point of the However, the economic impact study The commenter provided no specific closer to the acid dew 100 'C) would improve demonstrated that the paraquat cost of criticisms of EPA's review and analysis stream (below $1.24 to $2.47f1,000 m 3 ($5-10/acre) was of controls on zinc oxide plants or any arsenic collection and concludes: "economic feasibility does not appear to more than twice the cost of arsenic acid, reasons why EPA's analysis is which costs $M.62/1,00Oms ($2.50/acre]. inadequate. The EPA has reviewed the be an impediment to estimated best Among the other alternate technologies information contained in the public control use" at this plant. The identified for cotton desiccation, a docket (A-83-11) and summarized in the commenter said that the preamble states killing frost was the only acceptable July 20, 1983, Federal Register (48 FR the general conclusion, derived from alternative. The study concluded that 33117) and believes it adequately theoretical calculations, that further "at present, there is no replacement supports the decision not to propose a cooling of gas streams would not result However, the chemical or new technique which is standard for inorganic arsenic emissions in more arsenic collection. suited for preparation of cotton for from zinc oxide plants. commenter noted that the actual data One commenter (A-83-11/IV-D-10] consistently show more arsenic mechanical stripping." predicts, for - 4 said that the Preliminary Source Study collected than the theory The maximum lifetime risk (5X10 ) given combinations of concentration associated with the current level of (EPA-450/5-82-005) contains no specific information on the capture efficiency of and temperature, and therefore, EPA process emission control from cotton should not rely on the theory to excuse gins is small and further possible the hoods and other fugitive emission controls at ASARCO-Columbus and further controls. reductions in this risk would be small. After the Preliminary Source Study Furthermore, cotton gins are generally New Jersey Zinc-Palmerton zinc oxide plants. The commenter added that EPA was completed, EPA visited the New located in areas of low population Jersey Zinc Palmerton plant. Samples of density which would result in small must evaluate whether emission controls are well designed and well all major streams and mass flowrate annual incidence. There is not sufficient data were collected during the site visit information available on the operated before pronouncing them BAT. Quantitative test data on fugitive to verify the estimated material balance effectiveness of fugitive emission control from the preliminary study. The mass techniques and such techniques have emissions capture and control efficiencies are not available, but EPA flowrates, arsenic contents, and analysis not been demonstrated amenable to all examining the potential effect of cooling operational variabilities of cotton gins. does not believe such data are necessary to determine that fugitive the gas streams to condense additional Taking these factors into consideration, arsenic are included in Docket Number the Agency has decided that regulation controls used are adequate. As reported in the Preliminary Source Study, fugitive A-83-11, Item Numbers II-B-3 and 11-B- of cotton gins under section 112 is not 5. The temperature of the Waelz kiln warranted at this time. sources at both plants are controlled with estimated adequate ventilation emission stream was found to be lower Additional studies are being technology followed by particulate than that reported in the Preliminary conducted by EPA's Office of Pesticide removal in fabric filters (A-83-11/1I-A- Study. The temperature above the Programs (OPP) to review all non-wood 2). All ore storage areas, material discharge hoppers from the fabric filter uses for inorganic arsenicals, including transfer points, and furnace operations ranged from 77 to 199 * C (170 to 390 °F). arsenic acid; this review is scheduled for are enclosed and/or properly ventilated Based on material balance calculations, completion later this year. A risk/ at each of these plants. In addition, both the stream was not saturated with benefit analysis will be done for arsenic plants are in compliance with existing arsenic at this temperature. Further acid use on cotton. This analysis will OSHA inorganic arsenic workplace cooling of the stream with, for example, examine the adverse risks associated standards indicating that the amount of spray chambers would be impossible with the use of arsenic acid as a cotton fugitive emissions escaping capture is without redesign of the entire cooling desiccant. Also, information on the low. Consequently, no further study was system since the Waelz oxide must be benefits of the use of the desiccant is made of the potential for fugitive collected dry. The company has tried being collected and analyzed. The risks capture and control device additional cooling in the past, but the and benefits of alternative chemicals for improvements. procedure resulted in water arsenic acid will also be analyzed. One commenter (A-83-11/IV-D-10) condensation on oxide particles, which Alternative courses of regulatory said that the Preliminary Source Study required downtime for cleanup. action will be considered as a result of concludes that the New Jersey Zinc- Furthermore, additional cooling would the risk/benefit analysis. There are a Palmerton plant is not equipped with not result in a significant increase in number of components of alternative "estimated best control" (EBC) arsenic collection because of the low courses of action; these are the various technology, yet this conclusion was not arsenic concentration in the stream. statutory and regulatory methods EPA mentioned in the notice of proposal and In conclusion, EPA has determined can use for restricting arsenic acid use EPA has proposed to accept its current that regulation of inorganic arsenic under FIFRA. Examples of alternative controls as BAT and sufficient. The emissions from zinc oxide plants is not courses of action are changes in commenter added that the Preliminary warranted at this time. The estimated labeling, classification, and tolerances, Source Study states that the best annual incidence is 0.08, and the or cancellation for some or all uses. technique for fugitive emission maximum lifetime risk is 1x 10-s. Some of these actions could result in collection for this plant is cooling the Although the current estimate of reduction or elimination of arsenic gas streams to a temperature of 110 °C maximum lifetime risk is higher than emissions from cotton gins. (230 °F) and passing them through fabric four of the other five negative Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 28021 determination source categories, EPA and/or enclosing furnace operations, no more than 10 to 25 °C (18 to 45 *F) has concluded that existing controls (A- and treatment of all the ventilation gas above the acid dew point. They 83-11/1I-B-4) or those planned for the streams with fabric filter systems. The postulated that perhaps the gas streams near future to comply with OSHA and EPA considers these controls effective can be cooled further and arsenic SIP regulations (A-83-11/II-A-2) will and in view of this does not consider the collection efficiencies enhanced. The reduce emissions and associated inorganic arsenic emissions or estimated NRDC also stated that EPA has not maximum lifetime risk without causing risks to warrant further control. given any information on the feasibility serious economic impacts. The EPA The NRDC (A-83-23/IV-D-10) stated or cost of means to deal with corrosion cannot identify any control that arsenic is contained in process at temperatures below the acid dew requirements beyond those established emissions from sintering machines, blast point. They noted that even though the by OSHA that would not result in furnaces, drossing kettles, dross BID's for proposed standards for high- closure of the plant associated with the furnaces, and lead refineries. They and low-arsenic copper smelters state highest maximum lifetime risk in this added that the Preliminary Source Study that spray chambers are effective in source category. Thus, the Agency is not defines "estimated best technology" for combating corrosion, and that a variety promulgating a standard for zinc oxide process emissions as use of a sulfuric of corrosion resistant materials are plants under section 112. acid plant on streams in which SO 2 is available, none of this is discussed with Primary Lead Smelters present in sufficient concentrations, and regard to primary lead smelting. use of fabric filters on other systems. The NRDC felt that neither measures The NRDC (A-83-23/IV-D-10) stated The NRDC noted that the study reports to enhance capture and collection that limited information on arsenic that EPA has no test data on the efficiencies to percentages in the high emissions and arsenic controls from the removal efficiency of existing systems, 90's, nor measures to further reduce the five primary lead smelters is presented but by analogy to copper smelting operating temperatures of fabric filters in a document entitled "Preliminary controls, EPA estimates that "arsenic so as to enhance arsenic condensation, Study of Sources of Inorganic Arsenic" removal efficiencies greater than 90 are necessarily expensive. They (EPA-450/5-82-005). The commenter percent are currently being achieved by concluded that EPA does not seem added that arsenic is present in Missouri existing acid plants and fabric filter justified in its conclusion that no lead ore concentrates at levels systems." The NRDC argued that from additional control measures short of "typically" about 0.02 percent by weight, this, the preamble draws the following closure have been demonstated. and in Western lead ore concentrates at conclusions: (1) That existing controls In response, EPA is not aware of any levels ranging from "about 0.1 to 0.4 represent BAT, and (2) that "EPA knows percent." The commenter stated, data on the efficiency of sulfuric acid of no demonstrated however, that in the above mentioned control techniques, plants for controlling arsenic emissions short of closure, that would result in from primary lead smelter offgases. document, no range is given for the By Missouri ore concentrates. The NRDC further inorganic arsenic emissions analogy to copper smelting controls, pointed out that the arsenic content of reduction" (48 FR 33117). The NRDC felt EPA conservatively estimated that the Western ore concentrates is in the that several additional questions must removal efficiencies greater than 90 be asked before this conclusion could be same range as the low-arsenic copper percent are being achieved. The removal accepted. ore concentrates, the smelting of which efficiency estimate persented in the EPA proposed to regulate. First, NRDC stated that according to Federal Register was conservative and, The EPA believes information the available copper smelting therefore, by no means intended to summarized in the July 20, 1983, Federal background information materials, the imply that contact acid plants at Register notice of the proposed standard arsenic collection efficiency of acid primary lead smelters were any less for inorganic arsenic (48 FR 33112) and plants is estimated to be as high as 99 efficient than those operated at primary in the Preliminary Source Study percent. They added that the collection copper smelters. Since acid plant control adequately supports EPA's decision not efficiency of baghouses is estimated to is similar in both cases, and arsenic is to regulate primary lead smelters. be as high as 99.5 percent (for objectionable in the project acid Arsenic is present in Missouri lead ore particulate matter, and presumably for (maximum allowable limit of arsenic in concentrates at levels ranging from 0 to arsenic in the particulate phase). They the gas stream entering the contact acid 0.02 percent by weight (A-83-23/IV-E- concluded that if the collection plant is 1.1 mg/dscm [0.0005 gr/scf]) (A- 2). Although arsenic contents may be efficiency of the lead smelter systems is 83-23/IV-J-1), EPA concludes that similar in Western lead ore concentrates only "greater than 90 percent," why is it collection efficiency percentages are and low arsenic copper ore considered BAT? greater than 90 percent and presumably concentrates, the types of control Second, NRDC said that the study in the high 90's (A-83-11/II-A-1). systems, production processes, and states that the ideal temperature for Consequently, EPA has not investigated emission points vary considerably operation of fabric filters, for greatest additional control measures to enhance between copper and lead smelting. All removal efficiencies without corrosion capture and collection efficiencies primary lead smelters are covered by problems, is 10 to 25 *C (18 to 45 *F) beyond the existing level of control. SIP's for SO 2 and particulate matter. In above the acid dew point of the gas The NRDC recommended that acid addition, they are moving toward streams. They added that the study then dewpoint temperatures for various compliance with OSHA lead standards states that filters are currently run offgas streams be determined to (A-83-23/IV-B-2, A-83-23/IV-J-6, A- without corrosion problems at investigate the possibility of enhancing 83-23/IV-J-7, A-83-23/IV-J--8). As a temperatures of 100 to 125 °C (212 to 257 arsenic collection efficiencies by result, low temperature fabric filter oF). However, NRDC pointed out that no additional cooling of the streams. systems or contact sulfuric acid plants data have been collected for the Estimation of acid dew points requires are reducing emissions from process temperature representing the acid dew the determination of moisture (which is vents, and fugitive emissions are points. They also noted that, from the readily available) and sulfur trioxide controlled by enclosing ore storage data presented, it is not possible to (SO3 ) content of the gases. Sulfur areas, ventilating and/or enclosing conclude that filters are currently being trioxide is generally measured by material transfer points, ventilating run at the optimum temperature-i.e., at indirect methods (conversion of the 28022 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

