Student Manual
October 1991

Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Washington, D.C.
Prepared by:
Clayton Environmental Consultants
October 1991

8:30 - 9:15
9:15 - 10:00
10:00 - 11:00
11:00 - 11:15
11:15 - 12:00
12:00 - 1:00
1:00 - 2:30
2:30 - 3:30
3:30 - 4:00
8:30 - 9:15
9:15 - 11:00
11:00 - 12:00
12:00 - 1:30
1:30 - 3:00
3:00 - 3:30
I. Introduction
n. Why Bother With Risk Communication?
ID. Overview of Risk Communication
Hazard and Outrage
IV.	Maijol Superfund Site
V.	Dealing with the Media/Handling Tough
VI.	Explaining Technical Issues
Review of Day 2
VII. Trust and Credibility
Vm. Review of Materials in Case Study
(Including a Break)
Began Preparation for Role Play
Draft Opening Statements
Extended Lunch and Role Play Preparation
Role Play

Development of the Workshop
The ability to communicate effectively with the public (and other government
officials) on issues of risk and to involve the public meaningfully in decision making has
long been an Agency goal. In 1989, the Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation (OPPE)
completed work on a two-day workshop designed to train Headquarters and Regional
personnel in the principles of effective risk communication. The workshop was designed to
complement (but not replicate) the OPPE course on risk assessment and risk management
entitled "Risk and Decision-Making".
In the past two years, the workshop and modified versions of it have been given to
over 2,500 state and federal employees. Modified versions of the course have been
prepared to meet the specific needs at several offices at EPA including the Office of
Pesticide Programs, the Office of Radiation Programs, and the Air Risk Information Center
in Research Triangle Park. OPPE has decided to revise and update its course, and has
sought opinions on changes to be made and new material to be included from Headquarters
and Regional personnel who have taught or taken the course. In addition, OPPE has sought
input from those involved in public affairs and other risk communication activities. This
revised manual reflects many of the suggestions received during this process.
The workshop has been designed to introduce you to the principles of risk
communication. It will consist of video clips, case studies, role playing, and some
overhead presentations. You will be given a great deal of opportunity to actively
participate during the workshop and for the workshop to be successful, you must take
advantage of it
Goals and Objectives:
o Discuss the rationale for being concerned about risk communication
o Teach individuals about the various purposes of risk communication:
Most immediately, to inform and involve the public productively in
decision making
More generally, to raise the level of public discussion about risks to
the point where the nature and severity of the risk is generally
understood and the discussion can focus on issues of values, the
distribution of costs and benefits, etc.
o Teach people about a number of communications options: news media,
public meetings, focus groups, staff meetings and written communications.
o Most importantly, to develop practical guidelines for more effective
communication about chemical risks and to give participants practice in using
these guidelines.

Video Segment
We will now see the first section of video tape. The first set of clips refers to a
number of issues that will be discussed during the workshop. Included among these are the
presence of uncertainty in risk communication, questions of trust and credibility, the
difficulty of explaining technical questions and specific issues such as EDB, Superfund
sites, and alar.
Note the different ways that risk is perceived by people in the clip. The "experts"
shown being interviewed discuss it in terms of parts per billion and define it in ways that
are almost trivializing. On the other hand, some of the private citizens shown want to
know whether it is safe to let their kids grow up around this plant Also, keep your eye on
people's body language.
Discussion of individual's experience in risk communication
During this portion of the introduction, you will be asked to discuss a particular risk
communication problem or success with which you are familiar. If you cannot come up
with a good example in risk communication, then consider a general communication
problem you might have had; say with a peer or a child. Be specific and brief. The
following suggestions may help your thinking:
-- Any experience before a public forum such as a town meeting
—	Internal meetings where questions of communicating with the public on risk issues
had been discussed
—	Other personal experiences as perhaps a "receiver" of risk information
In the Resource Document (on page 7) there is a discussion of four common types
of risk communication problems: message, source, channel, and receiver problems. Under
which heading does your experience fall?

The Agency does not view risk communication as a one-way street It recognizes
the need to impart information but also to involve the public in the decision making
process. The purpose of risk communication is not to allay the public or merely help them
see your point of view. As former Administrator Lee Thomas noted: "We are not going to
go into a community and tell people what we intend to do. We are going to listen to local
concerns and ideas. It is true that many of the issues involved in a site cleanup are highly
technical, but we can no longer use that as an excuse for discounting what a community
has to say about risk. We must empower the community to discuss risk in a rational and
technically competent way."
As an initial matter, it must be pointed out that there is no single public. There are
many different publics, including, but not limited to, the regulated community, individuals
living in the area, environmentalists, and politicians. In addressing the question of
identifying the public, A1 Aim made the following statement at a Risk Communication
Conference held in Washington, D.C. in January, 1986:
"..I am impressed with how imprecise we are in when we talk about the public. If
you are talking about a regulatory action at the national level, what you basically
have is a number of elite groups- industry, environmental groups, trade associations;
you do not really have the public. We have to be a lot more precise when we talk
about involving the public. Are we talking about opinion polls? At local sites we
can involve the public to some extent, but I am not sure that in any particular case
we are really reaching out to a broad span of public opinion.... We have to think
very carefully about what we mean by the public if we are really going to get at the
question of how to communicate with the public."
Questions for Discussion
The following questions will serve not only for discussion points but should act as a
guide for your consideration when you view the next section of videotape.
(a) Mr. Aim notes that "I am not sure that in any particular case we are really
reaching out to a broad span of public opinion". Do you agree? If so, is it a problem?
What can be done about it?
(b) Why does the Agency want (or need) to involve the public?

(c) Should the public always be involved? When, if ever, is it appropriate to
exclude the public? Where do you draw the line?
(d) Whose job is risk communication?
(e) What are the characteristics of the ideal public? How can the exercise of proper
risk communication techniques assist in your efforts to make the public respond in ways
more like the idea?

The following slides will form the basis for a lecture on risk communication issues
and how risk communication fits in with risk assessment and risk management
Clearly this presentation is not intended to make you risk assessors. Rather, it is
designed to help you understand the assessment process that produces the "numbers" used in
describing risk. By understanding what goes into this number you will be better able to
explain what it means to the public.
More detailed information on available courses on risk assessment as it is practiced in
the Agency is provided in the resource document

Overview of Risk Communication
Protection Agency

¦ What Is Risk?
¦ What Is Risk Communication?
¦ How Can We More Effectively Communicate?

The likelihood of injury, disease, or death
The likelihood of injury, disease, or death resulting from human
exposure to a potential environmental hazard

Comparative Risks of Death
Number of	Lifetime
Deaths/Year	Risks
¦	Motor vehicle accidents 46,000	1/65
¦	Home accidents 25,000	1/130
¦	Lung cancer deaths in smokers 80,000	1/12


toxicity Assessment
UNIT cancer risk
Chemical A
Chemical B
Linearized Multistage Model
(95% upper confidence limit)
DOSE (mg/kg/day)
Models like the Linearized Multistage Model
transform high-dose data into low-dose estimates

UR x UF,
A Series of Decreasing Doses Finally
Elicits No Adverse Effects. A Safety Margin
is Applied to this No Adverse Effects Level

Risk Characterization
The best probabilistic estimate is that 327 per 1,000,000 exposed people will die from
lifetime exposure to Chemical A.
Chemical A is carcinogenic in rats and mice. Application of low-dose extrapolation
models and human exposure estimates suggests that the range of risks in humans is
100-1,000 deaths per 1,000,000 persons exposed.
Chemical A is carcinogenic in rats and mice and it is prudent public health policy to
assume it is also carcinogenic in humans.


A Broader Definition of Risk
+ Public Concerns
Source: Adapted from Peter Sandman, Rutgers University.

Public Fears and Outrage
Not Memorable
Controlled by Individual
Morally Irrelevent
Visible Benefits	-<¦
Trusted Source
Source. Paul Slovlc. Baruch Flshhoff, and Sarah Llchtensteln
Man Made
Controlled by Others
Morally Relevent
No Visable Benefits
Untrusted Source

Public Fears and Outrage
Not Memorable
Controlled by Individual
Morally Irrelevent
Visible Benefits
Trusted Source
Source: Paul Slovlc, Baruch Flshholl, and Sarah Uchtensteln
Man Made
Controlled by Others
Morally Relevent
No Visable Benefits
Untrusted Source

Public Fears
and Outrage
Technical Risk

Effective Risk Communication: Seven Cardinal Rules
1.	Accept and involve the public as a legitimate partner
2.	Plan carefully and evaluate your efforts
3.	Listen to the public's specific concerns
4.	Be honest, frank, and open
5.	Coordinate and collaborate with other credible sources
6.	Meet the needs of the media
7.	Speak clearly and with compassion

¦ If people are sufficiently motivated,
they are quite capable of
understanding complex risk
information, even if they may not
agree with you.
Regardless of how well you
communicate risk information,
people will not be satisfied.

The next section of the course deals with a public meeting held in July 1988 on the
progress of clean-up activities at a Superfund site in Pennsylvania. The site is at the Maijol
Battery Plant where, for many years, lead batteries had been split open (and the lead re-
processed) and the broken casings — with some lead remaining - had been dumped into a
landfill. As a result of soil dispersion from the dump site, many homes near the site have
elevated levels of lead in their soil. The high lead poses a special risk to children, who
come in greater contact with the exposed soil through their play and who are more
susceptible to risks posed by elevated lead levels.
The high lead levels at the site have been known since the late 1970's and recently
EPA has begun remedial action. The meeting was the second one held in the area since
January 1988. The site was not on the NPL at this time and was being handled by the on
scene coordinator.
Video Segment
The first segment of the Maijol tape is from a televised "town meeting" held in
September. This brief segment of tape gives some background on the situation at the site.
As you watch the first piece of tape, keep in mind what "outrage factors" would be driving
the citizens of the community. Since the problem has been going on for some time, there
is likely to be mistrust between the community and the EPA, and state Agencies involved
in the clean-up activity.
The second part of this segment shows Bill Steuteville, the Superfund On Scene
Coordinator, addressing the audience. As you watch the tape keep the following points and
questions in mind:
The meeting occurred in July, 1988 when it was very warm, and began with a long
rather technical discussion before the site coordinator began.
The Regional Administrator had, on Bill's advice, recently sent a letter to the
residents which, included some inaccuracies concerning earlier blood levels of lead in the
What were the EPA representatives expectations and goals for the meeting? Were
they reasonable?
What is your reaction to his declaration that he wants to allay the citizens concerns?
Is this effective?

