Page two American Iron and Steel Institute collection equipment, or shall employ alternative methods of This rule does not specify either emission limitations or technology and the words "enclosed" and "alternative" leave much to the imagination since there has been no demonstrated technology that meets these conditions as written. When Illinois coke plant operators failed to submit compliance time schedules for the stated rule, Region V of U. S. EPA, and not the State of Illinois, undertook enforcement of the State Rule. This is another example of the problem being compounded by overlapping jurisdictions. III. Other regulations limit coke battery emissions to 3 minutes/hour/ battery over No. 1 Ringelmann (20 percent opacity), no emissions from doors in excess of 20 percent opacity and so forth. Even the smallest emissions can be violations and the technology to control minor emissions at all times is not available. 2. Particulate matter process weight tables are often unrealistic and result in requirements that are more restrictive than the recommendations of EPA's own consultant. I. Sinter plants cannot comply by any reasonable method with the allowable particulate matter emissions from process weight tables that have been recommended by EPA and have been adopted by state and local control agencies when the entire sinter plant is regarded as one process. Specifically, Section 4. 4 of the State of Alabama, Section 6. 4 of Jefferson County (Ala.), Rule 203c(2) of State of Illinois, Section 1809. 4 of Allegheny County (Penna.) and Section 123. 13 of the State of Pennsylvania, etc., could require emission concentration rates between 0. 005 and 0. 02 gr/scf of particulate matter depending on size of plant and interpretation of regulation. This compares with the 0.022 gr/scf for new source basic oxygen process steelmaking operations that EPA has determined as best technology adequately demonstrated. More important, the required grain loadings of 0.005 and 0. 02 gr/scf are much less than the 0.035 gr/scf standard that EPA's consultant, R. A. Herrick, has recommended for new sinter plants using the best technology adequately demonstrated. II. Open hearth steelmaking operations cannot comply by any reasonable method with the particulate matter process weight regulations or with regulations based on the uncontrolled mass emissions when all of the open hearth furnaces in a shop are aggregated as similar sources and the mass emission rate is based on the total production for the entire shop. Specifically, Section 1809.4 of the Allegheny County Health Department (Penna. ) and Ohio EP-11-11, etc., require emission concentration rates between. 005 and .018 gr/scf. This compares with the 0.03 gr/scf loading that EPA's consultant, R. A. Herrick, has recommended for new open hearths using best technology adequately demonstrated. 35-497 O 74 pt. 1 16 Page three American Iron and Steel Institute III. Process weight emission restrictions (Pennsylvania Title 25, Article III, Chapter 123.13) when considered together with the definition of particulate matter (Chapter 121, 1(28)) which states any material, except uncombined water, that is or has been airborne and exists as a solid or liquid at 70° F. and 14. 17 pounds per square inch absolute pressure may in many cases be considered to be technically unachievable. The process weight factors were derived on the basis of solid particulate matter. It is further pointed out that this restriction is carried through to the Allegheny County Regulations (Article XVIII, 1809. 4 (A)) in a more restrictive manner. Where the State regulation contains a low limiting requirement of 0.02 grains per dry standard cubic foot, no such limitation is stated in the Allegheny County Regulation. 3. Fugitive emissions present one of the most difficult problems with regard to regulations. Regulations such as Pennsylvania (Section 123. 1) and Allegheny County (Section 1809. 2 of Article XVIII) that require no emission of "any fugitive air contaminant from any source" are typical examples. Compliance is neither technologically or economically possible. Similar regulations abound elsewhere such as Kentucky (AP 3.4), Fugitive Dust Emissions, which has been interpreted as no visible emissions, Maryland 10. 03. 38. 02 concerning visible emissions (none permitted), and Texas Regulation I on visible emissions (no excesses). In many instances, the energy consumption required for ultimate control of fugitive emissions is not only prohibitive but results in an overall negative environmental impact with the production of the required energy creating more pollution than that being controlled. 4. Slag Quenching - 1810. 6 of Allegheny County (Penna.) states: "No person shall cause, suffer, or allow the water quenching of slag The latter portion of the above sentence is technically unachievable and no other realistic means of handling blast furnace slag exists at one steel company's Allegheny County plant. July 12, 1974 Senator DOMENICI. The next witness is Frank Milliken, president of the Kennecott Copper Corp. STATEMENT OF FRANK R. MILLIKEN, PRESIDENT, KENNECOTT COPPER CORP.; ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID SWAN, VICE PRESIDENT, TECHNOLOGY; ALFRED PRATHER, COUNSELOR; AND CHARLES MICHAELSON, PRESIDENT, METAL MINING DIVISION Mr. MILLIKEN. I am joined by C. D. Michaelson, president of the Metal Mining Division; David Swan, vice president of technology, and Al Prather, who helps us analyze some of the legal aspects. I do have a prepared statement which has been submitted. You may interrupt me at any time and I will answer your questions with the help of my colleagues. Senator DOMENICI. Let's proceed, Mr. Milliken, on the basis of your reading the prepared statement. Mr. MILLIKEN. The invitation to appear before the committee this morning represents a most welcome opportunity. When I last testified before this committee-in February of 1972-we were all concerned with identifying the specific impact of the Clean Air Act amendments of 1970 upon the domestic copper smelting industry. Since that time, Kennecott has gained considerable additional experience in that area while endeavoring to comply with the laws governing air quality control. At the last hearing, consideration was being given to an Environmental Protection Agency estimate of the 1972 amendments. EPA estimated that the capital cost of achieving 90 percent reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions from the entire U.S. copper smelting industry would be approximately $266 million. At the 1972 hearings, we stated that this estimate was far too low; we had estimated that the costs to Kennecott alone would be $100 million-and that expenditure would enable capture of less than the 90 percent emission control figure used by EPA in its calculation. Since 1972, we have learned a good deal more about the difficulty and expense involved in meeting