vapor phase SO3 to sulfuric acid and the below ambient temperatures would be inorganic lead standard. The ASARCO- subsequent condensation of sulfuric inappropriate and the costs would not El Paso and ASARCO-East Helena acid), and each of the commonly used be justified by the small additional smelters have already signed methods has limitations and problems emission reduction achieved. agreements with OSHA that will result associated with reproducibility and The NRDC (A-83-12/IV-D-10) stated in improvements in their fugitive accuracy (A-83-23/IV-J-4). Therefore, that according to the Preliminary Source emission control systems. Therefore, in general, plants do not have the Study, fugitive emissions can be EPA estimates that the performance of equipment and/or techniques available captured and controlled by "hooding the modified ventilation systems will be for determining SOs concentrations in and enclosure of emission points capable of capture efficiencies similar to process offgases and, consequently, followed by particulate removal using those demonstrated at primary copper these measurements have not been fabric filter or wet scrubbing systems," smelters. made. In review of the available or in the case of sintering machines, by The NRDC (A-83-23/IV-D-10) literature, SO3 measurements have not "total or partial enclosure of the strongly disagreed with the implication been reported for any of the primary operation." The NRDC noted that these in the July 20, 1983, Federal Register lead smelter process streams which are techniques are said to be "commonly notice (48 FR 33117) that it is sufficient currently controlled by fabric filters. used" or "generally used," implying that to rely on the existing SIP requirements In well-characterized streams, S03 they are not universally used. for SO2 and particulate matter, the values may be estimated based on the The commenter said that for inorganic OSHA standards, and the still-to-be- quantity of S02 in the gas (A-83-23/IV- arsenic standards development, EPA formulated SIP's for lead. The NRDC J-3). However, many factors affecting has collected no test data on capture notes that since EPA reports substantial primary lead smelter offgas streams, efficiencies of such equipment as is noncompliance with such standards, such as firing rate, excess air, presence used. They quoted the study as follows they can hardly be an adequate of catalytic metallic oxides of vanadium, (p. 59): "By analogy to the copper substitute for a section 112 standard for iron, nickel, or sulfur adsobing additives smelting industry, it is expected that the inorganic arsenic. such as magnesium oxide, will best available capture ventilation As explained in response to the first drastically change the SO 3 content (A- systems should be capable of comment discussed on primary lead 83-23/VI-J-2). Such uncertainties mean approximately 90 percent fugitive smelters, EPA believes that effective that it is not feasible to estimate SO. arsenic emission capture. The controls will be installed on all smelters concentrations in primary lead smelter performance of the existing ventilation as a result of recent agreements among streams. Consequently, acid dew points system in the primary lead smelting OSHA, smelter management, and labor. vary from plant to plant and do not industry is expected to be below this Agency policy is to avoid promulgating remain constant even for a single level." standards that would increase process stream. The NRDC concluded that if the administrative costs but would not Plan operators "determine" acid dew equipment in use in the lead smelters is produce additional emission reduction. points by noting temperature ranges at less effective than the best available The-Attorney General's Office of the which the fabric filter beings to corrode technology, then EPA is not justified in State of New York (A-83-23/IV-D-9) due to acid condensation. As a result, concluding that the Agency knows of no objected to EPA's decision to not operators maintain the stream additional control measures short of regulate primary lead smelting fugitive temperature well above this temperature closure which are available. They emissions even though fugitive range to ensure that acid condensation, argued that substandard fugitive emissions are estimated at 0.59 kg (1.3 and subsequent corrosion, do not occur. emission controls can be improved. lb) arsenic per hour. The commenter The NRDC would have EPA require In response, EPA noted that test data added that of this amount, 96.2 percent plant operators to adjust the process ate not available to determine the occurs in the dross/reverb building. stream temperature to slightly above the arsenic removal efficiencies of existing The Agency is not regulating primary acid dew point in hopes of increasing primary lead smelter fugitive control lead smelting plants under section 112 arsenic trioxide condensation, and thus systems. the OSHA lead standard of 50 for two main reasons. First, the the arsenic collection efficiency of the /g/m 3 is being exceeded at all five predicted annual incidence of cancer is fabric filter. Because an accurate primary lead smelters, and the OSHA 3 small for all primary lead smelters (less estimate of acid dew point cannot be inorganic arsenic standard of 10 gg/m than 0.07 cases per year). Second, made based on the available data, EPA is being exceeded at two of the five although the maximum lifetime risk estimated the amount of cooling that plants. The OSHA work place standard estimate (2X10) is higher compared to would be required to enhance arsenic exceedances measured at primary lead other negative determination source collection based on arsenic trioxide smelters are due to emissions from categories, this is mainly attributable to saturation theory. Based on low arsenic fugitive sources. On this basis, the one of the five primary lead smelters. concentrations in the process streams current level of fugitive control in the Engineering controls such as ventilation (less than 1 percent of the concentration primary lead industry is estimated as systems and fabric filters are now required for saturation), theory predicts lower than that achieved by the copper required at all primary lead smelters to substantial cooling must take place smelting industry. However, as a result reduce work-place lead-in-air before arsenic trioxide saturation of the current OSHA exceedances, concentrations as a result of recent conditions are reached. Such cooling improvements in the fugitive control tripartite agreements among OSHA, corresponds to offgas temperatures that systems are being required at all plants smelter management, and labor. are below the dew point of water and, and are specifically described in Preliminary actions in response to these therefore, below the lower bound of the consent agreements for SIP compliance agreements have resulted in reduced acid dew point. For some streams, and tripartite agreements signed by ambient arsenic levels at the smelter cooling to below ambient temperatures smelters and OSHA (A-83-23/IV-J-6, with the highest risk estimates (A-83- would be required to reach arsenic A-83-23/IV-J-7, A-83-23/IV-J-8). The 23/IV-B-2). Data show an average trioxide saturation. The EPA believes modifications are specifically designed reduction in the ambient concentration that to require cooling of gas streams to to achieve compliance with the OSHA of about 45 percent in the first three Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 28023 quarters of 1984 compared to 1981 emissions from fugitive sources are maximum lifetime risk and annual through 1983. The EPA has not identified reported to be negligible in comparison incidence and because of the adverse any controls beyond those necessary to to sinter machine emissions. The facility economic impact. This decision is comply with the OSHA and lead SIP is constantly upgrading the process discussed in response to comments requirements that could further reduce fugitive capture systems to reduce the concerning secondary lead smelters. arsenic emissions to a significant work place lead concentrations. The The exhaust gas in arsenic chemical degree. plant is in compliance with the OSHA plants is at ambient temperature, while Primary Zinc Smelters regulations for inorganic arsenic, which the flue gas in secondary lead smelters demonstrates the efficiency of the ranges from 31 °C to 200 °C (88 °F to 392 The NRDC (A-83-23/IV-D-10) stated fugitive emission controls applies at the °F). Since the flue gas of arsenic that EPA has not sufficiently smelter. For these reasons, the Agency chemical manufacturing plants is cool investigated whether the equipment and believes that the St. Joe Minerals techniques for fugitive emissions and emissions are already in particulate smelter is adequately controlled. form, a wet scrubber is not needed. If capture at the St. Joe Minerals smelter in To summarize, the Agency has not Monaco, Pennsylvania, are state-of-the- proper engineering design and operating developed a standard for primary zinc procedures are followed, fabric filters art. They added that further smelters because these sources are documentation of the adequacy of these can reduce these arsenic trioxide effectively controlling emissions in particulate emissions by about 99.5 controls is necessary before EPA can response to existing regulatory make the conclusion that no further requirements. Maximum lifetime cancer percent. The efficiency of fabric filters at - 6 chemical manufacturing facilities is controls short of closure are available. risk (7X10 ) and annual incidence The EPA believes that effective (0.004 cancer cases per year) are small. higher than for some other source technology for controlling fugitive Further significant reductions in categories that emit arsenic because emissions from zinc smelters includes incidence and maximum lifetime risks arsenic trioxide particulate is at ambient enclosure of ore storage areas, enclosure cannot be achieved with available tempertures in chemical manufacturing. and/or ventilation of materials transfer control measures. Additional significant The NRDC (A-83-23/IV-D-10) stated points and furnace operations, and emission reduction can be achieved only that the principal weakness of the treatment of all ventilation gas streams by closing facilities. The Agency does analysis for this category is the lack of with fabric filters. Efficiencies of fugitive not believe that requiring plant closure date or analysis regarding the efficiency emission capture and control systems is a reasonable control alternative. of capture of fugitive arsenic trioxide are difficult to test, and quantitative Taking these factors into consideration, dusts at the eight sources of most control efficiency data are not available the Administrator has concluded that interest. The NRDC noted that for four for the St. Joe zinc plant. However, there Federal regulation under section 112 is of the facilities, the information EPA is nonquantitative information that not currently warranted. does have is considered confidential. shows the controls are effective. Arsenic For the other plants, the commenter The following information supports Chemical Manufacturing Plants stated that the descriptions of capture the conclusion that St. Joe Minerals is The New Jersey Department of techniques are cursory. The NRDC said using effective control for fugitive Environmental Protection (DEP) (A-83- that EPA does not appear to have arsenic emissions. At St. Joe Minerals, 23/IV-D-8) felt that for arsenic chemical engaged in any evaluation of their all of the major operations with fugitive manufacturing plants with relatively efficiency. They concluded that EPA is arsenic emissions are conducted inside high risk, the use of both fabric filters then unable to say if the hoods, buildings (A-83-23/IV-C-1, A-3-23/ and wet scrubbers in series would seem enclosures, or vacuum systems used are IV-E-1, A-83-23/IV-J-5). All ore is appropriate. They stated that in the July really BAT. received by train and unloaded in the 20, 1983, notice EPA reported that for receiving building, and sinter material is In response, EPA notes that no secondary lead smelters a 65 percent quantifiable data are available on the stored in silos above the furnaces. There reduction in the cancer risk would result are no visible fugitive emissions from when a fabric filter/wet scrubber capture efficiency of the hooding and these two sources. Fugitive emissions enclosures used to collect fugitive combination was used rather than a arsenic from the electrothermal furnaces are fabric filter without a scrubber. The trioxide dusts within the eight dependent on furnace operation. When New Jersey DEP stated that since most arsenic chemical manufacturing plants properly operated, negative pressure is arsenic emissions from arsenic chemical studied. However, qualitative maintained in the lower sections of the manufacturing plants are emitted in the evaluations were conducted based on furnace so emissions from this source do vapor phase and scrubbers will cause the engineering design of the capture not escape capture. During upsets, there condensation of some of the arsenic, a devices. Because the arsenic plants were in compliance with the OSHA may be fugitive emissions from this comparison should be made between a source. However, according to State the arsenic removal efficiencies of fabric workplace limit of 10 .Lg/m , the capture agency personnel, furnaces at the plant filters and wet scrubbers. devices used during the handling and are well-operated. Captured fugitive Some secondary lead smelters use processing of powdered arsenic trioxide dusts from the electrothermal furnaces wet scrubbers in series with fabric can reasonably be expected to be are ducted through fabric filters (A-83- filters for SO. control. This combination operating efficiently. The companies 23/IV-C-1, A-83-23/IV-E-1, A-83-23/ of control devices has been provided EPA with data on the design of IV-J-5). Emissions from holding bins, demonstrated to achieve further the capture systems used for controlling feeders, and transfer points are also reduction of arsenic emissions. It is fugitive emissions. In several cases, collected and passed through fabric thought that the scrubbr provides these data were considered proprietary filters (A-83-23/IV-C-1, A-83-23/IV-E- additional cooling which results in by the companies and, therefore, EPA 1, A-83-23/IV-J-5). Arsenic emissions additional condensation and, hence, did not release them for publication. The testing at St. Joe indicated that the removal of arsenic. However, the EPA considers these capture systems to largest source of controlled arsenic Agency is not requiring the use of wet be effective. emissions is the sinter machine offgas scrubbers under Section 112 because of The EPA is not regulating arsenic stream (A-83-23/II-A-1). Arsenic the relatively small reduction in chemical manufacturing plants under 28024 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