Is the EPA representative effective when he notes that he has only seen one other
site, at which there turned out to be a real health risk, and now this site may make two?
Video Segment
The next tape shows a heated discussion between Bill and a woman in the audience.
The woman is clearly upset about the fact that her children had high blood lead levels in
the late 1970's, and she feels that not enough was done about it One of her children has a
learning disability and it is clear that in her mind the lead is responsible. Gearly, she is
angry and wants to vent some of her aggression at those she feels are giving her the bum's
rush. She starts in by saying that the EPA and state officials, because they are educated,
would never live in the area while the remediation work is being done.
Her first question is straight forward and hard hitting - "why should we believe you
now?" Watch the last section and think of how you would respond.
Video Segment
The next segment of tape shows a continuation of the woman's questioning of Bill.
Are you man enough, she challenges him, to tell us the truth? As you watch, keep the
questions on the next page in mind.

Did the site coordinator adequately address the woman's concerns? Could he have,
given the confrontational manner of her questioning?
What guidelines can you develop to help you deal with situations in which you find
yourself in confrontation with the audience?
What was the EPA representative attempting to accomplish during the meeting?

What did the citizens (or at least those that we saw on the clips) hope to
What should you do when your expectations of what should occur differ from the
public's? What can you do prior to the meeting to decrease the possibility that this will
take place? What can you do at the meeting? How could you find out the public's
What is your reaction to Bill's body language? The room arrangement?

What are the key lessons to be gained from the Maijol tapes?
o Plan, plan, plan
o Know your audience and their expectations!
Take the time and effort to learn this
o Be sure to tailor your own agenda and objectives to meet the public's
o Plan carefully and be aware that what you say will be filtered through the
public's own perceptions
o Be aware of your body language and the messages it sends
o Listen carefully to the audience! Tailor your responses to meet their
o If your objectives for the meeting are not the same as the audiences ~ do all
you can (even to the point of changing the nature of the meeting) to meet the
public's needs. In the long-run, you will have to address their concerns in
order to get to yours.

During this section of the course, we will discuss the role of the media in risk
communication efforts, and also review some ways to handle "tough" questions, whether
you get them during a media interview, at a public meeting, or in another way.
Our efforts here are obviously not meant to substitute for the other types of training
available on how the Agency expects its personnel to deal with the media. Still, there are
some lessons that can be easily reviewed concerning the way that you use the media and
the media uses you.
You should remember that the need to meet the needs of the media is one of the
seven cardinal rules (#6). Among the guidelines stressed for this rule are the following:
Respect reporter's deadlines
Provide information tailored to the needs of each type of media
Prepare in advance and provide background material on complex issues
Follow up on stories with criticism or praise
Try to establish long-term relationships with reporters
Included in the resource document is a transcript of a portion of a speech on the role
of the media and how you can make better use of it, presented at the January Risk
Communication Conference by Tom Vacor, a television reporter from San francisco.
As well as echoing those points highlighted above, Vacor also suggests that you take
the time to learn how reporters (print, television and radio) work so that you can adequately
meet their needs. It is important to avoid the use of jargon in talking to reporters who
usually have little "scientific background.
Media Tips
o Use your public information personnel, especially regarding policy matters or
if you are misquoted by the press
o Return calls promptly
o Stick to the facts and to the subject
- making judgments (e.g., "oh, yeah, they're doing a great job on the clean
up") can make life difficult later, especially if you're wrong (remember
Maijol) or if there's a lawsuit

o Remember - you have rights, too (see especially the piece written by Paul
Lapsley in the Resource Document on page 17)
o Use the interview as an opportunity to get your message across
-	Policy statements should be made only by authorized personnel
-	Exercise special care in discussing enforcement cases
o Tell the truth, even if it hurts
o Don't be afraid to say you don't know
o Don't answer a question by asking one
o Avoid confrontation - Remember, the press has the last word. "Never argue
with someone who buys ink by the barrel"
o Refer to the appropriate Agency, if not yours
o If you have no comment; try to say so without using those words
o Build relationships with good journalists - it is mutually beneficial if you
know and trust them and know and trust you (Remember Cardinal Rule #4)
o With regard to "sound bites"; be succinct! You will be edited. So, edit
yourself before you speak. If you're not on live TV or radio, take a few
minutes to think about your answer
o Avoid jargon (Cardinal Rule #7). If a technical term will be used a lot, take
the time to explain it carefully. The media will pick up on your explanation;
but will not supply one on their own. Use plain language in your
o Avoid conflict and controversy; conversely, the reporter will likely be seeking
Questions for discussion
What is the role of the media in risk communications?
Is the media (print or television) your ally or your adversary in trying to
communicate with the public?
How can you use the media to communicate with the public and advance your goals.
Can EPA do what the public interest groups do in working with the media?

When faced with tough questions (from an interview or public meeting), it's often
helpful to try to determine the type of question that is being asked in order to avoid traps or
pitfalls that may be laying for you. This is an example of "ACTIVE LISTENING", looking
beyond the specifics of the question to identify the underlying theme/objective of the
In its course on Risk Communication and Public Involvement, EPA's Region IX
provides a list of 8 situations in which you might find yourself and some suggested
responses. These "solutions" should not be taken dogmatically but rather as suggestions.
1.	The "set-up." A long preamble precedes a question, sometimes loaded with
misinformation or a "when did you stop beating your wife" question.
Example: "considering the low regard that residents have for EPA, how
do you, as part of EPA's team developing a permit for the
ABC Industries facility, expect people to believe you are not
selling out to ABC Industries?"
Solution: One solution is to break in politely to challenge the premise.
(Do not nod your head when the question is being asked -
viewers will think you agree with what is being said.) The
second approach is to wait until the question is finished, then
go back and knock down the preface: "Yes it may be true that
some people are suspicious of EPA's negotiations with private
companies, but in fact, the permit conditions for the ABC
Industries facility requires extensive corrective action." Or
simply, "What you've said just isn't true. Let's look at the
facts." - You may also want to concede that there may be cause
for people to question what you're doing, but that they should
look carefully at what you're doing now.
2.	The "either...or" situation. The interviewer poses two unacceptable
Example: "Either you are misinformed, or you are protecting someone..."
Another example: "Now were those irresponsible statements
due to incorrect information or were they part of a deliberate
attempt to mislead the public?"
Solution: One solution is to answer the question directly: "Neither. The
real issue here is..." and move on to the points you want to
make. Or you can just ignore the trap and respond the way
you want.

Irrelevancy. In this situation, you are called upon to answer a question in an
area unrelated to your area of expertise. As a result, you may be quoted out
of context
Example: "Ms. Jones, as the EPA regional permit writer for the U-Dump
landfill, what do you think EPA should include in the permit
conditions for the Brown Industries storage facility?"
Solution: You might simply remark that it is not your area of expertise,
then launch into some information regarding EPA's actions at
the U-Dump landfill. - You may also want to direct them to
someone who know more about the area they're questioning.
The empty chair situation. In this situation, the interviewer quotes an
opponent or person with a different point of view who has criticized your
view, but is not present
Example: "Dr. Ralph Smith has said that this facility is a serious health
Or, "Congressman X says EPA's handling of the permit
application has been inadequate."
Solution: You can respond simply "I have not heard those remarks," or
"I believe the facts will show..." You should make sure NOT
to attack an opponent who is not present. - Be willing to
review the information and then comment on it
The broadside attack. This is the "ad hominen" argument, in which you are
attacked directly.
Example: "You are deliberately withholding information aren't you?"
Solution: The best advice is to deny it straight out, if it is not true, or to
be candid if there is some truth in it: "We only withhold
information that we consider confidential and which may
adversely affect the drafting of a permit for a facility." - You
should also point out the ways (meetings, fact sheets, etc.) that
you are attempting to get information oul
The hypothetical situation. This technique involves the interviewer asking a
hypothetical question -- a "what if' question.
Example: "What if contamination is discovered in the ground water
below the facility? Will EPA deny the permit application?

Solution: The best advice is to point out that "we can't speculate on what
we might do until all the facts are in." However, you should
also note what you're doing to ensure that you're gathering all
the information.
Inconsistency. If you or your organization has changed opinions or policies
over time, you might be asked about that change.
Example: "When the facility's permit application was called in, EPA said
it would notify the community or any deficiencies in the
application. But you found deficiencies and did not tell us."
Solution: You should clearly explain the reasons for the change, whether
it was due to a change in policy or circumstance. For example,
"Our intentions remain to keep the community well-informed
as the permit is developed. But the deficiencies we have found
so far in the permit application are administrative and minor."
"No comment" "No comment" is not the same as "I don't know," "No
comment" can be stated a number of ways. If you do not know the answer
to a question, state that you do not know the answer.
Example: "We have heard that ABC Industries, a large employer in the
area, may be required to perform extensive corrective action to
keep this facility in operation."
Solution: If the answer is "no comment," it can be done smoothly. For
example, "EPA has not yet made a decision about the extent of
corrective action that will be required. We will be sure to
inform you as soon as we have reached a decision."

Role Playing: TV Interview on Ethylene DiBromide
For the following small role play exercise, we will be looking at a case involving a
pesticide, ethylene dibromide - or EDB. The purpose of the exercise is to gain some
experience in dealing with the media and handling tough questions. In addition, it's
intended to illustrate the importance of planning for an interview and dealing with it in
accordance with the seven cardinal rules.
Review the brief background piece on EDB that follows.
Watch the following clip - you should assume that you are the official spokesman
for EPA on pesticide issues and that you will be interviewed by the person who put
together this piece.
After the clip is over, you will split up into small groups and prepare for an
interview on the Agency's position on EDB. In your groups, you will prepare both
questions and answers and when we get back together, each group will ask questions of the
others. Consider that this occurs in December 1983 so that the Agency has moved to
suspend the use of the chemical on soil but has yet to act on its use as a grain fumigant
As you watch the clip, keep the following list of items in mind in order to assist in your
preparation for the interview:
The questions on the page following the background section may help get you
What will be your objectives in the interview?
What is your strategy for achieving these objectives?
What facts are critical?
Who is your audience?
What message(s) do you want to convey?
How will you evaluate how well you have done?

o Ethylene DiBromide (EDB), a B2 probable human carcinogen, is an insecticide and
fungicide that was used as a fumigant in soils, on grain and on citrus from the mid 1950's
through 1984
o No tolerance was set for EDB since when it was first registered it was presumed that
there was no residue left on the fruit or grain by EDB application
o In the late 1970's, the EPA was aware that residues of EDB was being found on
grain products and the chemical was also being found in ground-water systems
o On 9/30/83, EPA announced an emergency suspension of soil uses of EDB, thereby
halting approximately 90% of the use of EDB nationwide
o In October, 1983, the Agency prepared a cancellation order for use of the chemical
on citrus, but it was appealed by users
o In December 1983, Florida, after finding residues of EDB in grain products in
supermarkets, set a statewide tolerance of one part per billion (1 ppb) and started removing
products with levels above the tolerance from the shelves
o A number of other states also set limits:
Massachusetts (10 ppb)
California (300 ppb)
o EPA believed that it lacked the scientific certainty to set a nationwide standard
o In January, 1984, the Agency requested information from the states and other
sources with regard to the establishment of a tolerance level of EDB. The Agency could
only issue a guidance because of an exemption from tolerance that had been given EDB in
1956 when it was believed that it left no residue.
o In February, 1984, Administrator Ruckelshaus announced a ban on all use of EDB on
grain and that a decision on citrus would be forthcoming. With regard to treated grain he
established three different guidance levels:
for raw grain (900 ppb)
for uncooked products (150 ppb)
for ready to eat products (30 ppb)

(a) How can you justify allowing the continued use of this material when it can have
the drastic effects that we saw in the video clip?
(b) A government study found that 999/1000 workers might contract cancer if they
inhaled EDB for a lifetime at allowable levels. How much more information do you need
before you will do something?
(c) Were you protecting the public when you failed to announce publicly that you
found this chemical in flour destined for the school lunch program? Why didn't you warn
parents so that they could tell their children something very simple - like don't eat the
(d) How much EDB is safe?