ambient air quality standards. At the present time, Kennecott alone has committed about $250 million in control systems designed to bring our four western smelters into compliance with the Clean Air Act. EPA's 1972 estimate has thus been proven, on the basis of practical experience-to be far short of the true economic impact on the domestic copper smelting industry. Senator DOMENICI. Is that $250 million for Kennecott to bring existing facilities up to standard or does it include additional capacity which would entail some pollution control capacity? Mr. MILLIKEN. No additional capacity whatsoever. This is taking our current smelting, current productive capacity, and just making sure that they meet ambient air standards. Senator DOMENICI. Is that $250 million in 1973 dollars? Mr. MILLIKEN. Those are current dollars. By the time we get these expenditures made, certainly inflation will have had some additional effect. The expenditure will be greater. Senator DOMENICI. Do you have an estimate, using the same dollars, as to the value of the present value of the four facilities you refer to? Mr. MILLIKEN. This far exceeds the book value of the present facilities that we have. In fact, it is about half the value of our total copper mining facilities in the West on our books at the present time. These facilities, as I remeber the balance sheet, have a plant and equipment value of about $500 million, and we are putting $250 million into emission controls for our current operations: As the size of Kennecott's investment indicates, we are deeply committed to meeting the ambient air quality standards, and we remain confident that we can do so. However, we cannot meet these standards unless we are permitted to use intermittent control systems in conjunction with our constant controls. Thus far EPA has not approved use of intermittent control systems. We believe EPA's position is a departure from the objectives of the Clean Air Act, and we are requesting amendment of the act to require EPA to permit use of intermittent control systems. Senator DOMENICI. You said EPA has not approved them, the use of intermittent controls. To your knowledge, had EPA been given an opportunity specifically to pass on whether or not intermittent controls are a valid means of controlling emissions or not? Mr. MILLIKEN. Well, the States in which we operate, and I have some details on this later in the statement, have submitted implementation plans to EPA. Each of these plans include intermittent control systems. The desirability and reliability of these systems have been subject to public hearings. This procedure has been accepted by four States in which we have operations, after a very critical examination by the State environmental protection groups. EPA has been present, I think, at these meetings in most instances and have reviewed the information available. Senator DOMENICI. But, Mr. Milliken, you are asking the Congress to change the law to permit these when we don't have any evidence. You are not telling me that EPA has turned down the implementation plans of these four States which have included them, are you? Mr. MILLIKEN. They have not yet approved them. Senator DOMENICI. All right, go ahead Mr. MILLIKEN. Before going into the reasons for our request, it might be well to explain what we mean by intermittent control systems and why they are a necessary part of our program to meet the ambient air quality standards. The production of sulfur dioxide by a copper smelter is itself an intermittent process. That is, the amount of sulfur dioxide released to the atmosphere varies greatly from time to time during any one day. Moreover, the dispersion of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere varies greatly, depending not only on the amount released but also on where it is released in relationship to the ground and the atmospheric conditions such as air temperature, wind speed, et cetera-which it encounters. Consequently, the effect of smelter emissions on ambient air quality varies greatly. On some days, sulfur dioxide emissions create no problems at all; on some days, they create a mild problem; and on a few days, they are a very difficult problem indeed. On all but the very bad days, ordinarily sulfur capture equipment-and by that we mean sulfuric acid plants-will permit us to meet the ambient air quality standards. All of Kennecott's smelters are, or soon will be, equipped with acid plants, so most of the time no problem will occur. The question is what to do about the few bad days, which occur 4 or 5 percent of the time. What we want to do is use intermittent control systems to reduce our emissions on those days so as to meet the ambient air standards. What EPA wants, however, is to regulate our emissions at all times to the extent required to meet the ambient air standards on these few bad days. The difference is tremendous, both technically and economically. In the first place, the EPA approach is impractical. At our Utah smelter, for instance, we are investing $175 million to reduce our emissions-incidentally, we bought that plant for $40 million not very long ago from American Smelting & Refining. We are now spending $175 million to reduce emissions there-and when we get through there will still be days when we have to curtail production in order to meet the ambient air standards. There are some days when no amount of sulfur capture equipment in a smelter will prevent violation of ambient air quality standards if the smelter is operated normally. Senator DOMENICI. When you speak of curtailing production in order to meet the ambient standard, I assume you are speaking of, using your language, those bad days. Mr. MILLIKEN. That is right. Senator DOMENICI. And assuming you do not put in an intermittent control system to clear that up, is that correct? Or would you have to curtail production with intermittent control? Mr. MILLIKEN. We have to curtail production with the intermittent control system, there is no question about it. We have to put it in anyway to meet ambient air standards. We will do this. The intermittent control system will be installed. What we are asking for is that we not be required to go beyond that and put in constant emission control standards to meet the problems that occur, as I said, on those very few days. Senator DOMENICI. Thank you. Mr. MILLIKEN. As I have just said, this is where the intermittent control systems come in. They consist of early warning systems that tell us when we have to curtail production, and to what degree. Economically, the problem is one of meeting the air quality standards on the most-effective basis. New technology to smelt copper with zero sulfur emission is probably the only way to guarantee meeting air quality standards on the worst imaginable day. Even if we had such technology, and we don't, there would remain the question of how much it would cost to install such equipment, |