Section 112 of the Act because the comments on the recordkeeping and markets. This rulemaking was submitted maximum individual cancer risks reporting requirements of that standard. to the Office of Management and Budget (2X 10 - 4 ) and the annual incidence There are no reporting requirements for review as required by the Executive (0.004 cancer cases per year) are small, by other governmental agencies for the Order 12291. Any comments from OMB and the plants are currently controlled information required by these standards to EPA and any EPA response to those in response to existing regulatory which would result in overlapping comments are available for public requirements and due to the economic requirements. In particular, there is no inspection in the Dockets (see benefits of collecting and reusing overlap with the reporting requirements ADDRESSES). of the Superfund program. The arsenic trioxide. Further significant Regulatory Flexibility Analysis reductions in annual incidence and Superfund program was established in maximum lifetime risk cannot be 1980 by the Comprehensive The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 achieved. Environmental Response, (RFA) requires that differential impacts Compensation, and Liability Act of Federal regulations upon small VII. Miscellaneous (CERCLA, Pub. L. 96-510) and businesses be identified and analyzed. The effective date of these regulations authorizes the Federal government to The RFA stipulates that an analysis is is August 4, 1986. Section 112 of the respond directly to releases (or required if a substantial number of small Clean Air Act provides that national threatened releases) of hazardous businesses will experience significant emission standards for hazardous air substances and pollutants or impacts. Both measures must be met: pollutants, or revisions thereof, become contaminants to any media that may that is, a substantial number of small effective upon promulgation. endanger public health or welfare. businesses must be affected and they As prescribed by section 112, Under the notification and liability must experience significant impacts, to establishment of these standards was provisions of section 103 (see 48 FR require an analysis. Twenty percent or preceded by the Administrator's 23552, May 25, 1983), CERCLA requires more of the small businesses in an determination that inorganic arsenic is a that persons in charge of vessels or affected industry is considered a hazardous air pollutant as defined in facilities from which hazardous substantial number. The EPA definition section 112(a)(1) of the Act. Inorganic substances have been released in of significant impact involves three arsenic was added to the list of quantities that are equal to or greater tests, as follows: (1) Prices of produced hazardous air pollutants on June 5, 1980. than the reportable quantities by small entities rise 5 percent or more, immediately notify the National assuming costs are passed on to An economic impact assessment was Response Center of the release (800- prepared for each standard and for consumers; (2) annualized investment 424-8802; in Washington, DC, costs for pollution control are greater other regulatory alternatives. The metropolitan area 202-426-2675). updated economic impact assessment than 20 percent of total capital spending; However, air releases which qualify as or (3) costs as a percent of sales for for each standard is included in the federally-permitted releases, such as BID's for the promulgated standards small entities are 10 percent greater than inorganic arsenic emissions that are costs as a percent of sales for large (EPA-450/3-83-010b and EPA-450/3- regulated under section 112 of the Clean 83-011b). entities. Air Act, are not subject to the The EPA has analyzed the impacts of Docket notification or liability provisions of the standards and has concluded that CERCLA unless the air releases are in The docket is an organized and small businesses will not incur excess of the allowable NESHAP for these complete file of all information emissions by an amount equal to or significant impacts. The bases submitted to or otherwise considered by greater than the reportable quantity; in conclusions are summarized below. EPA in the development of the this case, persons in charge must report The Small Business Administration standards. The principal purposes of the the excess air releases to the National (SBA) definition of a small business for dockets are (1) to allow interested Response Center. (Reporting under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) parties to identify and located CERCLA does not excuse the persons in Code 3331, Primary Smelting and documents readily so that they can charge from any responsibility, Refining of Copper is 1,000 employees. intelligently and effectively participate including reporting, or liability under the All primary copper smelters in the in the rulemaking process, and (2) to NESHAP program.) United States are owned by seven serve as the record in case of judicial companies that each have more than review (except for interagency review Executive Order 12291 1,000 employees. Therefore, none of the materials (§ 307(d)(7)(A))). Under Executive Order 12291, EPA seven companies meets the SBA definition of a small business and no Reporting and Recordkeeping must judge whether a regulation is 'major" and therefore subject to the regulatory flexibility analysis is required The information collection requirements of a Regulatory Impact for the primary copper smelter standard. requirements contained in these Analysis. None of the standards are Similarly the metallic arsenic and standards (§§ 61.165, 61.176, 61.177, considered major because none are arsenic trioxide production facilities 61.185, 61.186) have been approved by expected to result in: (1) An annual standard affects only one facility that is the Office of Management and Budget effect on the economy of $100 million or operated by a copper company with (OMB) under the provisions of the more; (2) a major increase in costs or more than 1,000 employees. Therefore, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 prices for consumers, individual no regulatory flexibility analysis is U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The OMB control industries, Federal, State, or local required for this standard. numbers assigned to the regulations are government agencies, or geographic Because of several aspects of the as follows: (1) Glass manufacturing regions; or (3) significant adverse effects standard, the glass manufacturing plants plants, 2060-0043; (3) primary copper on competition, employment, standard will not result in significant smelters; 2060-0044; and (3) arsenic investment, productivity, innovation, or small business impacts. These aspects trioxide and metallic arsenic production on the ability of United States-based are: (1) The exclusion of existing facilities, 2060-0042. The preamble and enterprises to compete with foreign- furnaces that emit 2.5 Mg of arsenic per BID for each standard responds to based enterprises in domestic or export year, or less, and new or modified Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 28025 furnances that emit 0.4 Mg per year, or Subpart O-National Emission Standard for "By-pass the control device" means to less, from the requirement of 85 percent Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Primary operate the glass melting furnace emission reduction; (2) the exemption of Copper Smelters without operating the control device to pot furnaces; and (3) the provision that Sec. which that furnace's emissions are the emission testing requirement can be 61.170 Applicability and designation of directed routinely. waived if nontest methods are adequate source. "Commercial arsenic" means any to demonstrate that arsenic emissions 61.171 Definitions. form of arsenic that is produced by do not exceed 2.5 Mg/yr or 0.4 Mg/yr. 61.172 Standard for new and existing extraction from any arsenic-containing sources. substance and is intended for sale or for Owning to these provisions, the 61.173 Compliance provisions. standard does not significantly affect 61.174 Test methods and procedures. intentional use in a manufacturing any small businesses. Therefore, no 61.175 Monitoring requirements. process. Arsenic that is a naturally regulatory flexibility analysis is 61.176 Recordkeeping requirements. occurring trace constituent of another required, and the preliminary analysis 71.177 Reporting requirements. substance is not considered "commercial arsenic." that was prepared at the time of Subpart P-National Emission Standard for proposal was not finalized. Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Arsenic "Cullet" means waste glass recycled Trioxide and Metallic Arsenic Production to a glass melting furnace. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification Facilities "Glass melting furnace" means a unit comprising a refractory vessel in which Under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. Sec. raw materials are charged, melted at 605(b), I hereby certify that the 61.180 Applicability and designation of sources. high temperature, refined, and standards for primary copper smelters, conditioned to produce molten glass. glass manufacturing plants, and arsenic 61.181 Definitions. 61.182 Standard for new and existing The unit includes foundations, trioxide and metallic arsenic production sources. superstructure and retaining walls, raw facilities promulgated today will not 61.183 Emission monitoring. material charger systems, heat have a significant economic impact on 61.184 Ambient air monitoring for inorganic exchangers, melter cooling system, small business entities because the only arsenic. exhaust system, refractory brick work, affected firms are not small and no new 61.185 Recordkeeping requirements. fuel supply and electrical boosting facilities ae expected. 61.186 Reporting requirements. equipment, integral control systems and List of Subject in 40 CFR Part 61 instrumentation, and appendages for Appendix B-Test Methods conditioning and distributing molten Asbestos, Beryllium, Glass, glass to forming apparatuses. The forming apparatuses, including the float Hazardous substances, Inorganic 2. Part 61 is amended by adding arsenic, Mercury, Primary copper Subpart N as follows: bath used in flat glass manufacturing, smelters, Radionuclides, Reporting and are not considered part of the glass recordkeeping requirements, Vinly Subpart N-National Emission melting furnace. chloride. Standard for Inorganic Arsenic "Glass produced" means the glass pulled from the glass melting furnace. Dated July 3. 1986. Emissions from Glass Manufacturing Plants "Inorganic arsenic" means the oxides Lee M.Thomas, and other noncarbon compounds of the Administrator. § 61.160 Applicability and designation of element arsenic included in particulate source. matter, vapors, and aerosols. Part 61-[Amended] (a) The source to which this subpart "Malfunction" means any sudden Part 61 is amended by adding applies is each glass melting furnace failure of air pollution control equipment Subparts N, 0, and P, and Reference that uses commercial arsenic as a raw or process equipment or of a process to Methods 108 and 108A to Appendix B, material. This subpart does not apply to operate in a normal or usual manner so as follows: pot furnaces. that emissions of arsenic are increased. "Pot furnace" means a glass melting for Part 61 (b) Rebricking is not considered 1. The authority citation construction or modification for the furnace that contains one or more continues to read as follows: purposes of § 61.05(a). refractory vessels in which glass is Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7412, 7414. 7416, melted by indirect heating. The openings 7601. § 61.161 Definitions. of the vessels are in the outside wall of The terms used in this subpart are the furnace and are covered with 2. The Table of Sections is amended defined in the Clean Air Act, in § 61.02, refractory stoppers during melting. by adding Subparts N, 0, and P and or in this section as follows: "Rebricking" means cold replacement Reference Methods 108 and 1OA as "Arsenic-containing glass type" of damaged or worn refractory parts of follows: means any glass that is distinguished the glass melting furnace. Rebricking Subpart N-National Emission Standard for from other glass solely by the weight includes replacement of the refractories Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass percent of arsenic added as a naw comprising the bottom, sidewalls, or Manufacturing Plants material and by the weight percent of roof of the melting vessel; replacement Sec. arsenic in the glass produced. Any two of refractory work in the heat 61.160 Applicability and designation of or more glasses that have the same exchanger, and replacement of source. weight percent of arsenic in the raw refractory portions of the glass 61.161 Definitions. materials as well as in the glass conditioning and distribution system. 61.162 Emission limits. produced shall be considered to belong "Shutdown" means the cessation of 61.163 Emission monitoring. to one arsenic-containing glass type; operation of an affected source for any 61.164 Test methods and procedures. without regard to the recipe used or any purpose. 61.165 Reporting and recordkeeping other characteristics of the glass or the "Theoretical arsenic emissions factor" requirements. method of production. means the amount of inorganic arsenic, 28026 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations expressed in grams per kilogram of glass limit in § 61.162(a)(2) or § 61,162(b)(2) systems shall be in continuous operation produced, as determined based on a shall: and shall meet minimum frequency of material balance. (1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and' operation requirements by completing a "Uncontrolled total arsenic operate a continuous monitoring system minimum of one cycle of sampling and. emissions" means the total inorganic for the measurement of the opacity of analyzing for each successive 10-second arsenic in the glass melting-furnace emissions discharged into the period and one cycle of data recording exhaust gas preceding any add-on atmosphere from the control device; and for each successive 6-minute period. emission control device. (2) Install, calibrate, maintain, and (g) An owner or operator subject. to operate a monitoring device for the paragraph (a) of this section shall: § 61.162 Emission limits. continuous measurement of the (1] Reduce all opacity data to 6-minute (a) The owner or operator of an temperature of the gas entering the averages. Six-minute averages shall be existing glass melting furnace subject to control device. calculated from 24 or more data points the provisions of this subpart shall (b) All continuous monitoring systems equally spaced over each 6-minute comply with either paragraph (a)(1) or and monitoring devices shall be period. Data recorded during periods of (a)(2) of this section; except as provided installed and operational prior to monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, in paragraph (c) of this section. performance of an emission test calibration checks, and zero and span (1) Uncontrolled total arsenic required by § 61.164(a). Verification of adjustments shall not be included in the emissions from the glass melting furnace operational status shall, at a minimum, data averages calculated under this shall be less than 2.5 Mg per year, or consist of an evaluation of the paragraph, and (2) Total arsenic emissions from the monitoring system in accordance with glass melting furnace shall be conveyed the requirements and procedures (2) Calculate 15-minute averages of the temperature of the gas entering the to a control device and reduced by at contained in Performance Specification for each 15-minute least 85 percent. 1 of Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 60. control device (b) The owner or operator of a new or (c) During the emission test required operating period. modified glass melting furnace subject in § 61.164(a) each owner or operator (h) After receipt and consideration of to the provisions of this subpart shall subject to paragraph (a) of this section written application, the Administrator comply with either paragraph (b)(1) or shall: may approve alternative monitoring (b)(2) of this section, except as provided (1) Conduct continuous opacity systems for the measurement of one or in paragraph (c) of this section. monitoring from the beginning of the more process or operating parameters (1) Uncontrolled total arsenic first test run until the completion of the that is or are demonstrated to enable emissions from the glass melting furnace third test run. Process and control accurate and representative monitoring shall be less than 0.4 Mg per year, or equipment shall be operated in a of a properly operating control device. (2) Total arsenic emissions from the manner that will minimize opacity of Upon approval of an alternative glass melting furnace shall be conveyed emissions, subject to the Administrator's monitoring system for an affected to a control device and reduced by at approval. source, the Administrator will specify least 85 percent. (2) Calculate 6-minute opacity requirements to replace the (c] An owner or operator of a source averages from 24 or more data points requirements of paragraphs (a)-(g) of subject to the requirements of this equally spaced over each 6-minute this section for that system. section may, after approval by the period during the test runs. § 61.164 Test methods and procedures. Administrator, bypass the control (3) Determine, based on the 6-minute device to which arsenic emissions from opacity averages, the opacity value (a) To demonstrate compliance with the furnace are directed for a limited corresponding to the 97.5 percent upper § 61.162, the owner or operator shall period of time for designated purposes confidence level of a normal or conduct emission tests, reduce test data, such as maintenance of the control lognormal (whichever the owner or and follow the procedures specified in device, as specified in § 61.165(e). operator determines is more this section unless the Administrator: (d) At all times, including periods of representative) distribution of the (1) Specifies or approves, in specific startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the average opacity values. cases, the use of a reference method owner or operator of a glass melting (4) Conduct continuous monitoring of with minor changes in methodolog, furnace subject to the provisions of this the temperature of the gas entering the (2) Approves the use of an equivalent subpart shall operate.and maintain the control device from the beginning of the method; furnace and associated air pollution first test run until completion of the third (3)Approves the use of an alternative control equipment in a manner test run. method the results of which he has consistent with good air pollution (5) Calculate 15-minute averages of determined to be adequate for indicating control-practice for minimizing the temperature of the gas entering the whether a specific source is in emissions of inorganic arsenic to the control device during each test run. compliance; or (d) An owner or operator may atmosphere to the maximum extent (4) Waives the requirement for redetermine the values described in practicable. Determination of whether emission tests as provided under § 61.13. acceptable operating and maintenance paragraph (c) of this section during any emission test that demonstrates (b) Unless a waiver of emission procedures are being used will be based testing is obtained, the owner or on information available to the compliance with the emission limits in § 61.162(a)(2) or § 61.162(b)(2). operator shall conduct emission tests Administrator, which may include, but required by this section: is not limited to, monitoring results, (e) The requirements of § 60.13(d) and review of operating and maintenance § 60.13(f) shall apply to an owner or (1) No later than 90 days after the effective data-of this subpart for a procedures, inspection of the source,- operator subject to paragraph (a) of this that has an initial startup date and review of other records. section. source (f) Except for system breakdowns, preceding the effective date; or § 61.163 Emission monitoring. repairs, calibration checks, and zero and.. . (2) No later than 90 days after startup (a) An owner or operator of a-glass span adjustments required under for a source that has an initial startup melting furnace subject to the emission § 60.13(d), all continuous monitoring date after the effective date. Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 28027

(3) At such other times as may be 12-month period by finding the sum of P= the rate of glass production (kg/h), required by the Administrator under the values calculated for Y in paragraph determined by dividing the weight (kg) of Section 114 of the Act. (c)(2) of this section. glass pulled from the furnace during the emission test by the number of hours (h) (4) While the source is operating (4) If the value determined in under such conditions as the taken to perform the test under paragraph (c)(3) of this section is equal paragraph (d)(2) of this section. Administrator may specify, based on to or greater than the applicable limit in representative performance of the § 61.162(a)(1) or (b)(1), conduct the (4) Calculate a correction factor to source, emission testing and calculations relate to the theoretical and the actual uncontrolled arsenic emission factors as (c) To demonstrate compliance with described in paragraphs (d)(1) through follows: § 61.162(a)(1) when less than 8.0 Mg per (d)(5) of this section. If the value is less year of elemental arsenic is added to than the applicable limit, the source is in F=R.-T, any existing glass melting furnace, or to compliance and no emission testing or Where: demonstrate compliance with additional calculations are required. F=the correction factor. § 61.162(b)(1) when less than 1.0 Mg per (d) To demonstrate compliance with R.= the actual uncontrolled arsenic emission year of elemental arsenic is § 61.162(a)(1) when 8.0 Mg per year or factor (g/kg) determined in paragraph added to (d)(3) of this section. any new or modified glass melting more of elemental arsenic are added to T,= the theoretical uncontrolled arsenic furnace, an owner or operator shall: any existing glass melting furnace, or to emission factor (g/kg) determined in demonstrate compliance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section for the (1) Derive a theoretical uncontrolled § 61.162(b)(1) when 1.0 Mg per year or arsenic emission factor (T), in grams of same glass type for which R. was more of elemental arsenic is added to determined. elemental arsenic per kilogram of glass any new or modified glass melting produced, based on material balance furnace, an owner or operator shall: (5) Determine the uncontrolled arsenic calculations for each arsenic-containing emission rate for the 12-month period, as glass type (i) produced during the 12- (1) Estimate the theoretical follows: month period, as follows: uncontrolled arsenic emissions for each glass type for the 12-month period by n performing the calculations described in T, = (Ab, X Wb1) + (Ad X Wej) - Aj i=l (TixFxG,) paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this Where: section. 106 Tj = the theoretical uncontrolled arsenic (2) Conducte mission testing to emission factor (g/kg) for each glass type determine the actual uncontrolled Where: fi). arsenic emission rate during production U=the uncontrolled arsenic emission rate for Abi = fraction by weight of elemental arsenic the 12-month period (Mg/year). in the fresh batch for each glass type (i). of the arsenic-containing glass type with T =the theoretical uncontrolled arsenic Wbi = weight (g) of fresh batch melted per kg the highest theoretical uncontrolled emission factor for each arsenic- of glass produced for each glass type (i). arsenic emissions as calculated under containing glass type (i] produced during Ad = fraction by weight of elemental arsenic paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The the 12-month period, as calculated in in cullet for each glass type (i). owner or operator shall use the paragraph (c)(1) of this section (g/kg). Wd = weight (g) of cullet melted per kg of following test methods and procedures: F= the correction factor calculated in glass produced for each glass type (i). (i) Use Method 108 in Appendix B to paragraph (d)(4) of this section. A6, = weight (g) of elemental arsenic per kg Gi=the quantity (kg] of each arsenic- glass produced for each glass type (i). this part for determinig the arsenic containing glass type (i) produced during emission rate (g/h). The emission rate the 12-month period. (2) Estimate theoretical uncontrolled shall equal the arithmetic mean of the n = the number of arsenic-containing glass arsenic results of three 60-minute test runs. types produced during the 12-month emissions for the 12-month period. period for each arsenic-containing glass (ii) Use the following methods in type as follows: Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 60: (6) If the value determined in (A) Method 1 for sample and velocity paragraph (d)(5) of this section is less traverse. than the applicable limit in § 61.162(a)(1) or (b)(1), the source is in compliance. TiS= x G) (B)Method 2 for velocity and 104 volumetric flowrate. (e) To demonstrate compliance with (C) Method 3 for gas analysis. § 61.162(a)(2) or (b)(2), an owner or (D) For sources equipped with positive operator shall: (1) Conduct emission testing to pressure fabric filters, use Section 4 of Where: determine the percent reduction of Y = the theoretical uncontrolled arsenic Method 5D to determine a suitable sampling location and procedure. inorganic arsenic emissions being emission estimate for the 12-month achieved by the control device, using the period for each glass type (Mg/year). (3) Determine the actual uncontrolled following test methods and procedures: Tj = the theoretical uncontrolled arsenic arsenic emission factor (R.) in grams of Use emission factor for each type of glass (i) (i) Method 108 in Appendix B to elemental arsenic per kilogram of glass this part to determine the concentration produced during the 12-month period as produced, as follows: calculated in paragraph (c)(1) of this of arsenic in the gas streams entering section (g/kg]. R.=E.- P and exiting the control device. Conduct Gj = the quantity (kg) of each arsenic- Where: three 60-minute test runs, each containing glass type (i) produced during R,=the actual uncontrolled arsenic emission consisting of simultaneous testing of the the 12-month period. factor (g/kg). inlet and outlet gas streams. The gas E,=the actual uncontrolled arsenic emission streams shall contain all the gas (3) Estimate the total theoretical rate (g/h) from paragraph (d)(2) of this exhausted from the glass melting uncontrolled arsenic emissions for the section. furnace. 28028 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