What to do when you disagree with the Agency position
Now let's look at a different question. How do you believe that one should respond
when he/she disagrees with the Agency position they have to defend?
In "Improving Dialogue with Communities": A short Guide for Government Prior
Communication", Caron Chess, Billie Jo Hance and Peter Sandman note that: "If your
personal position does not agree with agency policy, do not mislead the community.
Instead, try modifying the agency position or having the task reassigned. Or find a way of
acknowledging the lack of consensus within the agency. Misrepresenting the situation or
dodging questions about you position will obviously reduce your and the agency's
Do you agree? Can this be done?
Video segment
The next clip contains excerpts from a press conference held in February 1985 at
which Administrator Ruckelshaus announced his decision to ban the use of EDB as a grain
fumigant and proposed residue levels for grain that is already contaminated by EDB.
He proposed three levels:
900 PPB for raw grain
150 PPB for products that have to be cooked
30 PPB for ready to eat products
As you watch the press conference, keep the following questions in mind:
What is your impression of Ruckelshaus's performance?
What do you think that the media will pick up on in reporting on the press
What does Ruckelshaus do that allows him to succeed as a communicator?
How special is Ruckelshaus? Can others do as well as he does?

Video segment
As you watch the next clip, which shows Paul Lapsley of the pesticides office at
EPA being interviewed on McNeil-Lehrer after the Ruckelshaus press conference, keep the
following in mind:
Did he do a good job? Why?
Was he prepared?
Did he meet the concerns of the public?
In the attached resource document you have a short piece written by Paul Lapsley
which describes his views on how to prepare for an interview.
The EDB story has been described as a communications crisis. Do you agree?
Does that mean it wasn't a real crisis?

As we have mentioned on several occasions throughout the course, one of the more
perplexing problems associated with effective risk communication is that of trying to
explain highly technical problems to the public. This is what many people think of when
they talk of risk communication- can you tell me how to explain 1 in a million better or
how to explain a risk estimate of 4 per million! That is important—but it is not all there is
to risk communication. Explaining numbers and technical issues to the public is one of the
most important and difficult risk communication tasks.
Earlier in the course, we talked of the differences between the message and the
medium of risk communication. This section, more than most in the training, will focus on
the message- on how to say it right!
Associated with the issue of explaining technical issues are two related issues-
deciding how to address scientific uncertainties when communicating scientific results to
the public and deciding when to release information to the public.
It remains very difficult to address your own uncertainties about information you are
presenting to the public and there will almost always be uncertainties in your data.
As one county official told researchers from Rutgers University "Environmental
epidemiology makes economics look like an exact science....and what we do know is very
Questions for Discussion
o What is your Office's policy with regard to the release of draft information to the
o How can you explain that the risk estimates the Agency uses generally exaggerate
the potential risk. How does this over estimate of the potential risk affect policy?

o What are some general guidelines that should be used in communicating technical
matters to the public? What advice would you give to a colleague about preparing a
presentation for a lay public.
Region IX has developed a training document entitled "Typical Questions and
Sample Responses - Public Meeting," designed to help individuals develop good answers
to questions, many technical ones, that they'll hear at public meetings. The references to
"DNC" and Electrobotics refer to the case study used in the Agency's Risk and Decision
Making course. The full document will be handed out to you; but some selected examples
follow. The parenthetical (CR, 3,4) at the end of each potential answer refers to the
relevant Cardinal Rule being addressed.
Q. Is it safe? Are my kids safe?
Underlying Public Need: The public needs to know if there is any immediate
danger to their family and that we care about that They want "micro" risk answers
to the "Am I safe?" questions, not "macro" risk answers which the Agency has been
concerned with in their decision making, i.e., "The hazard presents a 10'5 risk to the
A. Any cancer causing agent is potentially dangerous (The non-threshold
concept). DNC is such a substance. Based on our knowledge of the amount
of DNC that people are being exposed to, we feel it is safe for all residents
east of Electrobotics because it isn't in the air or drinking water. For
residents to the west of Electrobotics, DNC is only present in the air, but in
such small quantities that exposure will only be a health concern if it is not
reduced in the next several years. We are proposing to reduce and minimize
the exposures to DNC by permanently capping the source of the DNC to
eliminate its presence in the air, and cleaning up the contaminated soil to
minimize the contamination of the water. This will make it safe. (CR 3,4)
A. Poor Response: The life time risk of getting cancer based on the current
level of DNC in the air is 10"4. Based on that estimate, we feel that we
should reduce the risk total level of 10"6. (What's probably not needed here
is more jargon.)
Q. Are there any safe levels for a carcinogen? (Class A, B, or C carcinogens)
A. EPA has identified some chemicals as (A) known, (B) probable or (C)
possible human carcinogens based primarily on human data (A), and on
animal studies (B and C). If we believe it to be a carcinogen, we assume

that ail levels of exposure will have some level of cancer risk. The smaller
the exposure, the smaller the risk. We generally describe these risks in terms
of probability. If in asking your question, you want to know if there are
levels of exposure that are free from risk, the answer is no. If, on the other
hand, you are asking whether certain levels of chemical exposure are too
small to be of a health concern, then the answer is yes. Our goal is to reduce
the level of exposure to a safe level where it will be safe to drink the water
and breath the air. (Remember that a safe level does not necessarily mean
zero risk. It could mean for example that 10"4 or 10'3 risk is a safe level.
There are many reasons why zero risk may not be feasible, but one must also
remember that 10"4 or 10"5 are upperbound or maximum risks. This means
that the actual probability may be much lower and might even be zero
because of all the health protective assumptions that are used.) (CR 3,4)

Risk Comparisons
One of the most successful ways to communicate about technical issues is by using
comparisons. This helps put the particular situation into perspective for the individual.
However, the inappropriate use of comparisons can have disastrous results for your
credibility and for your communication efforts.
It is also useful to note the distinction between using a comparison to explain a
concentration (i.e. one ppb) and to explain a risk. The former is a measured quantity and
thus easily compared with other measured quantities. On the other hand, the risk estimate
is just that- an estimate, and you must use caution in comparing it to other estimates.
What factors make a comparison appropriate or irrelevant?
Refer back to the outrage factors shown in the earlier slide show. Any comparisons
you use will have to be relevant to the specific concerns of the public. You may be in
trouble if you compare a voluntary risk (like smoking or driving a car) with the involuntary
risk which people face from an environmental hazard.

The Chemical Manufacturer's Association has, as noted above, assembled a manual
on risk communication for its plant managers. As well as addressing other risk
communication issues, the manual goes into a great deal of detail on the appropriate and
inappropriate use of risk comparisons. A summary of some of the key points made in that
document concerning the use of risk comparisons are included in the resource document on
page 35. In addition, some of the same points are noted below:
No risk comparison will be successful if it appears to be trying to settle the
acceptability question since "acceptability" is a value question, not a technical one.
Your job is to help the "public" reach its own decision on the "acceptability" of the
Quantity comparisons (like in how much is a million) are more useful than
probability comparisons.
Use comparisons of the same risk at different times (i.e. before and after the controls
were put on)
Use comparisons with a standard (i.e., vs 10"*)
Compare with different estimates of the same risk: that of the environmentalists and
industry and your own. If some one else has a higher risk estimate - say so!
Compare the risks associated with your proposed solution or action to that of
alternative solutions.
In general, it is important that you carefully think through any comparison that you
want to use. You must be as diligent in discerning the appropriateness and accuracy of a
proposed comparison as in providing any sort of technical information. Be especially
cognizant of your audience and their concerns and only use a comparison that addresses
those concerns adequately!
In trying to determine the appropriateness of a comparison, try to see it through the
perspective of the participants. Will this help him/her better understand the situation at
hand? Remember, that should be the goal of the comparison - to help the recipient
Be careful: An inappropriate comparison, which the audience finds "off the wall" or
patronizing or otherwise wrong can turn the audience off so they will not hear your

Video Segment
The next segment of tape shows small portions of a press conference at which Jack
Moore, AA for Pesticides and Toxic Substances at the time, is discussing the Agency's
decision to permit on-field testing of a genetically altered bacteria (ICE minus) that will
inhibit the freezing of strawberries and some discussion by one of the primary scientists
involved in the experiment. In addition, Steven Lindow, the lead scientist on the ICE
Minus experiment is seen explaining the nature of the experiment to the public, in a
number of different fora.
Consider the following quesdons when viewing the tapes.
What did you think of Mr. Moore's presentation, especially with regard to the 7
Cardinal Rules.
What is your reaction to Mr. Lindow's assertion that "no deliberate introduction" of
a species has led to problems? Do you agree? Did you find the statement educative or
Did you like his "comparison of the genetic change to the bacteria to removing one
piano key? What about his graphics?
What is your reaction to his statement that you should have faith in the scientists?

o In this case, we will look more closely at the question of trust and credibility.
When the catastrophic accident occurred at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor, the Russians did
all they could to keep the information from the rest of the world— about the accident itself
and throughout the two weeks that followed. It didn't take long for the media (and others)
to start drawing comparisons and contrasts between the Russian behavior and our own
reaction to the accident in 1979 at Three Mile Island.
Reflect back on EDB, Chernobyl and your own experiences and consider the
What produces trust?
What can the Agency do to increase its credibility?
Is it possible to develop guidelines for risk communicators that would increase trust
and credibility? What would be the essential points of such a guidance?
o Which of the 7 cardinal rules, primarily by their absence, are highlighted by the
Chernobyl example?
Concluding comments:
Note that
o Having people trust you doesn't mean having them like you
o Having credibility is different from having people agree with you

You, as the EPA Region X Administrator, have just received the proposed rule
(including alternative approaches) for regulating the emissions of arsenic from the
ASARCO copper smelter located in your region. You have been told the proposed rule
will be published in the Federal Register within two weeks, no later than July 11, 1983.
You recognize that the proposal represents a significant effort by the EPA; you are
also aware that there is significant work to be done. Even though a specific approach is
presented in the rule, the Administrator has made it clear to you in no uncertain terms that
he wishes the final rule to take into account the public's desires; the final decision will be
his, but he is more than willing to change the proposed rule based on public comments.
You, as a result, have a very large task ahead of you. You must first determine how you
will involve all of the different people that will be affected by this rule to help you decide
the best approach to addressing the arsenic problem. You must also decide how you will
present the information to the public, including explaining the risks posed by the emissions
and the pros and cons of the alternative approaches to addressing those risks. You
understand that your ability to involve the public and communicate your knowledge of the
risks is critical in refining and implementing actions that address the problem.
As you considered the rule you reviewed a few of the key events that led to the
proposal. Arsenic was designated as a Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) under Section 112
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) in 1980. Two years after the designation EPA had not
promulgated a standard controlling arsenic emissions. Because of the delay the state of
New Jersey sued the EPA regarding arsenic emissions from a glass manufacturing plant. In
January, 1983 the United States District Court in New York directed EPA to propose a
national standard for arsenic. In particular, EPA was required to promulgate separate
standards for different types of arsenic-emitting sources. This included a separate standard
specific to the ASARCO/Tacoma copper smelter, the only copper smelter in the United
States to process high-arsenic ore and the largest single source of arsenic emissions in the

As the Region X Administrator you oversee a number of risk assessment,
management and communication functions. In this case, and at this point in time, your
concern is with risk communication. In particular you must decide, with regard to the
ASARCO proposed rule, when you will involve the public, how you will do so, what you
will say, and for what purpose.
We have summarized much of the key information about the ASARCO copper
smelter and the proposed regulation in the attached case study and appendices. The case
addresses issues ranging from background materials to summaries of the risk assessments
and community's attitudes.
In reading the attached material we ask that you keep a few basic questions in mind:
(1)	What are the key facts from the public's perspective
and from the perspective as Regional Administrator?
(2)	Why are you involving the public and what is your
objective? What do you hope to accomplish?
(3)	What strategies would you follow to achieve those
objectives? How are you going to achieve your
(4)	What constitutes "the public"? What public are you
trying to involve?
(5)	What particular messages are you trying to convey to
specific individuals and how will you present them?
(6)	What is the specific program for involving the public?
(7)	How will you evaluate your efforts?

Smelter History
The ASARCO/Tacoma copper smelter is located in Ruston, Washington (see Figure
1). The facility is situated in an industrial area adjacent to Tacoma and bordered to the
north by Puget Sound. Across Puget Sound, downwind from the smelter site, lies Vashon
Island, a more rural, middle to upper-class neighborhood where many vocal citizens
opposed to the smelter reside. The Tacoma/Ruston area, a more urban and blue-collar area,
is where many of the smelter employees and other concerned citizens live.
The ASARCO/Tacoma facility is the only U.S. smelter to process ore with a high
arsenic content Built in 1890 as a lead smelter, the facility was bought by ASARCO in
1905 and was converted to a copper smelter in 1912. Since the conversion of the facility,
the smelter has operated as a custom smelting operation, utilizing copper feed ores with an
average arsenic concentration of 4%, much higher than the typical 0.6% arsenic
concentration for ore used at other U.S. copper smelters. For this reason, the facility is able
to produce commercial arsenic as a by-product of its smelting operation. The
ASARCO/Tacoma facility is the only U.S. producer of arsenic, accounting for one third of
all the arsenic used in the United States. The facility, however, is also responsible for
approximately 23% of the total national inorganic arsenic emissions, and is the only such
source of airborne arsenic in the area.
Arsenic emissions occur at several points during the production of copper. Fugitive,
or ground-level emissions occur during the transfer between the major steps of production
of copper. Any arsenic gases collected from the furnaces and the hoods enter the pollution
control system. Arsenic, S02, and particulates are removed partially by means of a flue gas
cleaning system. These pollutants, however, are still present in tall stack emissions after
going through the flue gas cleaning system.
ASARCO has already invested a significant amount of money into pollution control
measures at the Tacoma facility. For the past fifteen years, the facility has been involved
in numerous legal battles with the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA)
over S02, paniculate, and arsenic controls (the PSPCA had been delegated authority from
the state). These disputes began in 1968, when PSAPCA adopted enforceable ambient and
stack concentration standards for S02. From 1968 to the present, ASARCO has
implemented several environmental controls, yet all the while has petitioned for variances
and extensions on meeting the standards.
In 1981, PSAPCA required ASARCO to install secondary hooding on the smelter
converters. This requirement was associated primarily with S02 and particulate controls,
although the installation of hoods would also greatly reduce fugitive arsenic emissions. The
converters, where the sulfur is burned out of the molten copper mixture, account for a large
proportion of the fugitive emissions of gases. Primary hoods capture most gases released,

but secondary converters that would cover the primary hoods would catch additional
emissions. These secondary hoods would play a particularly important role when the
converters were rotated to receive and dispense the molten copper, at which point the
primary hoods are less effective. ASARCO installed one secondary hood, the company has
delayed the installation of additional hoods.
Arsenic Reeulatorv Status
Arsenic was designated as a Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) under Section 112 of
the Gean Air Act (CAA) in 1980. The National Cancer Institute and the National
Academy of Sciences classify arsenic as a carcinogen based on a statistically significant
link between high occupational arsenic exposures and skin and lung cancer. In addition,
inorganic arsenic is well known as an acute poison to humans in high doses.
In response to a suit from the state of New Jersey objecting to arsenic emissions
from a New York glass manufacturing plant, a United States District Court in New York
directed EPA to propose a national arsenic standard. As part of this effort, EPA must
promulgate a separate standard for the ASARCO/Tacoma facility, the only copper smelter
to process high-arsenic ore and the largest single source of arsenic emissions in the U.S.
According to the language of the Clean Air Act, standards for hazardous air
pollutants such as arsenic must be based on an "ample margin of safety". For carcinogens,
however, an "ample margin of safety" appears paradoxical. EPA's approach assumes most
carcinogens demonstrate a dose-response relationship at all doses and to reduce arsenic
emissions to a zero level would require the closure of all facilities.
EPA therefore has taken the approach of implementing the requirements of the Clean
Air Act by controlling emission sources to the level that reflects the Best Available
Technology (BAT). The selection of BAT is based on an assessment of the best controls
available, considering the economic, energy, and environmental impacts. EPA will then
decide if further controls are necessary due to unreasonable residual health risks. This
approach has been embraced by William Ruckelshaus, EPA Administrator.
ASARCO's Economic Position
As EPA develops a proposed standard for arsenic, questions have arisen as to the
strength of the ASARCO/Tacoma facility's financial position. According to a 1981
assessment by Robert Coughlin (an EPA Region X Economist), the Tacoma facility has a
limited economic life, probably of less than five years. This is due primarily to
overcapacity within the copper industry and overcapacity within ASARCO itself. A
number of copper smelters have opened overseas, including one that utilizes high-arsenic
feed ore. This has led to a decrease in the availability and a resultant increase in price for
the imported high-arsenic feed ore. The increased world-wide competition contributes to
the reasons why ASARCO has several facilities in the U.S., including the Tacoma facility,

operating far below capacity. Along with this overcapacity within the industry and the
increasing price of high arsenic feed ore, another major factor affecting the fate of the
Tacoma facility has been the increasing cost of environmental compliance.
In Tacoma, however, the smelter continues to play an important economic role.
o The ASARCO smelter employs approximately 600 people and
contributes $20 million in goods and services and $2 million in
taxes to the area.
o An additional 500 jobs in the area are indirectly related to the
smelter operation. Plant closure would therefore have a
significant impact on the community.
A draft of EPA's proposed arsenic standard has just been released within the agency.
Once the proposed rule is made final, EPA will publish the standard, set a comment period,
hold public hearings, review and respond to public comments, and ultimately issue a final
rule. The proposed rule is presented in Appendix C.
The draft of the Executive Summary of the National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for arsenic describes the standard as follows:
"The recommended standard would require Best Available
Technology (BAT) on converter fugitive emissions. All
other emission sources at ASARCO are believed to be
controlled to the level of BAT."
The installation of two additional secondary hoods would fulfill the BAT requirements for
converter fugitive emissions.
The draft NESHAP proposal emphasizes the need for public involvement in the
standard setting process:
"As now written, this proposed regulation would leave some
of the residents of Tacoma exposed to a relatively high
estimated risk of lung cancer when compared to the risk
around other sources of arsenic. The Administrator is
especially eager to hear comments from the residents of
Tacoma on whether this remaining degree of risk is
appropriate and how this decision should be made."

EPA's calculation of the human health risk of developing lung cancer from arsenic
exposure provides the basis for the draft of the proposed standard for the ASARCO/Tacoma
facility. The proposed rule focuses only on cancer risks to the population from air
emissions of arsenic. Other health risks and ecological risks are not specifically addressed.
In part, these risks are excluded because EPA is in the process of addressing them through
Superfund activities. The ASARCO site was included in the area designated as the
Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats Superfund Site in April, 1983. Superfund studies
and risk assessments are currently underway to examine the risks associated with arsenic
and cadmium already present in the soil.
In conducting the risk assessment, EPA evaluates the hazard associated with arsenic,
EPA evaluates the health risks resulting from different levels of arsenic as described
through dose-response estimates (the unit cancer risk factor), and population exposure levels
have been examined- EPA then characterizes the risk and the cost of controls, and
alternatives to the proposed controls. Each of these topics is discussed in the following
Hazard Identification
Evidence indicates that a direct link exists between high arsenic exposures and lung
cancer, based on occupational exposure data from smelter workers. The risks were shown
to increase with an increase in cumulative arsenic exposures. While these studies
confirmed to the scientific community that arsenic is a human carcinogen at lower doses,
animal tests, however, have not confirmed the results of occupational analyses.
Other noncarcinogenic health effects have also been documented including nerve
damage, hemoglobin synthesis impairments, and hearing loss in children.
Dose-Response Evaluation
The dose-response relationship for arsenic was identified through studies of lung
cancer incidence in workers exposed to high levels of arsenic. Because it is a carcinogen,
EPA has presumed that arsenic is a non-threshold pollutant and that effects may occur at
any level of exposure.
Using an estimated risk number, or cancer potency factor, a linear extrapolation is
used to calculate the response at doses lower than the occupational levels. This linear
extrapolation represents a "conservative" estimate of the probability of developing cancer
from inhalation at low doses in that the active risk is unlikely to exceed the risk estimated
using the linear extrapolation.
Various studies based on Tacoma data have shown various dose-response
relationships and evidence of arsenic exposures.

o A 1978 study of lung cancer mortality, conducted by the Fred
Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, failed to document excess
cancers within the Tacoma population associated with arsenic
exposure from the smelter.
o A 1977 cohort study by Pinto et al. reflected a dose-response
relationship as shown through urinary arsenic levels. This dose
response relationship was also dependent on the duration and intensity
of arsenic exposure.
o In the 1970s, the DSHS confirmed the presence of arsenic in the urine
and hair of children living near the smelter. The concentration of
arsenic declined with distance from residences to the smelter. Samuel
Milham, of the DSHS, indicated that although high levels of arsenic
existed in the soil and in children's urine and hair, there was no
evidence of any adverse health effects associated with the presence of
o The Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency indicated that the
average urinary arsenic levels in Ruston and Vashon (reported at 36
and 23 micrograms/liter, respectively) were significantly higher than a
control group in Olympia (with a reported level of 12
Exposure Evaluation
Total exposure is determined by dispersion modelling estimates of the arsenic
concentration in the ambient air surrounding the smelter combined with data for the
distribution of the 370,000 people living within 12 1/2 miles of the smelter.
Emissions: Fugitive source emissions are too difficult to measure and therefore are
estimated. The stack emission rate used in the analysis, however, is derived from emission
Dispersion: EPA uses a model to calculate the dispersion of arsenic emissions within a
12 1/2 mile radius of the facility. The complex geography of the area and imprecise
meteorologic data make dispersion calculations difficult. Because of these difficulties, and
EPA's relatively high calculation of emission rates, the modelled results of ambient
concentrations are higher than the actual measurements of arsenic concentrations.
Population Location: Census data estimates of population location within the 12 1/2 mile
radius are combined with the modeled ambient concentrations of arsenic to determine the
population exposure.