(ii) Use the following methods in paragraph (e) of this section shall compliance with the applicable limit in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 60: maintain at the source for a period of at § 61.162(a)(2) or (b)(2). (A) Method 1 for sample and velocity least 2 years and make available to the (5) Ensure that the reports required in traverses. Administrator upon request a file of the paragraph (d)(4) of this section are (B] Method 2 for velocity and following records: postmarked by the tenth day following volumetric flowrate. (1) The dates the control device is the end of the 6-month reporting period. (C) Method 3 for gas analysis. bypassed; and (e) To obtain approval to bypass a (2) Steps taken to minimize arsenic (D For sources equipped with positive control device, as provided in emissions during the period the control pressure fabric filters, use Section 4 of § 61.162(c), an owner or operator of a device was bypassed. Method 5D to determine a suitable source subject to this subpart may make (c) Each owner or operator of a source to the Administrator. sampling location and procedure. written application subject to the emission limit in Each application for such a waiver shall (2) Calculate the percent emission § 61.162(a)(1) or (b)(1) shall determine be submitted to the Administrator no reduction for each run as follows: and record at the end of every 6 months later than 60 days before the bypass the uncontrolled arsenic emission rate period would begin and shall include: (Cb-C) X 100 for the preceding and forthcoming 12- (1) Name and address of the owner or month periods. The determinations operator; Cb shall: (2) Location of the source; (1) Be made by following the (3) A brief description of the nature, Where: procedures in § 61.164(c)(1), (c)(2), and size, design, and method of operation of D= the percent emission reduction. (c)(3); or in § 61.164(d)(5), whichever is the source; Cb= the arsenic concentration of the stack applicable; and (4) The reason it is necessary to by- gas entering the control device, as (2) Take into account changes in measured by Method 108. pass the control device; production rates, types of glass (5] The length of time it will be C.= the arsenic concentration of the stack produced, and other factors that would gas exiting the control device, as necessary to by-pass the control device; affect the uncontrolled arsenic emission measured by Method 108. (6) Steps that will be taken to rate. minimize arsenic emissions during the (d) Each owner or operator of a source (3) Determine the average percent period the control device will be by- reduction of arsenic by calculating the subject to the provisions of this subpart passed. shall: arithmetic mean of the results for the (7) The quantity of emissions that (1) Provide the Administrator 30 days three runs. If it is at least 85 percent, the would be released while the control source is in compliance. prior notice of any emission test required in §61.164 to afford the device is by-passed if no steps were § 61.165 Reporting and recordkeeping Administrator the opportunity to have taken to minimize emissions; (8) The expected reduction in requirements. an observer present; and (2) Submit to the Administrator a emissions during the by-pass period due (a) Each owner or operator of a source written report of the results of the to the steps taken to minimize emissions subject to the requirements of § 61.162 emission test and associated during this period; and shall maintain at the source for a period calculations required in § 61.164(d) or (9) The type of glass to be produced of at least 2 years and make available to (e), as applicable, within 60 days after during the bypass period, and, if the Administrator upon request a file of conducting the test. applicable, an explanation of why non- the following records: (3) Submit to the Administrator a arsenic or lower-arsenic-containing (1) All measurements, including written report of the arsenic emission glass cannot be melted in the furnace continuous monitoring for measurement estimates calculated under § 61.164(c): during the bypass period. of opacity, and temperature of gas (i) Within 45 days after the effective (f) Each owner or operator required to entering a control device; date of this subpart for a source that has install and operate a continuous opacity (2) Records of emission test data and an initial startup date preceding the monitoring system under § 61.163 shall: all calculations used to produce the effective date; or (1) Submit a written report to the required reports of emission estimates to (ii) Within 45 days after startup for a Administrator of the results of the demonstrate compliance with § 61.162; source that has an initial startup date continuous monitoring system (3) All continous monitoring system after the effective date. evaluation required under § 61.163(b) performance evaluations, including (4) Submit to the Adminstrator a within 60 days after conducting the calibration checks and adjustments; written report of the uncontrolled evaluation. (4) The occurrence and duration of all arsenic emission rates determined in (2) Submit a written report to the startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions accordance with paragraph (c) of this Administrator every 6 months if excess of the furnace; section, if: opacity occurred during the preceding 6- (5) All malfunctions of the air (i) The emission rate for the preceding month period. For purposes of this pollution control system; 12-month period (or preceding 6-month paragraph, an occurrence of excess (6) All periods during which any period for the first 6-month opacity is any 6-minute period during continuous monitoring system or determination) exceeded the applicable which the average opacity, as measured monitoring device is inoperative; limit in § 61.162(a)(1) or (b)(1). by the continuous monitoring system, (7) all records of maintenance and (ii) The emission rate for the exceeds the opacity level determined repairs for each air pollution control forthcoming 12-month period will under § 61.163(c)(3) or the opacity level system, continuous monitoring system, exceed the applicable limit in redetermined under § 61.163(d). or monitoring device; § 61.162(a)(1) or (b](1). In this case, the (3) Ensure that any semiannual report (b) Each owner or operator who is owner or operator shall also notify the of excess opacity required by paragraph given approval by the Administrator to Administrator of the anticipated date of (f)(2) of this section is postmarked by bypass a control device under the emission test to demonstrate the thirtieth day following the end of the Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 28029

6-month period and includes the "Inorganic arsenic" means the oxides (1) Install, operate, and maintain a following information: and other noncarbon compounds of the secondary hood system on each copper (i) The magnitude of excess opacity, element arsenic included in particulate converter. Each secondary hood system any conversion factor(s) used, and the matter, vapors, and aerosols. shall consist of a hood enclosure, air date and time of commencement and "Lead matte" means any molten curtain fan(s), exhaust system fan(s), completion of each occurrence of excess solution of copper and other metal and ductwork that conveys the captured opacity. sulfides produced by reduction of sinter emissions to a control device, and shall (ii) Specific identification of each product from the oxidation of lead meet the following specifications: occurrence of excess opacity that occurs sulfide ore concentrates. (i) The configuration and dimensions during startups, shutdowns, and "Malfunction" means any sudden of the hood enclosure shall be such that malfunctions of the source. failure of air pollution control equipment the copper converter mouth, charging (iii) The date and time identifying or process equipment or of a process to ladles, skimming ladles, and any other each period during which the continuous operate in a normal or usual manner so material transfer vessels used will be monitoring system was inoperative, that emissions of inorganic arsenic are housed within the confines or influence except for zero and span checks, and the increased. of the hood enclosure during each mode nature of the system repairs or "Opacity" means the degree to which of copper -converter operation. adjustments. emissions reduce the transmission of (ii) The back of the hood enclosure (Approved by the Office of Management and light. shall be fully enclosed and sealed Budget under control number 2060-0043) "Particulate matter" means any finely against the primary hood. Portions of the 3. Part 61 is amended by adding divided solid or liquid material, other side-walls in contact with the copper than uncombined water, as measured by Subpart 0 as follows: converter shall be sealed against the the specified reference method. converter. Subpart O-National Emission "Pouring" means the removal of (iii) Openings in the top and front of Standard for Inorganic Arsenic blister copper from the copper converter the hood enclosure to allow for the entry Emissions from Primary Copper bath. and egress of ladles and crane appartus Smelters "Primary copper smelter" means any shall be minimized to the fullest extent installation or intermediate process practicable. § 61.170 Applicability and designation of engaged in the productibn of copper source. (iv) The hood enclosure shall be from copper-bearing materials through fabricated in such a manner and of The provisions of this subpart are the use of pyrometallurgical techniques. materials of sufficient strength to applicable to each copper converter at "Primary emission control system" withstand incidental contact with ladles any new or existing primary copper means the hoods, ducts, and control and crane apparatus with no significant smelter, except as noted in § 61.172(a). devices used to capture, convey, and damage. collect process emissions. § 61.171 Definitions. "Process emissions" means inorganic (v) One side-wall of the hood All terms used in this subpart shall arsenic emissions from copper enclosure shall be equipped with a have the meanings given to them in the converters that are captured directly at horizontal-slotted plenum along the top, Act, in Subpart A of Part 61, and in this the source of generation. and the opposite side-wall shall be section as follows: "Secondary emissions" means equipped with an exhaust hood. The "Blowing" means the injection of air inorganic arsenic emissions that escape horizontal-slotted plenum shall be or oxygen-enriched air into a molten capture by a primary emission control designed to allow the distance from the converter bath. system. base to the top of the horizontal slot to "Charging" means the addition of a "Secondary hood system" means the be adjustable up to a dimension of 76 molten or solid material to a copper equipment (including hoods, ducts, fans, mm. converter. and dampers) used to capture and (vi) The horizontal-slotted plenum "Control device" means the air transport secondary inorganic arsenic shall be connected to a fan. When pollution control equipment used to emissions. activated, the fan shall push air through collect particulate matter emissions. "Shutdown" means the cessation of the horizontal slot, producing a "Converter arsenic charging rate" operation of a stationary source for any horizontal air curtain above the copper means the hourly rate at which arsenic reason. converter that is directed to the exhaust is charged to the copper converters in "Skimming" means the removal of hood. The fan power output installed the copper converter department based slag from the molten converter bath. shall be sufficient to overcome static on the arsenic content of the copper pressure losses through the ductwork matte and of any lead matte that is § 61.172 Standard for new and existing upstream of the horizontal-slotted charged to the copper converters. sources. plenum and across the plenum, and to "Copper converter" means any vessel (a) The provisions of paragraphs (b)- deliver at least 22,370 watts (30 air in which copper matte is charged and is (f) of this section do not apply to any horsepower) at the horizontal-slotted oxidized to copper. copper converter at a facility where the plenum discharge. "Copper converter department" total arsenic charging rate for the copper (vii) The exhaust hood shall be sized means all copper converters at a converter department averaged over a 1- to completely intercept the airstream primary copper smelter. year period is less than 75 kg/h, as from the horizontal-slotted plenum "Copper matte" means any molten determined under § 61.174(f). combined with the additional airflow solution of copper and iron sulfides (b) The owner or operator of each resulting from entrainment of the produced by smelting copper sulfide ore copper converter subject to the surrounding air. The exhaust hood shall concentrates or calcines. provisions of this subpart shall reduce be connected to a fan. When activated, "Holding of a copper converter" inorganic arsenic emissions to the the fan shall pull the combined means suspending blowing operations atmosphere by meeting the following airstream into the exhaust hood. while maintaining in a heated state the design, equipment, work practice, and (viii) The entire secondary hood molten bath in the copper converter. operational requirements: system shall be equipped with dampers 28030 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

and instrumentation, as appropriate, so (D) Notify the Administrator in shall operate and maintain the converter that the desired air curtain and exhaust writing within 30 days if there is any and associated air pollution control flow are maintained during each mode change in the operating conditions equipment in a manner consistent with of copper converter operation. submitted pursuant to the requirements good air pollution control practice for (2) Optimize the capture of secondary of paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B) that will result minimizing emissions of inorganic inorganic arsenic emissions by operating in any reduction in the maximum arsenic to the atmosphere to the the copper converter and secondary capture of inorganic arsenic emissions. maximum extent practicable. hood system at all times as follows: (3) Comply with the following Determination of whether acceptable (i) Copper converter. inspection and maintenance operating and maintenance procedures (A) Increase the air curtain and requirements after installing the are being used will be based on conditionsexhaust flow rates to their optimum secondary hood system required in prior to raising the information available to the primary paragraph (b)(1) of this section: Administrator, which may include, but hood and roiling the copper converter (i) At least once every month, visually is not limited to, monitoring results, out for charging, skimming, or pouring. inspect the components of the secondary review of operating and maintenance (B) Once rolled out, prior to the hood system that are exposed to commencement procedures, inspection of the source, of skimming or pouring, potential damage from crane and ladle and review of other records. hold the copper converter in an idle operation, including the hood enclosure, position until fuming from the molten side- and back-wall hood seals, and the § 61.173 Compliance provisions. bath has been minimized. horizontal slot. (a) The owner or operator of each (C) During skimming, raise the (ii) Replace or repair any defective or copper converter to which § 61.172(b)-(f) receiving ladle off the ground and damaged components of the secondary applies shall demonstrate compliance position the ladle as close to the copper hood system within 30 days after with the requirements of § 61.172(b)(1) converter mouth as possible to minimize discovering the defective or damaged as follows: the drop distance between the converter components. mouth and the receiving (1) The owner or operator of each ladle. (c) No owner or operator of a copper existing copper converter shall install a (D) Control the rate of flow into the converter subject to the provisions of receiving ladle to the extent practicable secondary hood system to meet the this subpart shall cause or allow to be requirements of § 61.172(b)(1) no later to minimize fuming. discharged into the atmosphere any (E) Upon the completion of each than 90 days after the effective date, copper converter secondary emissions unless a waiver of compliance has been charge, withdraw the charging ladle or that exit from a control device and vessel used from the confines of the approved by the Administrator in contain particulate matter in excess of accordance with § 61.11. secondary hood in a slow, deliberate 11.6 milligrams per dry standard cubic manner. (2) The owner or operator of each new meter. copper converter shall install a (F) During charging, skimming, or (d) The owner or operator of a copper pouring, ensure that the crane block secondary hood system to meet the converter subject to the provisions of 61.172(b)(1) prior to does not disturb the air flow between this subpart shall submit a description requirements of § the horizontal-slotted plenum and the of a plan for control the initial startup of the converter, of inorganic arsenic except that if startup occurs prior to the exhaust hood. emissions from the copper converter and (ii) Secondary hood system. associated air pollution control effective date, the owner or operator (A) Operate the secondary hood equipment. This plan shall be submitted shall meet the requirements of system under conditions that will result within 90 days after the effective date of § 61.172(b)(1) on the effective date. in the maximum capture of inorganic this subpart, unless a waiver of § 61.174 Test methods and procedures. arsenic emissions. compliance is granted under § 61.11. If a (B) Within 30 days after the effective (a) To determine compliance with waiver of compliance is granted, the shall date of this subpart, or within 30 days plan shall § 61.172(c), the owner or operator be submitted on a date set by conduct emission tests and reduce the after the initial operation of each the Administrator. Approval of the plan secondary hood system, whichever will be granted by test data in accordance with the test the Administrator methods and procedures contained in comes later, provide to the provided he finds that: Administrator a list of operating (1) It includes a systematic procedure this section unless the Administrator: conditions for the secondary hood for identifying malfunctions and for (1) Specifies or approves, in specific system that will result in the maximum reporting them immediately to smelter cases, the use of a reference method capture of inorganic arsenic emissions. supervisory personnel. with minor changes in methodology, This list shall specify the operating (2) It specifies the procedures that will (2) Approves the use of an equivalent parameters for the following: be followed to ensure that equipment or method, (1) The dimensions of the horizontal process breakdowns due entirely or in (3] Approves the use of an alternative slot. part to poor maintenance or other method, the results of which he has (2) The velocity of air through the preventable conditions do not occur. determined to be adequate for indicating horizontal slot during each mode of (3) It specifies the measures that will whether a specific source is in converter operation. be taken to ensure compliance with compliance, or (3) The distance from the horizontal paragraph (b)(2) of this section. (4) Waives the requirement for slot to the exhaust hood. (e) The owner or operator shall emission tests as provided in § 61.13. (4) The face velocity at the opening of implement the plan required under (b) The owner or operator shall the exhaust hood during each mode of paragraph (d) of this section unless conduct the emission tests required in converter operation. otherwise specified by the paragraph (a) of this section: (C) Operate the secondary hood Administrator. (1) After achieving the optimum system under the conditions listed in (f) At all times, including periods of operating conditions submitted under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the § 60.172(b)(2)(ii)(B) for the equipment unless otherwise specified by the owner or operator of a copper converter required in § 61.172(b)(1), but no later Administrator. subject to the provisions of this subpart than 90 days after the effective date of Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 28031