Exposure Duration: The estimated exposure level assumes that individuals are exposed to a
constant average concentration of arsenic for 24 hours per day for a lifetime of 70 years.
For workers at the smelter, this average concentration exposure represents an underestimate
of exposure levels, yet for residents spending time outside of the Tacoma area, this
exposure level represents an overestimate. TTiis estimate of exposure is based solely on
inhalation of arsenic emitted by the smelter through stack and fugitive emissions.
According to EPA estimates, the proposed standard, requiring the installation of
additional secondary hoods, will significantly reduce arsenic emissions. EPA's estimates,
however, are significantly different from ASARCO and PSAPCA estimates.
EPA estimates that fugitive arsenic emissions will be reduced from 134 million
grams (Mg) per year to 24 Mg per year. (Total emissions will thereby be reduced from
282 Mg to 172 Mg.)
ASARCO's estimates of emissions, prior to the installation of controls, are
much lower (Table 1). ASARCO calculates that total emissions, without
secondary hoods, are closer to 54 Mg (59 tons).
PSAPCA calculations indicate that total emissions are 93 Mg before controls.
A majority of the discrepancy between estimates may be attributed to the difference
in fugitive emission estimates, which are difficult to measure or estimate and have
significant impacts on calculations of total emissions.
Ambient monitoring data around the facility provide some additional indication of
the concentration of arsenic in the air. These data, however, are limited in quantity and
also show major differences.
ASARCO's monitoring stations in Ruston indicate that the concentration of arsenic
in the air is approximately 0.2 to 0.9 micrograms per cubic meter. (The OSHA
standard for arsenic concentrations is 10 micrograms per liter.)
According to a newspaper account of ASARCO's description of the data, EPA
calculates that the level of arsenic in the air near the smelter is approximately 10 to
30 micrograms per cubic meter.
This difference between the ambient data and modelled data may be attributable to
the fact that EPA's model uses input based on assumptions about emissions and dispersion,
and cannot precisely predict the effects of complex geography and meteorology. In
addition, the location of ASARCO's monitoring stations is uncertain; they may be located
at more distant points.
Although EPA uses estimates of ambient concentrations ranging up to 30
micrograms per cubic meter, this highest value is used only to calculate the risk to the
maximum exposed individual. In EPA's exposure model, concentration levels at which the
majority of the population is exposed are less than 0.05 micrograms per cubic meter.

(million grams)
EPA's Estimate:
(million grams)
EPA's Estimate:
Stack:	148
converters 120
other 14
converters 10
other 14
ASARCO's Estimate:
ASARCO's Estimate:
Stack:	37
converters 8
other	8
Not Applicable
(None made)
PSAPCA's Estimate:
PSAPCA's Estimate:
Stack:	64
converters 5
other	24
Not Applicable
(None made)

Risk Characterization
Annual cancer incidence associated with arsenic emissions from the ASARCO
smelter is the product of the total population exposure around the smelter and the unit risk
number, calculated as divided by 70 years. Based on EPA's modelling of emissions and
resultant exposure estimates, and an estimate for the unit risk factor for arsenic, the health
effects at levels proceeding and following installation of controls are calculated.
The maximum lifetime risk represents the probability of a person contracting cancer
who has been continuously exposed during a 70 year period to the maximum (30 ug/m3)
arsenic concentrations from the smelter. The average lifetime population risk represents
this probability for an individual who has been continuously exposed to an arsenic
concentration of approximately .5 ug/m3.

Total inorganic arsenic
311 tons/year
189 tons/year
Average lifetime cancer
2 X 10^
4 X 10"5
Maximum lifetime cancer
A range of 2.7 - 37 per 100
with a best estimate of
58 - 9.2 per 100 with a
best estimate of 2 per 100
Lung cancer incidence
within 12 1/2 miles of the
1.1 - 17.4/year with a best
estimate of 4/year
0.2 - 3.4/year with a best
estimate of 1 per year
Annual background lung cancer rate in the Tacoma area is 71 - 94
~The mean concentration is 0.5 ug/m3
**The maximum concentration is 30 ug/m3
This reduction in the incidence of excess cancer cases is calculated based on a
decrease in arsenic emissions from the smelter. The installation of secondary hooding is
intended to reduce fugitive arsenic emissions and thereby decrease the level of exposure to
arsenic for the MEI and the population, resulting in a lower risk of developing cancer.
EPA has indicated that the risk characterization represents a conservative estimate of
cancer incidence, in that the true incidence is very likely to be lower.

EPA estimates the economic costs of such control measures to be the following:
o $3.5 million in capital costs.
o $1.5 million in annual operating costs based on increased
energy use.
These costs are based on economic information provided by ASARCO. Assuming
that ASARCO could pass off all of the additional cost to purchasers, these costs would
translate into an increase in the price of copper of 0.8%.
There are several other alternatives currently being considered by EPA.
o Baghouse controls, (a method of catching particulate matter within the
emission control system, before its release from the stack) are
considered to be expensive to install and ineffective against fugitive
o The use of ore with lower arsenic concentrations has also been
considered, although this too would be costly for the company. EPA
estimates that replacing only 15% of the total feed ore with low-
arsenic material would result in a $2.8 million reduction in net income
for the facility.
o Better smelting technology could be more effective but would require
a great capital investment by ASARCO.
Prepare a one page explanation of the risks associated with the ASARCO plant,
and the changes in the risks resulting from EPA's proposed regulation. The
explanation will be distributed to a group of citizens who live near the plant at the
first informal public meeting to be held after publication of the proposed rule in the
Federal Register. The citizens have little or no knowledge of the specific EPA results
although they are familiar with the problem from newspaper articles and media
coverage during the past few years. They are not health scientists, but they are
informed laypeople.

The impacts of an arsenic standard for the ASARCO/Tacoma facility are of concern
to many individuals and to the community as a whole. Because of the level of risk
calculated, the uncertainty in risk estimates, the economic impacts, and the potential health
effects associated with the draft of the proposed standard, there will undoubtedly be a great
deal of debate within the community over EPA's actions.
A few of the community and environmental groups expected to respond to EPA's
proposal were active during the 1970s at PSAPCA public hearings on the smelter. Public
awareness and concern reached a previous high in 1981 when the media highlighted health
and environmental concerns related to PSAPCA standards. As a result of this media
attention, several more citizen and environmental groups formed between 1981 and the
present Now, there are both small environmental coalitions as well as large broad-based
health, political, and labor groups that are expected to express concerns. Based on previous
public reactions to PSAPCA regulations, EPA has anticipated that public opinion will range
from people who feel that no regulation is needed to those who feel that the smelter should
be closed. Newspaper articles describing public opinion are included in Appendix E.
There are five categories of public opinion described further below:
o	No additional controls will be needed
o	Proposed BAT will provide adequate controls
o	Additional technical controls will be necessary
o	Additional health-based standards will be necessary
o	The facility should radically alter or stop operations.
No additional controls will be needed:
A small group of people will probably feel that the facility should continue
operations without installing secondary hoods. These people will primarily be employees
who feel that they are adequately protected and that no additional controls will be needed.
Proposed BAT will provide adequate controls:
A greater number are expected to feel that the proposed BAT controls will provide
the proper level of control. Included in this majority will be ASARCO officials and
managers, as well as a number of residents. These people will generally indicate that there
is no evidence of a health risk associated with the smelter, and any possible health risk is
less important than the jobs and economic benefits provided by the smelter. ASARCO
employees and some nearby residents have reported in the past that no one they have
known, employees or residents, has developed lung cancer. They will most likely dispute
the existence of a health risk. Many employees have also expressed in the past that they

feel that there is a threshold level of safety associated with arsenic exposure below which
no adverse effects will be observed.
ASARCO officials have indicated since the time PSAPCA issued its own
requirement for secondary hoods, that they are willing to install the proposed hoods once
they receive EPA's approval. ASARCO has maintained, however, throughout discussions
with PSAPCA, that there is no significant health risk associated with emissions. ASARCO
is certain to assert that EPA's emission and exposure estimates are too high and
overestimate any health risk.
The mayor of Tacoma has already indicated that the secondary hoods required by
PSAPCA seem satisfactory and that closure of the plant should be avoided. "Until I've
been able to be shown specifically to me that there is indeed deaths being created by the
emissions out of ASARCO, I don't think it should be closed," said the mayor. He called
ASARCO a "good corporate neighbor", and indicated that it has not been a source of
significant public health risk.
His view will be supported by Dr. Samuel Milham, epidemiologist for the DSHS.
"Unless you can demonstrate you're causing a public health problem, I think it would be
irresponsible to be closing the plant, and we definitely haven't been able to demonstrate
Additional technical controls will be necessary:
Another opinion anticipated is that EPA should require secondary hoods but should
also impose additional technically feasible controls. This opinion has been raised in the
past at PSAPCA hearings by a number of local regulatory agencies and environmental
groups, including Fair Share, the Tacoma City Council, and Tahomans for a Healthy
Environment Many of these people feel both jobs and health can be protected. Specific
alternatives for additional controls may be proposed by members of these organizations.
PSAPCA is likely to support this position, because they have already indicated that they
would like EPA to go beyond the secondary hood requirements they have already imposed.
Additional health-based controls will be necessary:
A fourth opinion anticipated is that EPA's proposed standard will not provide the
necessary "ample margin of safety." Some people, particularly Vashon Islanders, are
expected to ask EPA to require further controls to reduce the risks to a negligible level.
Vashon Islanders have expressed before that it is more important to protect the health of
themselves and their children than to ensure the continued operation of the smelter.

The facility should radically alter or stop operations:
Finally, there are individuals who will probably urge EPA to require the ASARCO
smelter to use low-arsenic feed ore or stop operation. These people perceive that a
significant health risk will always be associated with the smelter, even if control measures
are taken. Many of these people may feel that the Tacoma area would benefit from the
closure of the smelter, perhaps through realizing its goal of becoming a high-tech center,
rather than remaining a home to industrial hazards.

Sheldon Krimsky, Alonzo Plough, Risk Communication for an Industrial Site: the Case of
Kristine Wicklund, Floyd Frost, Asking the Public to Decide Upon an Acceptable Risk: The
ASARCO Copper Smelter Near Tacoma. Washington.
Michael Johnston, Dana Davoli, Arsenic Emissions from the ASARCO Smelter Tacoma,
Robert Ajax, Janet Meyer, Policy Consideration in the Selection of National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Tacoma Smelter.
John Gillie, "Smelter Is Not A Cancer Hazard, Says ASARCO," The News Tribune.
Tacoma, Washington, July 13, 1983, page 1.
Executive Summary, National Emission Standards for the Hazardous Air Pollutant for
Inorganic Arsenic.
Quantitative Expressions of Public Cancer Risks From the Emissions of Inorganic Arsenic
From High-arsenic Primary Copper Smelters
EPA Fact Sheets.



Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20.1983 / Proposed Rules
«0 CPR Part 61
National EmiaaJon Standards (or
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Proposed
Standards (or Inot^ante Arsenic
AQtMcr; Environmental Protection
actio* Proposed rule and
announcement of public hearing.
summamv: On June 5.198a EPA luted
inorganic arsenic as a hazardous sir
pollutant under Section \12 of the Clean
Air Act. Pursuant to Section 112. EPA it
proposing stcrdards for the following
categonesof ..urces of emissions of
inorganic aroenie high-arsenic primary
copper smellers, low-artenid primary
copper smelters, and glass
manufacturing plsnts. EPA identified
other categones of sources emitting
inorganic srsenic end. after csreful
study, determined that the propossl of
standards for these categones of sources
is not warranted st this time. These
categones of sources are pnmary lead
smelters, secondary lead smellers,
pnmsry zinc smelters, zinc oxide plants,
cotton gins, and arsenic chemical
manufactunng plants.
Aooftisacs: See "SUFPibmimtamv
ran PVMTMCM inporssattom COWTACT
See "sumiMNTARY infomsatkm"
Public Hesrings sod Rslsted Information
Comments. Comments must be
received on or before Sestember 30.
Public Hearing. Two public hearing*
will be held. The first heanng will be
held in Washington. D.C.. on August 23.
24. and 23.1963. beginning at 9:00 a.m.
each day. This hearing will consist of
two separates sessions. The first session
will be for the purpose of receiving
comments on the listing of arsenic as a
harzadous pollutant. The second session
will be for the purpose of receiving
comments on the content of the
proposed regulations. The order of Items
on the agenda of the second session will
be: (1) high-arsenic coppers smelters. (2)
low-arsinic copper smelters, (3) glass
manufacturing plants, and (4) others.
Persons planning to attend the first
heanng may call mrs. Naomi Durkee
(919) 541-6578 after August 18.1983. to
obtain an estimated time and date at
which each subiect will be addressed.
The second heanng will be held in
Tacoma. Washington, on August 30.
1983. This heanng will be for the
purpose of receiving comments on the
proposed standards for high-arsenic
copper smelters. This hea* ng will be
held fromm 12:00 noon to It*00 p.m. and
may be continued on August 31. 1983. if
necessary to allow all persons wishing
to speak an opportunity to do so.
Request to Speak at Heanng. Persons
wishing to present oral testimony at the
first heanng must notify Mrs. Naomi
Durkee by August IS. 1983. st telephone
number (919) 541-5578 or mailing
address: Standards Development
Branch. MD-13. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Tnangie
Park. N.C. 27711.
Persons wishing to present oral
testimony at the second heanng must
notify Ms. Laune Krai by August 23.
1983. at telephone number (2081442-1089
or mailing address: Air Programs
Branch. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Region X. 1200 ttlh Avenue.
Seattle. Washington. 98101.
Comments. Comments should be
submitted (in duplicate if possible) to:
Central Docket Section (LS-131). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M
Street. S.W.. Washington. D.C 20460.
Specify the following Docket Numbers:
OAQPS-79-a Lislins of arsenic sa a
A-80-40 High-arsenic and low-arsenic
copper tmaliers
A-80-6 Class manufacturing plants
A-43-9 Secondary lead
A-63>10 Cotton gins
A-83-U Zinc oxide plants
A-83-13 Pnmary tine, primary I 
FederalRegister / VoL 48. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20. 1983 / Proposed Rulea
Propoeed Staadaids
The propoaad standards would
regulate tnorganic araanle amiaaiona
from primary copper smelter* that
prooaaa fe«d materiel with aa annual
average inorganic arsenic content of 07
weight percent or nor*. The propoaad
standarda would require tha uaa of beat
available technology (BAT) to limit
secondary inorganic eraenic amiaaiona
from copper converting operation*.
Secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
are amiaaiona that eacape capture from
the primary emission control system.
The BAT for the capture of secondary
inorganic arsenic amiaaiona from
converter charging, blowing, skimming,
holding, and pounng operations la a
secondary hood system consisting of a
fixed enclosure with a horizontal air
cuiFor collection of secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions, BAT Is a
baghouse or equivalent control device.
The propoaed standarda are expressed
in terms of equipment specifications for
(he capture system and a maximum
allowable particulate emission limit for
the collection device. Particulate
emissiona from the collection device
would not be permitted to exceed 114
milligrams of particulates per dry
standard cubic meter of exhaust gas
(mg/dsan). This limit reflects BAT for
collection of secondary Inorganic
arsenic emissions.
To determine the sppUcabillty of the
proposed standarda to a primary copper
smelter, the inorganic araenic content of
the feed materials would be measured
using the proposed Reference Method
108A. To determine compliance with the
proposed particulate emiasion limit.
Reference Methods 1.2.3. and S in
Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 60 would be
used. Continuous opacity monitoring of
gases exhausted from s particulate
control device would be required to
ensure the control device la being
properly operated and maintained
Continuous monitoring of airflow would
be required to ensure the secondary
hood system is being properly operated
and maintained.
Summary of Health. Environmental.
Energy, and Eeooomic Impacts
The proposed standarda would affect
primary copper smelters that process
feed material having aa annual avenge
inorganic arsenic content of 0J weight
percent or more. Thia category la
defined ea hlgh-ersenic-through put
smelters. The only existing primary
copper smelter in the hlgb-enenio*
throughput smelter category Is owned
and operated by ASARCO. Incorporated
(ASARCO) and located in Tacoma,
Washington. The annual average
Inorganic arsenic content of the feed
material la not expected to be Increeaed
to 07 percent or above at any other
existing smelter, and no new smelters
sre projected to be built For this reeson
only the ASARCO smelter located in
Tacoma. Washington (hereafter referred
to es the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter),
has been analyzed for the purpose of
calculating the health, environmental,
economic and energy impacts of the
proposed standards.
As will be discussed In the next
section, to facilitate regulatory analysis
EPA haa separated the primary copper
smelting Industry Into two source
categories based oa the annual average
inorganic arsenic content of the smelter
feed material. Primary copper smelters
which process feed material with an
annual average inorganic arsenic
content less than OJ weight percent are
addreesed in Pert III of this preamble.
The proposed stsnderds would reduce
totsl inorganic arsenic emissions from
the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter from the
current level of 282 megegrams (Mg) (311
tons) per year to a level of 172 Mg (189
tons) per yeer. As e result of this
reduction in inorganic arsenic emissions,
it is estimated that the number of
incidences of lung cancer due to
inorganic araenic exposure for the
approximetelv 370.000 neoole livina
within about 20 kilometers (12J miles)
of the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter would
be reduced from e range of LI to 17 J
inddencee per year to a range of 0£ to
3.4 inddencee per year. The proposed
standards would reduce the estimated
lifetime risk from exposure to
airborne inorganic arsenic from e range
of 2J to 37 in 100 to a range of 0.58 to 9.2
In 100. The maximum lifetime risk
represents the probability of a person
contracting cancer who has been
exposed continuously during e 70-year
period to the maximum annual Inorganic
araenic concentration due to inorganic
araenic emissions from the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter. (These estimated
health Impects were calculated based
on a number of assumptions and contain
considerable uncertainty as discussed In
Part I of thia preamble and in Appendix
E of the background Information
Application of the controls required
by the propoeed standards would
increase the amount of solid weste (i.e.
collected particulate matter containing
inorganic arsenic) entering the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter weste
disposal system by approximately ll
glgagrama (Gg) (12.000 tons) per yeer.
Currently, the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter
generates approximately 182 Gg (200.000
tons) per year of solid waste (induding
slag). The additional amount of solid
waste generated can be handled by the
existing weste handling system st the
smelter. Because the control systems
expected to be used to achieve the
propoaed standards sre dry systems,
there would be no weter pollution
Energy impacta under the proposed
standarda would be increesed electrical
power consumption. The ennual energy
requirement for the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter is appraxlmetely 2.9X10*
kilowett-hours per yeer (kWh/y).
Additlonel energy requirements et the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter due to the
proposed stsnderds are estimated to be
approximately UxlO1 kWh/y,
representing an Increase In the annual

Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules
smeller energy consumption of about 0 5
For the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter
capital and annualized costs required to
meet the proposed standards would be
approximately 53.5 million and SI 5
million, respectively The primury
economic impacts associated with the
proposed standards arc protected
decreases in profitability for the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter It is
anticipated that the proposed standards
will not adversely affect the economic
viability of the smelter or employment at
the smelter. In addition, it is estimated
that the proposed standards could result
in an increase in the pnee of copper of
up to 0.8 percent.
Selection of Source Category
Copper smelting involves the.
processing of copper-bearing ores
containing varying concentrations of
inorganic arsenic. EPA estimates that
current controlled emissions of
inorganic arsenic from primary copper
smelters are 1.012 megagrams (Mg)
(1.118 tons) per year.
Several studies have assessed health
problems in communities where primary
copper smellers are located. Increased
lung cancer has been reported among
male and female residents living near a
primary copper smeller located in
Anaconda. Montana (this smelter was
permanently closed in 1981). The
National Cancer lnslituie has relensed a
study showing excess mortality from
respiratory cancer in counties where
primary copper smelters are located (;<*)
^PA initiated a study in 1977 of the
populations exposed to var.ous amhi*ni
air concentrations of inorganic arsenic.
This study, in summarizing 1974 data
collected by EPA's National Air
Sampling Network (NASN). shows that
the annual average concentration of
inorganic arsenic for five urban areas
within 80 kilometers of selected smellers
was 10 times greater than the annual
average for all of the sites (in excess of
250) in the nationwide network. At a site
within 18 kilometers of the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter, the annual average
was more than 25 limes the national
Based on information provided by the
copper smelting industry. EPA has
determined that the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter processes feed containing a
higher concentration of inorganic
arsenic than any other primary copper
smelter in the United Slates. The
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter is a custom
smelter ASARCO purchases ore
concentrates from other mining and
milling producers to process at its
Tacoma smelter. Typically, feed
material containing on the average 4 0
weight percent inorganic arsenic is
processed at the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter at the rate of 940 kilograms of
inorganic arsenic per hour (kg/h) The
level of inorganic arsenic conrrnir.iiion
in the feed muterials processed at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter is an order of
magnitude greater than the level
processed at the other 14 primary copper
smelters. The second highest average
inorganic arsenic content in the feed
material processed at a domestic
smelter is 0.8 weight percent. The
second highest average process rate of
inorganic arsenic at a domestic smelter
is itpproximaiely 170 kg/h. In fact, the
inorganic arsenic process rate for the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter is
significantly greater than the combined
inorganic arsenic process rate of 825 kg/
h for the other 14 smelters
Oecause of the potential for high
inorganic arsenic emissions and ihe
proximity of the population. calculated
risks and cancer incidence are
substantially higher for the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter than for other smelters
Consequently, the benefits associated
with the application of specific control
technologies to the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter versus the other smelters are
significantly different when considered
in terms of emission and risk reduction,
costs, energy, and other impacts. For
this reason. EPA believes it is
reasonable for purposes of regulation to
separate smelters into two source
categories based on Ihe annual average
inorganic arsenic concentration in ihe
The source category for high-arsenic-
throughput smelters is primary copper
smelters processing feed with an annual
average inorganic arsenic content of 0.7
percent or more. The value 0.7 percent
was selected based on the consideration
of the inorganic arsenic content of the
feed materials processed at the existing
smelters other than the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter. The regulatory analysis
of the 14 existing smelters which
prucess feed material with an annual
average inorganic arsenic content less
than O 7 weight percent is presented u.
Part III of this preamble.
EPA has. as a matter of prudent health
policy, taken ihe position that human
carcinogens must be treated as posing
some nsk of cancer nt any non-zone
level of exposure. Therefore, in
conjunction with the Administrator's
determination that (1) there is a high
probability that Inorganic arsenic is
carcinogenic to humans, and (2) that
there > significant public exposure to
inorganic arsenic emissions from the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter he
Administrator has determined thai
inorganic arsenic emissions from high-
arsenic-throughput smelters are
significant and should be rcgu'
In making the decision to rp^
hixh-.irspnic-throughput smellers ihe
Administrator considered whcihcr oih<
regulations affecting high-urscnic-
throughput smelters were adequaie to
control atmospheric inorganic arsenic
emissions. The Administrator hns
concluded that existing regulations are
not adequate to protect the public heai
and wplfare from sources of inorganic
arsenic emissions al high-arscnic-
ihroughput smelters with an ample
margin of safety. Based on an analysis
of the costs and impacts of more
stringent alternatives, it is the
Administrator's ludgment that a
substantial reduction in inorganic
arsenic emissions to the atmosphere
from the current level is achievable an<
npprupriate Therefore. EPA has deciat
io proceed with the development of
standards to control inorganic arsenic
emissions from high-arsemc-throughpu
smelters under Section 112 of Ihe Clear
Air Act.
EPA expects that only the ASARCO
Tacoma smelter would be in the high-
arsenic-throughput smelter source
category. Should any other existing
smelter process feed materials
an annual average inorganic £
feed content above 0.7 weight ~
the smelter would become subiect to th
proposed standards. In addition, the
proposed standards would also apply i
any new smelter processing feed
materials with an annual average
inorganic arsenic concentration of 0 7
weight percent or more.
Other than the ASARCO-Tucom.i
smelter, no existing smelter is expectci
to process feed materials having an
annual average inorganic arsenic feed
content above 0.7 weight percent withi
the next 5 years. Also, it Is proiected
that no new domestic primary copper
smelters will be built within the next 5
years. This projection is based on EPA
conclusion that annual Industry growih
will be accommodated by existing
smelters, which are presently not
operating or are operating below
Description of SmelUng Process and
Emission Points
A primary copper smelter is a facilin
that produces copper from copper
sulfide ore concentrates using
pyrometallurgical techniques. T1 •>
techniques are baoed on copp in
affinity for sulfur ond its weak y
for oxygen as compared to that oi iron
and other ha*e metals in the ore The

Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules	3312
purpose of smelting is to separate the
copper from the iron, sulfur, and other
impurities present in the ore
Primary copper smelwpg involves
three basic steps. First, the copper
sulfide ore concentrates are heated in a
roaster to remove a portion of the sulfur
contained in the concentrate. The solid
matenal produced by a roaster is called
'calcine." The calcine is loaded into
small rail can (called "lany cars"}. This
operation is called "calcine
The larry can transfer the calcine to a
smelting furnace. At most smelters, raw
copper sulfide ore concentrate is
charged directly to the smelting furnace.
In the smelting furnace, the calcine or
raw. unroasted ore concentrate ia
heated to form a molten bath containing
separate layers of matte (an impure
mixture of copper and iron sulfide) and
slag (a mixture of nonmetallic
impurities). Molten slag is skimmed from
the upper layer of the bath and poured
from openings in the furnace walls
(called "ports ') into inclined troughs
(called "launders"), which empty the
slag into a vessel mounted on a small
rail car (called a "slag pot"). This
operation is called "slag tapping."
Molten matte is poured from a second
set of furnace ports into launders, which
empty the matte into ladles. This
operation is called "matte tapping."
The ladle is transported by an
overhead crane to a copper converter.
The molten matte is poured from the
ladle into a large opening on the top of
the converter vessel. Air is blown into
converter to first oxidize the iron
sulfide in the matte. The resulting iron
silicate slag is poured directlv from the
converter mouth into a ladle. When all
of the iron is oxidized and removed, the
remaining copper sulfide is oxidized to
form a high-punty copper product
(calied "blister copper"). The blister
copper is poured directly from the
converter into a ladle for transfer to an
anode furnace (for further refining of the
copper) or directly to the anode casting
area (for casting of the copper into
copper anodes).
Roaster and smelting furnace offgases
dre produced by the combustion of fuel
and the reaction of materials in the high*
temperature environments. Converter
offgases result from blowing air through
the matte and the reaction of materials
m the molten matte Inorganic arsenic in
the ore concentrates is volatized during
roasting, smelting, and converting, and
is exhausted from the process
equipment in the-offgases. Offgases
discharged from roasters, smelting
furnaces, and converters, in the absence
of any controls, would have the highest
inorganic arsenic emissions of any of
the copper smelting sources at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter. An inorganic
arsenic matenal balance was provided
by ASARCO and reviewed by EPA to
inventory the inorganic arsenic inputs
versus outputs from each process at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter. The material
balance shows that the inorganic
arsenic emission rates in the absence of
any controls would be 22S kg/h for the
roasters. 608 kg/h for the smelting
fumace. and 207 kg/h for the converters.
During converting, most of the
remaining amount of Inorganic arsenic
and other impurities originally in the
copper ore are removed from the copper
matte to produce blister copper (98 to 99
percent pure copper). Blister copper
from the conveners may be further
refined in anode furnaces prior to
casting of copper anodes (solid slabs of
blister copper). Because of the small
quantity of inorganic arsenic remaining
in the blister copper charged to the
anode fumace. inorganic arsenic
emissions from anode furnaces are very
low when compared to the inorganic
arsenic emissions from roasters,
smelling furnaces, or converters. The
matenal balance for teh ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter shows that inorganic
arsenic emissions from anode furnaces
in the absence of any controls would be
0.4 kg/h.
The ASARCO-Tacoma smelter is the
only primary copper smelter that
recovers arsenic from collected waste
matenals. Oust collected in the flues and
control devices at the smelter is
processed to produce arsenic tnoxide
for sale to arsenic chemical
manufacturing companies. In addition,
metallic arsenic is produced at the
smelter site. The matenal balance
shows that inorganic arsenic emissions
from the arsenic tnoxide and metallic
arsenic manufactunng processes in the
absence of any controls would be 378
Secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions from converters are those
emissions that escape capture from the
primary emission control system. When
the converter is rolled out fur chargin"
matte into the converter mouth,
skimming slag formed in the converter,
or pounng blister copper into a ladle, the
primary hood is moved up and away
from the converter mouth to provide
clearance for the overhead crane and
ladle. As a result, charging, skimming,
and pounng operations can emit
significant amounts of secondary
inorganic arsenic because these
operations occur outside the range of the
converter's pnmary offgas exhaust
hood. Additional secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions also escape capture
by the pnmary ofTgas exhaust hood
dunng blowing and holding operations.
For the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter, the
matenal balance shows that the
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
rate from converter operations in the
absence of any controls would be 14 kg
Secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions also escape to the atmospher
dunng calcine discharging at the roastei
and dunng matte tapping and slag
tapping at the smelting fumace. An
estimate based on the matenal balance
for the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter show
that inorganic arsenic emissions from
matte tapping tn the absence of any
controls would be 4 kg/h. Inorganic
arsenic emissions from calcine
discharging and slag tapping are
estimated to be less than 1 kg/h.
Secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
from anode fumace operations are less
than 0.1 kg/h. Miscellaneoua sources of
secondary inorganic emissions from
pnmary copper smelter operations
include the handling and transfer of du-
from control device storage hoppers,
equipment flues, and dust chambers. A
the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter these
activities are conducted at many
locations throughout the plant Althaug
the amount of inorganic arsenic
emissions at each location is very smal
the cumulative total of emissions from
many locations can be a significant
quantity. The material balance for the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter shows that
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
from miscellaneous sources would be
about 8 kg/h in the absense of any
Policy for Determining Control Levels
For this source category, which
consists of only the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter, a three-step approach has bee
followed to determine the control
requirements being proposed. This
approach is based on the policy
discussed in Part I of this preamble.
The first step consists of determining
whether current controls at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter reflect
application of BAT. BAT is the
technology which, tn the ludgment of
EPA. is the most advanced level of
control which is adequately
demonstrated considering
environmental, energy, and economic
impacts. BAT considers economic
feasibility: and. for this smelter. BAT
does not exceed the most advanced
level of control that the smelter could
afford without closing.
For those emission points where BA
is in place. EPA determines whether a
NESHAP standard is needed to assure