this subpart in the case of an existing a minimum of one cycle of n A.Wd + AIW. completing copper converter or a copper converter sampling and analysis for each that has an initial startup date preceding i=1 l0 H. successive 10-second period and one the effective date, or Where: cycle of data recording for each (2) After achieving the optimum Rc is the converter arsenic charging rate successive 6-minute period. Each data operating conditions submitted under (kg/h). point shall represent the opacity § 60.172(b)(2)(ii)(B) for the equipment Ac is the monthly average weight percent of measured for one cycle of sampling and required in § 61.172(b)(1), but no later arsenic in the copper matte charged analysis and shall be expressed as. than 90 days after startup in the case of during the month (%)as determined percent opacity. a new copper converter, initial startup under paragraph (f)(2) of this section. (b) Except as required in paragraph (c) of which occurs after the effective A, is the monthly average weight percent of date, arsenic in the lead matte charged during of this section, calculate 1-hour opacity or the month (%)as determined under averages from 360 or more consecutive (3) At such other times as may be paragraph (f)(2) of this section. data points equally spaced over each 1- required by the Administrator under Wd is the total weight of copper matte hour period. Data recorded during section 114 of the Act. charged to a copper converter during the periods of monitoring system (c) The owner or operator shall month (kg). breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, WH is the total weight of lead matte charged conduct each emission test under and zero and span adjustments shall not to a copper converter during the month be included in the data averages representative operating conditions and (kg). at sample locations subject to the H, is the total number of hours the copper computed under this paragraph. Administrator's approval, and shall converter department was in operation (c) No later than 60 days after each make available to the Administrator during the month (h). continuous opacity monitoring system such records as may be necessary to n is the number of copper converters in required in paragraph (a) of this section determine the conditions of the emission operation during the month. becomes operational, the owner or test. (4) Determine an annual arsenic operator shall establish a reference (d) For the purpose of determining charging rate for the copper converter opacity level for each monitored compliance with § 61.172(c), the owner department once per month by emission stream according to the or operator shall use reference methods computing the arithmetic average of the following procedures: in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, as 12 monthly converter arsenic charging (1) Conduct continuous opacity follows: rate values (1&) for the preceding 12- monitoring over a preplanned period of month period. not less (1) Method 5 for the measurement of than 36 hours during which the (g) An owner or operator may petition processes and emission control particulate matter, the Administrator for a modified equipment upstream of the monitoring (2) Method I for sample and velocity sampling and analysis schedule if system are operating under traverses, analyses performed for the first 12- representative operating conditions (3) Method 2 for velocity and month period after the effective date subject to the Administrator's approval. volumetric flow rate, show the source to be considerably This period shall include the time during (4) Method 3 for gas analysis, and below the applicability limit prescribed which the emission test required by (5) Method 4 for stack gas moisture. in § 61.172(a). § 61.13 is conducted. (e) For Method 5, the sampling time § 61.175 Monitoring requirements. (2) Calculate 6-minute averages of the for each run shall be at least 60 minutes (a] Each owner or operator of a source opacity readings using 36 or more and the minimum sampling volume shall that is subject to the emission limit consecutive data points equally spaced be 0.85 dscm (30 dscf) except that specified in § 61.172(c) shall install, over each 6-minute period. smaller times or volumes when calibrate, maintain, and operate a (3) Calculate 1-hour average opacity necessitated by process variables or continuous monitoring system for the values using 10 successive 6-minute other factors may be approved by the measurement of the opacity of emissions average opacity values (i.e., calculate a Administrator. discharged from the control device new 1-hour average opacity value every (f0 For the purpose of determining according to the following procedures: 6 minutes). Determine the highest 1-hour applicability under § 61.172(a), the (1) Ensure that each system is average opacity value observed during owner or operator shall determine the installed and operational no later than the 36-hour preplanned test period. converter arsenic charging rate as 90 days after the effective date of this (4) Calculate the reference opacity follows: subpart for a source that has an initial level by adding 5 percent opacity to the (1) Collect daily grab samples of startup date preceding the effective highest 1-hour average opacity copper matte and any lead matte date; and no later than 90 days after calculated in paragraph (c)(3) of this charged to the copper converters. startup for other sources. Verification of section. (2) Each calendar month, from the the operational status shall, as a (d) The owner or operator may daily grab samples collected under minimum, consist of an evaluation of the redetermine the reference opacity level paragraph (f)(1) of this section, put monitoring system in accordance with for the copper converter secondary together a composite copper matte the requirements and procedures emission stream at the time of each sample and a composite lead matte contained in Performance Specification emission test that demonstrates sample. Analyze the composite samples 1 of Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 60. compliance with the emission limit individually using Method 108A to (2) Comply with the provisions of required in § 61.172(c) according to the determine the weight percent of § 60.13(d) of 40 CFR Part 60. provisions of paragraphs (c)(1) through inorganic arsenic contained in each (3) Except for system breakdowns, (c)(4) of this section. sample. repairs, calibration checks, and zero (e) With a minimum of 30 days prior span adjustments, ensure that each (3) Calculate the converter arsenic notice, the Administrator may require continuous monitoring system is in the owner or operator to redetermine the charging rate once per month using the continuous operation and meets following equation: reference opacity level for any frequency of operation requirements by monitored emission stream. 28032 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

(f) Each owner or operator who is (6) All periods during which any a written report of the continuous required to install the equipment continuous monitoring system or device monitoring system evaluation; specified in § 61.172(b)(1) for the capture is inoperative; (2) Within 30 days after establishing of secondary copper converter (7) All maintenance and repairs the reference opacity level required in emissions shall install, calibrate, performed on each air pollution control § 61.175(c), a written report of the maintain, and operate a continuous system, continuous monitoring system, reference opacity level. The report shall monitoring device on each secondary or monitoring device; also include the opacity data used and hood system for the measurement of the (8) All records of 1-hour average the calculations performed to determine air flow through the horizontal-slotted opacity levels for each separate control the reference opacity level, and plenum and through the exhaust hood. device; and sufficient documentation to show that Each device shall be installed and (9) For each secondary hood system: process and emission control equipment operational no later than 90 days after (i) The reference flow rates for the were operating normally during the the effective date of this subpart for a horizontal-slotted plenum and exhaust reference opacity level determination; source that has an initial startup hood for each converter operating mode and preceding the effective date; and no estabilshed under § 61.175(g); (3) A written report each quarter of later than 90 days after startup for 6ther (ii) The actual flow rates; and each occurrence of excess opacity sources. (iii) A daily log of the start time and during the quarter. For purposes of this ((g) Each owner or operator subject to duration of each converter operating paragraph, an occurrence of excess the requirements in paragraph (f) of this mode. opacity is any 1-hour period during section shall establish for each (c) Each owner or operator subject to which the average opacity, as measured secondary hood system reference air the provisions of this subpart shall by the continuous monitoring system, flow rates for the horizontal-slotted maintain at the source for a period of at exceeds the reference opacity level plenum and exhaust hood for each mode least 2 years and make available to the established under § 61.175(c). of converter operation. The reference Administrator upon request the (d) The owner or operator subject to flow rates shall be established when the following records: the provisions of § 61.175(g) shall submit equipment is operating under the (1) For each copper converter, a daily to the Administrator: optimum operating conditions required record of the amount of copper matte (1) A written report of the reference in § 61.172(b)(2)(ii). and lead matte charged to the copper air flow rate within 30 days after (h) Each owner or operator shall converter and the total hours of establishing the reference air flow rates install the continuous monitoring operation. required in § 61.175(g); systems and monitoring devices (2) For each copper converter (2) A written report each quarter of all required in paragraphs (a) and (f) of this department, a monthly record of the air flow rates monitored during the section in such a manner that weight percent of arsenic contained in preceding 3-month period that are less representative measurements of the copper matte and lead matte as than 80 percent of the corresponding emissions and process parameters are determined under § 61.174(f). reference flow rate established for each obtained. (3) For each copper converter converter operating mode; and department, the monthly calculations of (3) A written report each quarter of §61.176 Recordkeeping requirements. the average annual arsenic charging rate any changes in the operating conditions (a) Each owner or operator subject to for the preceding 12-month period as of the emission capture system, emission the requirements of § 61.172(b)(1) shall determined under § 61.174(f). control device, or the building housing maintain at the source for a period of at (Approved by the Office of Management and the converters that might increase least 2 years records of the visual Budget under control number 2060-0044) fugitive emissions. inspections, maintenance, and repairs (e) All quarterly reports shall be performed on each secondary hood §61.177 Reporting requirements. postmarked by the 30th day following system as required in § 61.172(b)(3). (a) Each owner or operator subject to the end of each 3-month period and shall (b) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of § 61.172(c) shall: include the following information: the provisions of § 61.172(c) shall (1) Provide the Administrator 30 days (1) The magnitude of each occurrence maintain at the source for a period of at prior notice of the emission test required of excess opacity, any conversion least 2 years and make available to the in § 61.174(a) to afford the Administrator factor(s) used, and the dates and times Administrator upon request a file of the the opportunity to have an observer of commencement and completion of following records: present; and each occurrence of excess opacity, the (1) All measurements, including (2) Submit to the Administrator a cause of each exceedance of the continuous monitoring for measurement written report of the results of the reference opacity level, and the of opacity; I emission test required in § 61.174(a) measures taken to minimize emissions. (2) Records of emission test data and within 60 days after conducting the test. (2) The magnitude of each occurrence all calculations used to produce the (b) Each owner or operator subject to of reduced flow rate and the date and required reports of emission estimates to the provisions of § 61.175(a) shall time of commencement and completion demonstrate complaince with provide the Administrator at least 30 of each occurrence of reduced flow rate, § 61.172(c); days prior notice of each reference the cause of the reduced flow rate, and opacity level determination (3) All continuous monitoring system required in the associated converter operating § 61.175(c) to afford the Administrator performance evaluations, including mode. the opportunity to have an calibration checks and adjustments; observer (3) Specific identification of each present. occurrence of excess opacity or reduced (4] The occurrence and duration of all (c) Each owner or opertor subject to flow rate that occurs during startups, startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions the provisions of § 61.175(a) shall submit shutdowns, and malfunctions of the of the copper converters; to the Administrator: source. * (5) All malfunctions of the air (1) Within 60 days after conducting (4) The date and time identifying each pollution control system; the evaluation required in § 61.175(a)(1), period during which the continuous Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 28033 monitoring system or monitoring device and remove particulate matter from and materials handled in these was inoperative, except for zero and exhaust gases which are captured operations. span checks, and the nature of the directly at the source of generation. (2) It includes an inspection program system repairs or adjustments. "Process emissions" means inorganic that requires all process, conveying, and (5) Specific identification of each arsenic emissions that are captured and air pollution control equipment to be change in operating conditions of the collected in a primary emission control inspected at least once per shift to emission capture system or control system. ensure that the equipment is being device, or in the condition of the "Roasting" means the use of a furnace properly operated and maintained. The building housing the converters. to heat arsenic plant feed material for program will specify the evaluation (f) Each owner or operator of a source the purpose of eliminating a significant criteria and will use a standardized subject to the provisions of this subpart portion of the volatile materials checklist, which will be included as part shall submit annually a written report to contained in the feed. of the plan required in paragraph (b) of the Administrator that includes the "Secondary emissions" means this section, to document the inspection, monthly computations of the average inorganic arsenic emissions that escape maintenance, and housekeeping status annual converter arsenic charging rate capture by a primary emission control of the equipment and that the objectives as calculated under § 61.174(f)(4). The system. annual report shall be postmarked by of paragraph (b)[1) of this section are "Shutdown" means the cessation of being achieved. the 30th day following the end of each operation of a stationary source for any calendar year. (3) It includes a systematic procedure purpose. for identifying malfunctions and for (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2060-0044) § 61.182 Standard for new and existing reporting them immediately to sources. supervisory personnel. 4. Part 61 is amended by adding (a) Within 30 days after the effective (4) It specifies the procedures that will Subpart P as follows: date of this subpart, the owner or be followed to ensure that equipment or Subpart P-National Emission operator of each source to which this process malfunctions due entirely or in Standard for Inorganic Arsenic subpart applies shall identify and part to poor maintenance or other Emissions From Arsenic Trioxide and submit to the Administrator a list of preventable conditions do not occur. Metallic Arsenic Production Facilities potential sources (equipment and (5) It includes a program for curtailing operations) of inorganic arsenic all operations necessary to minimize § 61.180 Applicability and designation of emissions. any increase in emissions of inorganic sources. (b) The owner or operator shall arsenic to the atmosphere resulting from The provisions of this subpart are submit a description of an inspection, a malfunction. The program will applicable to each metallic arsenic maintenance, and housekeeping plan for describe: production plant and to each arsenic control of inorganic arsenic emissions (i) The specific steps that will be trioxide plant that processes low-grade from the potential sources identified taken to curtail each operation as soon arsenic bearing materials by a roasting under paragraph (a) of this section. This as technically feasible after the condensation process. plan shall be submitted within 90 days malfunction is discovered. § 61.181 Definitions. after the effective date of this subpart, (ii) The minimum time required to unless a waiver of compliance is granted All terms used in this subpart shall curtail each operation. under § 61.11. If a waiver of compliance have the meanings given them in the is granted, the plan shall be submitted (iii) The procedures that will be used Act, in Subpart A of Part 61, and in this on a date set by the Administrator. to ensure that the curtailment continues section as follows: Approval of the plan will be granted by until after the malfunction is corrected. "Arsenic kitchen" means a baffled the Administrator provided he finds (c) The owner or operator shall brick chamber where inorganic arsenic that: implement the plan required in vapors are cooled, condensed, and paragraph (b) of this section until removed in a solid form. (1) It achieves the following objectives in a manner that does not cause adverse otherwise specified by the "Control device" means the air Administrator. pollution control equipment used to impacts in other environmental media: collect particulate matter emissions. (i) Clean-up and proper disposal, wet- (d) At all times, including periods of "Curtail" means to cease operations down, or chemical stabilization to the startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the to the extent technically feasible to extent practicable (considering access owner or operator of each source to reduce emissions. and safety) of any dry, dusty material which this subpart applies shall operate "Inorganic arsenic" means the oxides having an inorganic arsenic content and maintain the source including and other noncarbon compounds of the greater than 2 percent that accumulates associated air pollution control element arsenic included in particular on any surface within the plant equipment in a manner consistent with matter, vapors, and aerosols. boundaries outside of a dust-tight good air pollution control practice for "Malfunction" means any sudden enclosure. minimizing emissions of inorganic failure of air pollution control equipment (ii) Immediate clean-up and proper arsenic to the atmosphere to the or process equipment or of a process to disposal, wet-down, or chemical maximum extent practicable. operate in a normal or usual manner so stabilization of spills of all dry, dusty Determination of whether acceptable that emissions of inorganic arsenic are material having an inorganic arsenic operating and maintenance procedures increased. content greater than 2 percent. are being used will be based on "Opacity" means the degree to which (iii) Minimization of emissions of information available to the emissions reduce the transmission of inorganic arsenic to the atmosphere Administrator, which may include, but light. during removal of inorganic arsenic from is not limited to, monitoring results, "Primary emission control system" the arsenic kitchen and from flue pulling review of operating and maintenance means the hoods, enclosures, ducts, and operations by properly handling, wetting procedures, inspection of the source, control devices used to capture, convey, down, or chemically stabilizing all dusts and review of other records. 28034 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday. August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

§ 61.183 Emission monitoring. not less than 36 hours during which the shall maintain at the source for a period (a) The owner or operator of each processes and emission control of at least 2 years the following records: source subject to the provisions of this equipment upstream of the monitoring All measurements, including continuous subpart shall install, calibrate, maintain, system are operating in a manner that monitoring for measurement of opacity; and operate a continuous monitoring will minimize opacity under all continuous monitoring system system for -the measurement of the representative operating conditions performance evaluations, including opacity of each arsenic trioxide and- subject to the Administrator's approval. calibration checks and adjustments; all metallic arsenic process emission (2) Calculate 6-minute averages of the periods during which the continuous' stream that exits from a control device. opacity readings using 36 or more monitoring system or monitoring device (b) The owner or operator shall consecutive data points equally spaced is inoperative; and all maintenance and install, operate, and maintain each over each 6-minute period. repairs made to the continuous continuous monitoring system for the (3) Establish the reference opacity monitoring system or monitoring device. measurement of-opacity required in level by determining the highest 6- (b) Each owner or operator shall paragraph (a) of this section according minute average opacity calculated under maintain at the source for a period of at to the following procedures: paragraph (d)(2) of this section. least 2 years a log for each plant (1) Ensure that each system is (e) With a minimum of 30 days prior department in which the operating installed and operational no later than notice, the Administrator may require an status of process, conveying, and 90 days after the effective date of this owner or operator to redetermine the emission control equipment is described subpart for an existing source or a new reference opacity level for any for each shift. For malfunctions and source that has an initial startup date monitored emission stream. upsets, the following information shall preceding the effective date. For a new (f) Each owner or operator shall be recorded in the log: source whose initial startup occurs after install all continuous monitoring (1) The time of discovery. the effective date of this subpart, ensure systems or monitoring devices required (2) A description of the malfunction or that the system is installed and in paragraph (a) of this section in such a operational no later than 90 days after manner that representative upset. startup. Verification of the operational measurements of emissions or process (3) The time corrective action was status shall, as a minimum, consist of an parameters are obtained. initiated. evaluation of the monitoring system in (4) A description of corrective action accordance with the requirements and § 61.184 Ambient air monitoring for taken. procedures contained in Performance Inorganic arsenic, (5) The time corrective action was Specification I of Appendix B of 40 CFR (a) The owner or operator of each completed. which this subpart applies Part 60. source to (6) A description of steps taken to '(2) Comply with the provisions of shall operate a continuous monitoring system for the measurement of inorganic reduce emissions of inorganic arsenic § 60.13(d) of 40 CFR Part 60. the atmosphere between the time of (3) Except for system breakdowns, arsenic concentrations in the ambient to repairs, calibration checks, and zero and air. discovery and the time corrective span adjustments required under (b) The ambient air monitors shall be action was taken. § 60.13(d), ensure that each continuous located at sites to detect maximum (c) Each owner or operator subject to monitoring system is in continuous concentrations of inorganic arsenic in the provisions of this subpart shall operation and meets frequency of the ambient air in accordance with a maintain for a period of a least 2 years operation requirements by completing a, plan approved by the Administrator that records of 6-minute average opacity minimum of one cycle of sampling and shall include the sampling and levels for each separate control device. analysis for each successive 10-second analytical method used. (d) Each owner or operator subject to period and one cycle of data recording (c) The owner or operator shall submit the provisions of § 01.186 shall maintain for each successive 6-minute period. a written plan describing, and for a period of at least 2 years records of Each data point shall represent the explaining the basis for, the design and ambient inorganic arsenic opacity measured for one cycle of adequacy of the monitoring network, concentrations at all sampling sites and sampling and analysis and shall be sampling and analytical procedures, and other data needed to determine such expressed as percent opacity. quality assurance within 45 days after concentrations. (c) The owner or operator shall the effective date of this subpart. calculate 6-minute opacity averages (d) Each monitor shall be operated (Approved by the Office of Management and from 36 or more consecutive data points continuously except for a reasonable Budget under control number 2060-0042.) equally spaced over each 6-minute time allowance for instrument §61.186 Reporting requirements. period. Data recorded during periods of maintenance and calibration, for (a) Each owner or operator subject to monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, changing filters, or for replacement of the provisions of § 61.183(a) shall calibration checks, and zero and span equipment needing major repair. provide the Administrator at least 30 adjustments shall not be included in the (e) Filters shall be changed daily and days prior notice of each reference data averages computed under this shall be analyzed and concentrations opacity level determination required in paragraph. calculated within 30 days after filters than 60 days after each § 61.183(a) to afford the Administrator (d) No later are collected. the opportunity to have an observer continuous opacity monitoring system (f) The Administrator at any time may present. required in paragraph (a) of this section require changes in, or expansion of, the becomes operational, the owner or sampling program, including sampling (b) Each owner or operator subject to operator shall establish a reference and analytical protocols and network the provisions of §,61.183(a) shall submit opacity level for each monitored design. to the Administrator: emission stream according'to the (1) Within 60 days of conducting the following procedures: § 61.185 Recordkeeping requirements. evaluation required in § 61.183(b)(1), a - (1)Conduct continuous opacity- - (a) Each owner or operator of a source written report of the continuous monitoring over a preplanned period of subject to the provisions of this subpart monitoring system evaluation; Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 28035

(2) Within 30 days of establishing the and results, for the reporting period, of 1.2 Principle. Particulate and gaseous reference opacity level required in any pilot plant studies on alternative arsenic emissions are withdrawn § 61.183(d), a written report of the arsenic trioxide production processes. isokinetically from the source and collected reference opacity level. The report shall Conclusions and recommendations of on a glass mat filter and in water. The also include the opacity data used and collected arsenic is then analyzed by means the studies shall also be reported. of atomic absorption spectrophotometry. the calculations performed to determine (e) All semiannual progress reports the reference opacity level, and required in paragraph (d) of this section 2. Apparatus sufficient documentation to show that shall be postmarked by the 30th day 2.1 Sampling Train. A schematic of the process and emission control equipment following the end of each 6-month sampling train is shown in Figure 108-1; it is were operating normally during the period. similar to the Method 5 train of 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A. NOTE: This and all reference opacity level determination; (f) Each owner or operator of a source and subsequent references to other methods refer to which this subpart applies shall to the methods in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix (3) A written report each quarter of submit a written report each quarter to A. The sampling train consists of the each occurrence of excess opacity the Administrator that includes the following components: during the quarter. For the purposes of following information: 2.1.1 Probe Nozzle, Probe Liner, Pitot this paragraph, an occurrence of excess Tube, Differential Pressure Gauge, Filter (1) All ambient inorganic arsenic opacity is any 6-minute period during Holder, Filter Heating System, Metering which the average opacity, as measured concentrations measured at all System, Barometer, and Gas Density monitoring sites in accordance by the continuous monitoring system, with Determination Equipment. Same as Method 5. 61.184. exceeds the reference opacity level § Sections 2.1.1 to 2.1.6 and 2.1.8 to 2.1.10, (2) A description of any modifications respectively. established under § 61.183(d). 2.1.2 Filter Heating System. Any heating (c) All quarterly reports of excess to the sampling network, during the reporting period, including any major (or cooling) system capable of maintaining a opacity shall be postmarked by the 30th sample gas temperature at the exit end of the day following the end of each quarter maintenance, site changes, calibrations, filter holder during sampling at 121 + 14°C and shall include the following and quality assurance information (250 ± 25°FJ. Install a temperature gauge information: including sampling and analytical capable of measuring temperature to within (1) The magnitude of excess opacity, precision and accuracy estimates. 3°C {5.4°F) at the exit end of the filter holder any conversion factor(s) used, and the (g) All quarterly reports required in so that the sample gas temperature can be regulated and monitored during sampling. dates and times of commencement and paragraph (f) of this section shall be postmarked by The tester may use systems other than the completion of each occurrence of excess the 30th day following one shown in APTD-0591. opacity, the cause of each exceedance of the end of each quarter. 2.1.3 Impingers. Four impingers connected the reference opacity level, and the (Approved by the Office of Management and in series with leak-free ground-glass fittings measures taken to minimize emissions. Budget under control number 2060-0042) or any similar leak-free noncontaminating (2) Specific identification of each fittings. For the first, third, and fourth Appendix B-[Amended] period of excess opacity that occurred impingers, use the Greenburg-Smith design. during startups, shutdowns, and modified by replacing the tip with a 1.3-cm-ID 5. Part 61 is amended by adding (0.5 in.) glass tube extending to about 1.3 cm malfunctions of the source. Method 108 to Appendix B as follows: (0.5 in.) from the bottom of the flask. For the (3) The date and time identifying each second impinger, use the Greenburg-Smith period during which the continuous design with the standard tip. The tester may monitoring system or monitoring device Method 108-Determination of use modifications (e.g., flexible connections was inoperative, except for zero and Particulate and Gaseous Arsenic between the impingers, materials other than span checks, and the nature of the Emissions glass, or flexible vacuum lines to connect the system repairs or adjustments. filter holder to the condenser), subject to the 1.Applicability and Principle approval of the Administrator. (d) Each owner or operator subject to 1.1 Applicability. This method applies to Place a thermometer, capable of measuring this subpart shall submit a written the determination of inorganic arsenic (As) temperature to within IC (2°F), at the outlet report semiannually to the emissions from stationary sources as of the fourth impinger for monitoring Administrator that describes the status specified in the applicable subpart. purposes. 28036 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

TEMPERATURE SENSOR

STACK THeERMOMETER j WALL PROBE

REVERSE TYPE I- PlJOT TUBE

ORIFICE MANOMETER

Figure 108-1. Arsenic sampling train.

2.2 Sample Recovery. The following items 2.3.2 Recorder. To match the output of the 3.1.2 Silica Gel, Crushed Ice, and are needed: spectrophotometer. Stopcock Grease. Same as Method 5. 2.2.1 Probe-Liner and Probe-Nozzle 2.3.3 Beakers. 150-ml. Sections 3.1.2, 3.1.4, and 3.1.5, respectively. Brushes, Petri Dishes, Graduated Cylinder or 2.3.4 Volumetric Flasks. Glass 50-, 100-, 3.1.3 Water. Deionized distilled to meet Balance, Plastic Storage Containers, Rubber 200-, 500-, and 1000-ml; and polypropylene, American Society for Testing and Materials Policeman, and Funnel. Same as Method 5, 50-ml. Specification D 1133-74, Type 3 (incorporated Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.4 to 2.2.8, respectively. 2.3.5 Balance. To measure within 0.5 g. by reference-see § 60.17]. When high 2.2.2 Wash Bottles. Polyethylene (2). 2.3.6 Volumetric Pipets. 1-, 2-, 3-, 5-, 8-, concentrations of organic matter are not 2.2.3 Sample Storage Containers. and 10-ml. expected to be present, the analyst may omit Chemically resistant, polyethylene or 2.3.7 Oven. the KMnO 4 test for oxidizable organic matter. polypropylene for glassware washes, 500- or 2.3.8 Hot Plate. 3.2 Sample Recovery. 0.1 N sodium 1000-ml. hydroxide (NaOH) is required. Dissolve 4.00 g 2.3 Analysis. The following equipment is 3. Reagents of NaOH in about 500 ml of water in a 1-liter needed: Unless otherwise specified, use American volumetric flask. Then, dilute to exactly 1.0 2.3.1 Spectrophotometer. Equipped with Chemical Society reagent grade (or liter with water. an electrodeless discharge lamp and a equivalent) chemicals throughout. 3.3 Analysis. The reagents needed for background corrector to measure absorbance 3.1 Sampling. The reagents used in analysis are as follows: at 193.7 nm. For measuring samples having sampling are as follows: 3.3.1 Water. Same as 3.1.2. less than 10 )g As/ml, use a vapor generator 3.1.1 Filters. Same as Method 5 except 3.3.2 Sodium Hydroxide, 0.1 N. Same as accessory or a graphite furnace. that the filters need not be unreactive to SO 2 . 3.2. Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 28037

3.3.3 Sodium Borohydride (NaBH4J, 5 3.3.11 Air. Suitsble quality for atomic 4. Procedure Percent (W/V). Dissolve 5.00 8 of NaBI-I, in absorption analysis. 4.1 Sampling. Because of the complexity about 500 ml of 0.1 N NaOH in a 1-liter 3.3.12 Acetylene. Suitable quality for of this method, testers must be trained and volumetric flask. Then, dilute to exactly 1.0 atomic absorption analysis. experienced with the test procedures in order 3.3.13 Nickel Nitrate, liter with 0.1 N NaOH. 5 Percent (W/V). to obtain reliable results. Dissolve 24.780 g of nickel nitrate 3.3.4 Hydrochloric Acid (HCI), 4.1.1 Pretest Preparation. Follow the hexahydrate in water in a 100-ml volumetric Concentrated. general procedure given in Method 5, Section flask and dilute to 100 ml with water. 3.3.5 Potassium Iodine (KI), 30 Percent 4.1.1, except the filter need not be weighed. 3.3.14 Nickel Nitrate, I Percent {W/V). (W/V). Dissolve 300 g of KI in 500 ml of water Determinations. Follow Pipet 20 ml of 5 percent nickel nitrate solution 4.1.2 Preliminary in a 1-liter volumetric flask. Then, dilute to given in Method 5, into a 100-ml volumetric flask and dilute to the general procedure exactly 1.0 liter with water. the nozzle size to exactly 100 ml with water. Section 4.1.2, except select 3.3.6 Nitric Acid (HNO3 ), Concentrated. maintain isokinetic sampling rates below 28 3.3.7 Nitric Acid, 0.8 N. Dilute 52 ml of 3.3.15 Hydrogen Peroxide, 3 Percent. Pipet 50 ml of 30 percent hydrogen peroxide into a liters/min (1.0 cfm). concentrated HNO3 to exactly 1.0 liter with 4.1.3 Preparation of Collection Train. water. 500 ml volumetric flask and dilute to exactly 500 ml with water. Follow the general procedure given in 3.3.8 Nitric Acid, 50 Percent (V/V). Add 3.3.16 Quality Assurance Audit Samples. Method 5, Section 4.1.3. 50 ml concentrated HNO to 50 ml water. 3 Arsenic samples prepared by the 4.1.4 Leak-Check Procedures. Follow the 3.3.9 Stock Arsenic Standard, I mg As/ml. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) leak-check procedures given in Method 5, Dissolve 1.3203 g of primary standard grade Environmental Systems Laboratory, Quality Sections 4.1.4.1 (Pretest Leak-Check), 4.1.4.2 As2O3 in 20 ml of 0.1 N NaOH in a 150-ml Assurance Division, Source Branch, Mail (Leak-Checks During Sample Run), and 4.1.4.3 beaker. Slowly add 30 ml of concentrated Drop 77A, Research Triangle Park, North (Post-Test Leak-Check). HNO3. Heat the resulting solution and Carolina 27711. Each set will consist of two 4.1.5 Arsenic Train Operation. Follow the evaporate just to dryness. Transfer the vials of unknown concentrations. Only when general procedure given in Method 5, Section residue quantitatively to a 1-liter volumetric making compliance determinations, obtain an 4.1.5. except maintain a temperature of 107" flask and dilute to 1.0 liter with water. audit sample set from the Quality Assurance to 135*C (225* to 275"F) around the filter and 3.3.10 Arsenic Working Solution, 1.0 j;g Management Office at each EPA regional maintain isokinetic sampling flow rates As/ml. Pipet exactly 1.0 ml of stock arsenic office or the responsible enforcement office. below 28 liters/min (1.0 cfm). For each run, standard into an acid-cleaned, appropriately (NOTE: The tester should notify the Quality record the data required on a data sheet such labeled i-liter volumetric flask containing Assurance Office or the responsible as the one shown in Figure 108-2. about 500 ml of water and 5 ml of enforcement agency at least 30 days prior to 4.1.6 Calculation of Percent Isokinetic. Same as Method 5, Section 4.1.6. concentrated HNO3. Dilute to exactly 1.0 liter the test date to allow sufficient time for with water. delivery.) BILLING CODE 6560-SOM August 4, 1986 /Rules and Regulations 28038 Federal Register /Vol. 51, No. 149 Monday.

a u

0 z

ci a I- I"

b i~- LU LU cc~ : ~Ud u a w = ,

C' Cc~ - m_ .4 ~ - - -- _ - - CC C6.2 4 -0 CL. cc

>na

UjU 04 0 CD 4- 0

0 - 0 00 cc~ me

i cca -1 1

z 0, In 4Li u U cr~I x a C3 CU co w

0 0.

2 -j 0 0L Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 28039 I I I

4.2 Sample Recovery. The same as approval of the Administrator, to adjust the to 15 ml with water. Since there is some trial Method 5, Section 4.2 except that 0.1 N NaOH final results. and error involved in this procedure, it may is used as the cleanup solvent instead of Transfer the contents of Container Number be necessary to screen the samples by acetone and that the impinger water is 4 to a 500-ml volumetric flask, and dilute to conventional atomic absorption until an treated as follows: exactly 500 ml with water. Pipet 50 ml of the approximate concentration is determined. Container Number 4 (Impinger Water). solution into a 150-mi beaker. Add 10 ml of After determining the approximate Clean each of the first two impingers and concentrated HNO3. bring to a boil, and concentration, adjust the volume of the connecting glassware in the following evaporate to dryness. Allow to cool, add 5 ml sample accordingly. Pipet 15 ml of manner: of 50 percent HNO3, and then warm and stir. concentrated HCI into each tube..Add 1 ml of a. Wipe the impinger ball joints free of Allow the solution to cool, transfer to a 50-ml 30 percent KI solution. Place the reaction tube silicone grease, and cap the joints. volumetric flask, dilute to volume with water, into a 50"C water bath for 5 minutes. Cool to b. Weigh the impinger and liquid to within and mix well. room temperature. Connect the reaction tube :t0.5 g. Record in the log the weight of liquid 4.3.3 Container Number 2 (Probe Wash). to the vapor generator assembly. When the along with a notation of any color or film See note in 4.3.2 above. Filter (using a glass instrument response has returned to baseline, observed in the impinger catch. The weight of fiber filter) the contents of Container Number inject 5.0 ml of 5 percent NaBI-L, and liquid is needed along with the silica gel data 2 into a 200-ml volumetric flask. Combine the integrate the resulting spectrophotometer to calculate the stack gas moisture content. filtered material with the contents of signal over a 30-second time period. c. Rotate and agitate each impinger, using Container Number I (Filter). 4.5.1.1.2 Graphite Furnace Procedure. the impinger contents as a rinse solution. Dilute the filtrate to exactly 200 ml with Dilute the digested sample so that a 5-ml d. Transfer the liquid to Container Number water. Then pipet 50 ml into a 150-ml beaker. aliquot contains less than 1.5 ltg of arsenic. 4. Remove the outlet ball-joint cap, and drain Add 10 ml of concentrated HNOs, bring to a Pipet 5 ml of this digested solution into a 10- the contents through this opening. Do not boil, and evaporate to dryness. Allow to cool, ml volumetric flask. Add I ml of the 1 percent separate the impinger parts (inner and outer add 5 ml of 50 percent HNO 3, and then warm nickel nitrate solution, 0.5 ml of 50 percent tubes) 'while transferring their contents to the and stir. Allow the solution to cool, transfer HNO 3, and 1 ml of the 3 percent hydrogen cylinder. to a 50-ml volumetric flask, dilute to volume peroxide and dilute to 10 ml with water. The e. (Note: In Steps e and f below, measure with water, and mix well. sample is now ready to inject in the furnace and record the total amount of 0.1 N NaOH 4.3.4 Filter Blank. Determine a filter blank for analysis. used for rinsing.] Pour approximately 30 ml of using two filters from each lot of filters used Because instruments from different 0.1 NaOH into each of the first two impingers, in the sampling. Cut each filter into strips, manufacturers are different, no detailed and agitate the impingers. Drain the 0.1 N and treat each filter individually as directed operating instructions will be given here. NaOH through the outlet arm of each in Section 4.3.1, beginning with the sentence. Instead, the analyst should follow the impinger into Container Number 4. Repeat "Add 50 ml of 0.1 N NaOH." instructions provided with his particular this operation a second time. inspect the 4.3.5 0.1 N NaOH and Water Blanks. instrument. impingers for any abnormal conditions. Treat separately 50 ml of 0.1 N NaOH and 50 4.5.1.2 Check for Matrix Effects on the f. Wipe the ball joints of the glassware ml water, as directed under Section 4.3.2, Arsenic Results. Same as Method 12, Section connecting the impingers and the back half of beginning with the sentence, "Pipet 50 ml of 5.4.2. the filter holder free of silicone grease, and the solution into a 150-ml beaker." 4.4 Spectrophotometer Preparation. Turn 4.5.2 Container Number 3 (Silica Gel). The rinse each piece of glassware twice with 0.1 tester may conduct this step in the field. N NaOH; transfer this rinse into Container on the power, set the wavelength, slit width, silica gel (or silica gel plus and lamp current; and adjust the background Weigh the spent Number 4. (DO NOT RINSE or brush the impinger) to the nearest 0.5 g; record this filter support.) Mark the height of corrector as instructed by the manufacturer's glass-fritted weight. the fluid level to determine whether leakage manual for the particular atomic absorption spectrophotometer. Adjust the burner and 4.6 Audit Analysis. Concurrently, analyze occurs during transport. Label the container audit samples with each set to identify clearly its contents. flame characteristics as necessary. the two unknown 4.2.1 Blanks. Save a portion of the 0.1 N 4.5 Analysis. of compliance samples to evaluate the NaOH used for cleanup as a blank. Take 200 4.5.1 Arsenic Determination. Prepare techniques of the analyst and the standards It is recommended that ml of this solution directly from the wash standard solutions as directed under Section preparation. (Note: bottle being used and place it in a plastic 5.1, and measure their absorbances against known quality control samples be analyzed sample container labeled "NaOH blank." 0.8 N HNOs. Then, determine the prior to the compliance and audit sample Also save a sample of the water, and place it absorbances of the filter blank and each analysis to optimize the system's accuracy and precision. One source of these samples is in a container labeled "H 20 blank." sample using 0.8 N HNO as a reference. If 4.3 Arsenic Sample Preparation. the sample concentration falls outside the the Source Branch listed in Section 3.3.16.) 4.3.1 Container Number I (Filter). Place range of the calibration curve, make an The same analyst, analytical reagents, and the filter and loose particulate matter in a appropriate dilution with 0.8 N HNOs so that analytical system shall be used both for each 150-mi beaker. Also, add the filtered material the final concentration falls within the range set or sets of compliance samples and the from Container Number 2 (see Section 4.3.3]. of the curve. Determine the arsenic EPA audit samples; if this condition is met, Add 50 ml of 0.1 N NaOH. Then stir and concentration in the filter blank (i.e., the audit samples need not be included with any warm on a hot plate at low heat (do not boil) average of the two blank values from each additional compliance analyses performed for about 15 minutes. Add 10 ml of lot). Next, using the appropriate standard within the succeeding 30-day period for the same enforcement agency. An audit sample concentrated HNO 3. bring to a boil, then curve, determine the arsenic concentration in simmer for about 15 minutes. Filter the each sample fraction. set may not be used to validate different sets solution through a glass fiber filter. Wash 4.5.1.1 Arsenic Determination at Low of compliance samples under the jurisdiction with hot water, and catch the filtrate in a Concentration. The lower limit of flame of different enforcement agencies unless prior clean 150-ml beaker. Boil the filtrate, and atomic absorption spectrophotometry is 10 pg arrangements are made with both evaporate to dryness. Cool, add 5 ml of 50 As/ml. If the arsenic concentration of any enforcement agencies. Calculate the concentration in g/m 3 using percent HNO 3, and then warm and stir. Allow sample is at a lower level, use the graphite to cool. Transfer to a 50-ml volumetric flask, furnace or vapor generator which is available the specified sample volume in the audit dilute to volume with water, and mix well. as an accessory component. The analyst also instructions. (Note: The analyst may 4.3.2 Container Number 4 (Arsenic has the option of using either of these determine immediately whether the audit Impinger Sample]. accessories for samples whose analyses acceptable by reporting the audit Note: Prior to analysis, check the liquid concentrations are between 10 and 30 pg/ml. results in g/m 3 and compliance results in I~g/ level in Containers Number 2 and Number 4; Follow the manufacturer's instructions in the ml by telephone). Include the results of both confirm as to whether leakage occurred use of such equipment. audit samples, their identification numbers, during transport on the analysis sheet. If a 4.5.1.1.1 Vapor Generator Procedure. and the analysts' names with the results of noticeable amount of leakage occurred, either Place a sample containing between 0 and 5 the compliance determination samples in void the sample or take steps, subject to the pg of arsenic in the reaction tube, and dilute appropriate reports to the EPA regional office 28040 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations or the appropriate enforcement agency. V,=Volume of solution in which the arsenic . is contained, 6. Part 61 is amended by adding Include this information with subsequent ml. Method 108A to Appendix B as follows: compliance analyses for the same V,(.,d)=Volume of water vapor collected in enforcement agency during the succeeding the sampling train, corrected to standard 3 30-day period. conditions, sm (scf). Method 108A-Determination of Arsenic 5. Calibration AHl=Average pressure differential across the Content in Ore Samples From Nonferrous orifice meter (see Figure 108-2), mm H20 Smelters Maintain a laboratory log of all (in. H20. calibrations. 6.2 Average dry gas meter temperatures 1. Applicability and Principle 5.1 Standard Solutions. For the high level (Tm) and average orifice pressure drop (AH). 1.1 Applicability. procedure This method applies to pipet 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10 ml of the 1.0- See data sheet (Figure 108-2]. the determination mg As/ml stock solution into separate 100-ml of inorganic arsenic (As) 6.3 Dry Gas Volume. Using data from this content of process ore and reverberatory volumetic flasks, each containing a ml of test, calculate Vm.4td) by using Eq. 5-1 of concentrated HNO a. Ifthe low level vapor matte samples from nonferrous smelters and Method 5. If necessary, adjust the volume for other sources as specified in the regulations. generator procedure is used, pipet 1, 2, 3, and leakages. 5 ml of 1.0 fkg As/ml standard solution into 1.2 Principle. Arsenic bound in ore 6.4 Volume of Water Vapor. samples is liberated by acid digestion and the separate reaction tubes. For the low level Vwt(td)=Ki (nii-mbi) Eq. 108-1 graphite furnace procedure, pipet 1, 5, 10 and analyzed by'atomic absorption 15 ml of 1.0 jg As/ml standard solution into Where: spectrophotometry. the separate Ki =0.001334 ma/g for metric units. flasks along with 2 ml of the 5 3 2. Apparatus percent nickel nitrate solution and 10 ml of =0.047012 ft /g for English units. the 3 percent hydrogen peroxide solution. 6.5 Moisture Content. 2.1 Sample Preparation Dilute to the mark with water. Then treat the 2.1.1 Parr Acid Digestion Bomb. Stainless standards in the same manner as the samples Vv(std) steel with vapor-tight Teflon cup and cover. (Section 4.5). Bw.= V.tEq. 108-2 2.1.2 Volumetric Pipets. 2- and 5-ml sizes. Vm(,tdi + VW(,d Check these absorbances frequently 2.1.3 Volumetric Flask. 5)-ndt against 0.8 N HNO 3 (reagent blank) during polypropylene with screw caps, (one needed the analysis to insure that base-line drift has per standard). not occurred. Prepare a standard curve of 6.6 Amount of arsenic collected. 2.1.4 Funnel.. Polyethylena or absorbance versus concentration. (Note: For 6.6.1 Calculate the amount of arsenic polypropylene. instruments equipped with direct collected in each part of sampling train, as 2.1.5 Oven. Capable of maintaininga concentration readout devices, preparation of follows: temperature of approximately 105°C. a standard curve will not be. necessary.) In all mn=CFdVn Eq. 108-3 2.1.6 Analytical Balance To measure to cases, follow calibration and operational 6.6.2 Calculate the total amount of arsenic within 0.1 mg. collected in the sampling procedures in the manufacturers' instruction train as follows: 2.2 Analysis. m,= m,(filters) + m,(probe} + m,(impingers) manual. - m,{~fiher blank)}- m,{NaOH) -m,(H20) 2.2.1 Spectrophotometer and Recorder. 5.2 Sampling Train Calibration. Calibrate Equipped with an electrodeless discharge the sampling train components according Eq. 108-4 to 6.7 lamp and a background corrector to measure the indicated Sections of Method 5: Probe Calculate the arsenic concentration in the stack gas (dry basis, adjusted to standard absorbance at 193.7 nm. A graphite furnace Nozzle (Section 5.1), Pitot Tube Assembly conditions] as follows: may be used in place of the vapor generator (Section 5.2), Metering System (Section 5.3), accessory when measuring samples with low C.=K,(mt/Vm(.td)) Eq. 108-5 Probe Heater (Section 5.4), Temperature As levels. The recorder shall match the Gauges (Section 5.5), Leak Check of Metering Where: output of the spectrophotometer. System (Section 5.6), and Barometer (Section K=10-'g/Ag 2.2.2 Volumetric Flasks. Class A, 50-ml 5.7). 6.8 Pollutant Mass Rate. Calculate the (one needed per sample and blank). arsenic mass emission rate using the 6. Calculations 2.2.3 Volumetric Pipets. Class A, 1-, 5-, following equation. 10-, and 25-mi sizes. 6.1 Nomenclature- Ea= C.Qd Eq. 108-6 B,, = Water in the gas stream, proportion by The volumetric flow rate, Qld, should be 3. Reagents volume. calculated as indicated in Method 2. Unless otherwise specified, use ACS C. = Concentration of arsenic as read from 6.9 Isokinetic Variation. Using data from reagent grade (or equivalent) chemicals the standard curve, Ag/ml. this test, calculate I. Use Eq. 5-8 of Method 5. throughout. Cc = Actual audit concentration, g/m3. 6.10 Acceptable Results. Same as Method 3.1 Sample Preparation. Cd = Determined audit concentration, g/m3. 5, Section 6.12. 3.1.1 Water. Deionized distilled to meet C, = Arsenic concentration in stack gas, dry 6.11 Relative Error (RE) for QA Audits, American Society for Testing and Materials basis, converted to standard conditions, Percent. Specification D-1193-74, Type 3 g/dsm3 (g/dscf]. (incorporated by reference-See § 60.7). E. = Arsenic mass emission rate, g/hr. Cd-C. When high concentrations of organic matter Fd = Dilution factor (equals 1 if the sample RE= x100 Eq. 108-7 are not expected to be present. the analyst has not been diluted). C, may omit the Kl1nO 4 test for oxidizable I = Percent of isokinetic sampling. organic matter. Use in all dilutions requiring mbi = Total mass of all four impingers and water. contents before sampling, g. 3.1.2 Nitric Acid (HNO 3), Concentrated. mti = Total mass of all four impingers and 7. Bibliography HANDLE WITH CAUTION. contents after sampling, g. 1. Same as Citations 1 through 9 of Section 3.1.3 Nitric Acid, 0.5 N. In a 1-liter mn = Total mass of arsenic collected in a 7, of Method 5. volumetric flask containing water, add 32 ml specific part of the sampling train, jAg. 2. Perkin Elmer Corporation. Analytical of concentrated HNO 3 and dilute to volume mt=Total mass of arsenic collected in the Methods for Atomic Absorption with water. sampling train, pig. Spectrophotometry. 303-0152. Norwalk, 3.1.4 Hydrofluoric Acid (1-IF), Tin=Absolute average dry gas meter Connecticut. September 1976. pp. 5-6. Concentrated. HANDLE WITH CAUTION. temperature (see Figure 108-2), 'K (*R). 3. Standard Specification for Reagent 3.1.5 Potassium Chloride (KCII Solution, Vm=Volume of gas sample as measured by Water. In: Annual Book of American Society 10 percent (w/v). Dissolve 10 g KCI in water, the dry gas meter, dm 3 (dcf). for Testing and Materials Standards. Part 31: add 3 ml concentrated HNO 3, and dilute to Vm(,td)=Volume of gas sample as measured Water, Atmospheric Analysis. American 100 ml. by the dry gas meter correlated to Society for Testing and Materials. 3.1.6 Filter. Teflon filters, 3 micron standard 3 conditions, sm (scf). Philadelphia, PA. 1974. pp. 40-42. porosity, 47mm size. (Available trom Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations 28041 UMMUMMEN60M

Millipore Co., type FS, Catalog Number remove the bomb from the oven and allow it 4.4.1.2 Graphite Furnace Procedure. Pipet FSLWO4700.) to cool. Using a Teflon filter, quantitatively 5 ml of this digested solution into a 10-ml 3.1.7 Sodium Borohydride (NaBHK}, 5 filter the digested sample into a 50-ml volumetric flask. Add 1 ml of the I percent Percent (W/V). Dissolve 5.00 g of NaBH4 in polypropylene volumetric flask. Rinse the nickel nitrate solution, 0.5 ml of 50 percent about 500 ml of 0.1 NaOH in a 1-liter bomb three times with small portions of 0.5 N HNO3, and I ml of the 3 percent hydrogen volumetric flask. Then, dilute to exactly 1.0 HNO3 , and filter the rinses into the flask. Add peroxide and dilute to 10 ml with water. The liter with 0.1 NaOH. 5 ml of KCI solution to the flask, and dilute to sample is now ready to inject in the furnace 3.1.8 Nickel Nitrate, 5 Percent (W/V). 50 ml with 0.5 N l1NO3. for analysis. Dissolve 24.780 g of nickel nitrate 4.3 Spectrophotometer Preparation. Turn Because instruments from different hexahydrate in water in a 100-ml volumetric on the power; set the wavelength, slit width, manufacturers are different, no detailed flask and dilute to 100 ml with water. and lamp current; and adjust the background operating instructions are given here. Instead, 3.1.9 Nickel Nitrate, 1 percent (W/V). corrector as instructed by the manufacturer's the analyst should follow the instructions Pipet 20 ml of 5 percent nickel nitrate solution manual for the particular atomic absorption provided with the particular instrument. into a 100-ml volumetric flask and dilute to spectrophotometer. Adjust the burner and 4.5 Analysis. 100 ml with water. flame characteristics as necessary. 4.5.1 Arsenic Determination. Determine 3.2 Analysis. 4.4 Preparation of Standard Solutions. the absorbance of each sample using the 3.2.1 Water. Same as in Section 3.1.1. Pipet 1, 5, 10, and 25 ml of the stock As blank as a reference. If the sample 3.2.2 Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH), 0.1 N. solution into separate 100-ml volumetric concentration falls outside the range of the Dissolve 2.00 g of NaOH in water in a 500-ml flasks. Add 10 ml KCI solution and dilute to calibration curve, make an appropriate volumetric flask. Dilute to volume with water. the mark with 0.5 N HNO .This will give 3 dilution with 0.5 N HNO3 so that the final 3.2.3 Nitric Acid, 0.5 N. Same as in standard concentrations of 10, 50, 100, and concentration falls within the range of the Section 3.1.3. 250 gg As/mI. For low-level-arsenic samples curve. From the curve, determine the As 3.2.4 Potassium Chloride Solution, 10 that require the use of a graphite furnace or concentration in each sample. percent. Same as in Section 3.1.5. vapor generator, follow the procedures in 4.5.2 Mandatory Check for Matrix Effects 3.2.5 Stock Arsenic Standard. I mg As/ml. Section 4.4.1. on the Arsenic Results. Same as in Method Dissolve 1.320 g of primary grade As O3 in 20 2 Dilute 10 ml of KCI solution to 100 ml with 12, Section 5.4.2. ml of 0.1 N NaOH. Slowly add 30 ml of 0.5 N HNO3 and use as a reagent blank. 4.5.3 Audit analysis. With each set or sets concentrated HNO3, and heat in an oven at Measure the standard absorbances against 105"C for 2 hours. Allow to cool, and dilute to the reagent blank. Check these absorbances of source compliance samples, analyze the I liter with deionized distilled water. frequently against the blank during the two unknown audit samples in the same 3.2.6 Nitrous Oxide. Suitable quality for analysis to assure that baseline drift has not manner as the source samples to evaluate the atomic absorption analysis. occurred. techniques of the analyst and the standards 3.2.7 Acetylene. Suitable quality for Prepare a standard curve of absorbance preparation. The same analyst, analytical atomic absorption analysis. versus concentration. (Note: For instruments reagents, and analytical system shall be used 3.2.8 Quality Assurance Audit Samples. equipped with direct concentration readout both for each set or sets of compliance Arsenic samples prepared by the devices, preparation of a standard curve will samples and the EPA audit samples; if this Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) not be necessary.) In all cases follow condition is met, it is not necessary to Environmental Systems Laboratory, Quality calibration and operational procedures in the analyze additional audit samples for Assurance Division, Source Branch, Mail manufacturer's instruction manual. Maintain subsequent compliance analyses performed Drop 77A, Research Triangle Park, North a laboratory log of all calibrations. for the same enforcement agency within a 30- Carolina 27711. Each set will consist of two 4.4.1 Arsenic Determination at Low day period. An audit sample set may not be vials of unknown concentrations. Only when Concentration. The lower limit of flame used to validate different sets of compliance making compliance determinations, obtain an atomic absorption spectrophotometry is 10 jig samples under the jurisdiction of different audit sample set from the Quality Assurance As/ml. If the arsenic concentration of any enforcement agencies unless prior Management Office at each EPA regional sample is at a lower level, use the vapor arrangements are made with both office or the responsible enforcement office. generator or graphite furnace which is enforcement agencies. (NOTE: The tester should notify the Quality available as an accessory component. Follow Calculate the concentration in g/m 3 using Assurance Office or the responsible the manufacturer's instructions in the use of the specified sample volume in the audit enforcement agency at least 30 days prior to such equipment. instructions. (Note: The acceptability of the the test date to allow sufficient time for 4.4.1.1 Vapor Generator Procedure. Place analyses of the audit samples may be delivery. a sample containing between 0 and 5 pg of obtained immediately by reporting the audit arsenic in the reaction tube, and dilute to 15 and compliance results by telephone). Include 4. Procedure ml with water. Since there is some trial and the results of both audit samples, their 4.1 Sample Collection. A sample that is error involved in this procedure, it may be identification numbers, and the analysts' representative of the ore lot to be tested must necessary to screen the samples by names with the results of the compliance be taken prior to analysis. The sample must conventional atomic absorption until an determination samples in appropriate reports be ground into a finely pulverized state. (A approximate concentration is determined. to the EPA regional office or the appropriate portion of the samples routinely collected for After determining the approximate enforcement agency. Include this information metals analysis may be used provided.the concentration, adjust the volume of the with subsequent compliance analyses for the sample is representative of the ore being sample accordingly. Pipet 15 ml of same enforcement agency during the tested.) concentrated HC1 into each tube. Add I ml of 4.2 Sample Preparation. Weigh 50 to 500 30 percent KI solution. Place the reaction tube succeeding 30-day period.' mg of finely pulverized sample to the nearest into a 500 C water bath for 5 minutes. Cool to 5. Calculations 0.1 mg. Transfer the sample into the Teflon room temperature. Connect the reaction tube 5.1 Calculate the percent arsenic in the ore cup of the digestion bomb, and add 2 ml each to the vapor generator assembly. When the sample as follows: of concentrated HNO3 and HF. Seal the bomb instrument response has returned to baseline, immediately to prevent the loss of any inject 5.0 ml of 5 percent NaBl-L and integrate = 5 C. F, volatile arsenic compounds that may form. the resulting spectrophotometer signal over a %AS Eq. 108A-1 Heat in an oven 1050 C for 2 hours. Then 30-second time period. W 28042 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1986 / Rules and Regulations

Where: C.= Concentration of As as read from the standard curve, Mg/ml. Fd=Dilution factor (equals 1 if the sample has not been diluted). W=Weight of ore sample analyzed. 5=50-ml sample x 100/103 pg/ml. 6. Bibliography 1. Same as Citations I through 9 of Section 7, of Method 5. 2. Perkin Elmer Corporation. Analytical methods of Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry. 303-0152. Norwalk, Connecticut. September 1976. pp 5-6. 3. Ringwald, D. (TRW). Arsenic Determination on Process Materials from ASARCO's Copper Smelter in Tacoma, Washington. Unpublished Report. Prepared for Emission Measurement Branch, Emission Standards and Engineering Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. August 1980. 35 p. [FR Doc. -86-16408 Filed 8-1-86; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-M