33128	Fedarmi Register / Vol 48. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20. 1963 / Proposed Rules
that BAT will remain in place and will
be properly operated and maintained. A
primary consideration la the existence of
other Federally enforceable standards. If
BAT ia not In place on specific emission
points or if there is reason to expect that
BAT may not remain in operation, these
emission points are identified for
development of standards.
The secund step involves the selection
of BAT for the emission points at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter identified for
the development of standards. To select
BAT. regulatory altemativea are defined
based on demonstrated control
technology. The environmental,
economic, and energy impacts of the
alternatives are determined. Based on
an assessment of these impacts, one of
the alternatives is selected aa BAT.
The third step involves consideration
of regulatory alternatives beyond BAT
for all of the inorganic arsenic emission
points at the ASARCO-Tacoma smeiter
The nsk of cancer incidence due to
inorgBmc arsenic exposure in the
population distributed around the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter is estimated.
This estimated nsk which remains after
application of BAT is evaluated
considering costs, economic impacts,
risk reduction, and other impacts that
would result if a more stnngent
alternative were selected. If the residual
nsk is fudged not to be unreasonable
considering the other impacts or beyond
BAT controls, more stnngent controls
than BAT are not required. However, if
the residual nsk is judged to be
unreasonable, then an alternative more
stringent than BAT would be required.
Determination of the Adequacy of
Current Controls
Inorganic arsenic emission sources at
the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter are
currently controlled using a variety of
capture and collection techniques.
Capture techniques are used to gather
and confine secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions and to transport them to a
collection device. Collection techniques
are used to remove inorganic arsenic
from process ofTgasei and captured
gases pnor to venting the gases to the
atmosphere. Each inorganic arsenic
emission source at the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter was examined by EPA
to determine the extent to which
inorganic arsenic emissions are
currently controlled and whether the
level of control represents BAT
Controls currently in place at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter collect
inorganic arsenic emissions in the
roaster, smelting furnace, converter, and
anode furnace process offgases. During
these process operations, inorganic
arsenic is volatilized and emitted as a
metallic oxide vapor in the process
offgases. By cooling the process
offgases. the inorganic arsenic vapor
condenses to form inorganic arsenic
particulates, which can be collected in a
conventional particulate control device.
Because of the high-inorganic-arsenic
content of the feed matenals process at
the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter, the
concentration of inorganic arsenic in the
process offgases greatly exceeds the
inorganic arsenic saturation
concentration at gas temperatures less
than 121* C (250*F). Consequently, for
process offgases cooled to temperatures
below 121* C. inorganic arsenic emission
control levels can be achieved that
approach the performamce capability of
a control device for collecting total
particulate matter.
Roaster process offgases at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter are cooled to
a temperature less than 121* C and the
inorganic arsenic particulates are
collected in a baghouse. The smelting
furnace process offgases are cooled to a
temperature of 92* C. and the inorganic
arsenic particulates are collected in an
electrostatic precipitator. Converter
process offgases are exhausted to a
liquid SO* plant or a single-contact
sulfunc acid plant Because the presence
of solid and gaseous contaminants can
cause senous difficulties in the
operation of the SO. or acid plants, the
converter process offgases are first
cleaned by passing the gases through a
water spray chamber, an electrostatic
precipitator, scrubbers, and mist
precipitators. This gaa cleaning process
removes over 99 percent of the
contaminants, including inorganic
arsenic, from the offgaaes pnor to
entenng the SO« or acid plants. In the
event that the volume of converter
process offgases exceeds the capacity of
the SO. and acid plants or when the
planta are not operating, the excess
converter offgases are diverted to an
electrostatic precipitator. This
electrostatic precipitator also serves as
the full-time control device for the snode
furnace process offgases. Cooling of the
gases in the ducting lowers the gas
temperature to less than 120* C pnor to
entenng the electrostatic precipitator.
Controls for inorganic arsenic
emissions from roaater. smelting
furnace, converter, and anode furance
process offgases are in place at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter in order to
comply with existing total particulate
emission regulations of the Puget Sound
Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA).
These regulations are expressed in
teems of very stnngent process weight
particulate emission limits. The
PSAPCA regulations are included as
part of the Washington State
implementation plan (SIP) for attaining
the Federal ambient air quality standard
for particulate matter and. therefore, are
Federally enforceable regulations.
Roaster, smelting furnace, convert
and anode furnace process offgases are
potentially significant sources of
inorganic arsenic emissions. Because of
the high inorganic arsenic vapor
concentrations in the process offgases ot
a high-arsenic-throughput smelter,
cooling of the offgases to below 121* C
results in condensation of the vapor to
form particulates. Thus, collection of the
inorganic arsenic particulates in
properly designed and operated
particulate control devices can
effectively control the emission to the
atmosphere of inorganic arsenic in the
process offgases. The types of control
systems currently used at the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter to collect inorganic
arsenic from process offgases achieve
inorganic arsenic collection efficiencies
greater than 90 percent.
The control systems in place at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter to control
roaster, smelting furnace, converter, and
anode fumace process offgas inorganic
arsenic emissions represent the best
demonstrated level of control
considenng economic feasibility.
Therefore, the roaster, smelting furnace,
converter, and anode fumace proce*
offgases are already controlled usir
BAT. Existing Fedeselly enforceable
regulations require the controls to
remain in place and to be properly
operated and maintained to reduce total
particulate matter emissions. These
regulations serve to assure that BAT for
inorganic arsenic will remain in place
Therefore, additional standards'based
on BAT are not necessary at this time
Tor smelter roaster, smelting fumace.
converter, or anode fumace process
Existing controls in place at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter significantly
reduce the quantity of Inorganic arsenic
emissions from the arsenic tnoxide and
metallic arsenic manufacturing
processes. Arsenic laden offgases from
the Godfrey roasters pass through the
arsenic kitchens where arsenic tnoxide
condenses on the walls of the chambers
and is collected aa a product Cases
passing through the kitchens are vented
to a baghouse. The temperature of the
gases at the inlet to the baghouse is less
than 121' C. Offgases from the metallic
arsenic furnaces are also vented to the
same baghouse. Inorganic arsenic
emission points at conveyors, chargp
hoppers, storage bunkers, and the
barreling and carloading stations a.
controlled by captunng the emissions
using local hoods and venting the

Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules
emissions to several small baghouse*.
"hcse controls are in place at the
-SARCO-Tacoma smeller to comply
with PSAPCA arsenic and particulate
regulations and with the U-S.
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) inorgHnu
arsenic worker exposure standard
The composition of thrtotal
particulate matter emissions from the
.'.-^enir manufacturing processes at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter is inorganic
•irr secondary inorganic arsenic
.-missions from converter operations.
Smelting furnace secondary inorganic
arsenic eousaiona from matte tapoing
and slag tapping are captured and
collected at the ASARCO-Tacoaa
smelter. Copper matte or slag flows from
ports in the furnace walls through a
iaunder which directa the molten
material to a point where it is
transferred to a ladle or slag pot. At the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter, the matte
tapping launders are enclosed by
semicircular covers. Slag tapping
launders are covered by fixed hoods
mounted above the troughs. Local
exhaust hoods are mounted about 1
meter (3 feet) above each tap port. At
each launder-to-ladle transfer point for
matte tapping, a retractable exhaust
hood is used to capture emissions
generated at the ladte. An overhead
crane places the ladle on the floor in
front of the launder. The hood is then
lowered over the ladle prior to tapping
and is raised after the tap is complete.
The overhead crane retyms and picks
up the ladle of molten matte for transfer
to the converters. At each launder-to-
slag pol transfer point for slag tapping,
large fixed exhaust hoods are mounted
above the slag pot transfer point. The
captured secondary emissions from
matte tapping and slag tapping aie
vented to (he No. 2 ESP.
At the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter, all
emission points from smelting furnace
matte tapping or slag tapping are
enclosed or are covered by local
exhauat hoods. In EPA's judgment, this
capture system, if properly operated and
maintained, represents BAT for capture
of secondary emissions from smelting
furnace matte tapping and slag tapping
because no other demonstrated
technology can achieve a higher level of
capture efficiency. The capture system
is in place to fulfill a tripartite
agreement between ASARCO. OSHA.
and the United Steelworkcrs of America
(union representing workers al the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter). The
agreement specifies the engineering
controls and work practices to be
implemented at the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter for achieving compliance with
the Federal OSHA inorganic arsenic
worker exposure standard and.
therefore, la Federally enforceable.
Although not specified In the agreement
the captured secondary Inorganic
arsenic emissions are vented to an
electrostatic precipitator for collection.
The level of performance of thla control
device is equivalent to the level of
perfomance of BAT for collection of
process inorganic arsenic emissions.
EPA has no reason to believe thai
ASARCO will not continue to properly
operate and maintain the electrostatic
precipitator, therefore. EPA concluded
hat BAT is in place at the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter for capture and
collection of secondary Inorganic
arsenic emissions from smelting furnace
matte tapping and slag tapping.
Roaster secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions from calcine discharge are
also captured and collected at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter. Calcine is
gravity loaded Into larry cars from
hoppers located at the bottom of the
roaster. An exhaust hood is mounted on
either side of each hopper. A spring-
loaded top having three small openings
covers each larry car. When the larry
car is positioned under the hopper, the
openings in the car top align with the
hopper outlet and the two exhaust
hoods. Because the top is spnng-loaded.
a tight connection is achieved between
the top and the hopper outlet and hoods.
During loading, an induced draft fun is
Hctivaled to ventilate the space under
the car top and to capture the emissions
generated by the loading operation. The
captured secondary emissions are
combined with the roaster offgases pnor
to venting to the baghouse. In addition
to the local hoods located at the calcine
discharge point, the calcine hopper are
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules
the OSHA worker exposure standard.
Because BAT is already required in
order to comply with existing Federal
regulations, additional standarda based
an BAT are not necesaary at this time
for miscellaneous aources of secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions at high*
arsenic-throughput smelters.
The anode fumances in operation at
the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter are of an
atypical design that is not used at
anyother primary copper smelter located
in the United States. Secondary
Inorganic arsenic emissions (perhaps up
to 0.1 kg/h) escape to the atmosphere
from a large opening in the anode
furnace walL This opening allows the
fumance operators to perform activities
necessary for refining the blister copper.
Secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
from the anode furnace could
conceivably be captured using an
elaborate secondary hood system.
However, the effectiveness of such a
theoretical capture system is uncertain
considering the design of the anode
furnaces and the nature of operations
required to operate the furnaces. EPA
believes that any capture system
designed to provide the necessary
access to the anode furnaces would
impose very high costs. Based on the
•mail reduction in total smelter
inorganic arsenic emissions that would
be expected to result from controlling
anode furnace secondary emissions, it is
EPA's judgment that the costs for
installing controls to capture the anode
furnace secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions are excessive. Therefore. EPA
no* determined that the existing
equipment represents BAT and. aa a
result, no standards are being developed
at this lime for secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions from anode furnaces.
In summary, roaster, smelting furnace,
and converter process offgases aa well
as anode fumaca. arsenic plant, and flue
dust handling sources are (udged to be
currently controlled using BAT. Also,
secondary inorganic emissions from
roaster calcine discharge, and smelting
Furnace matte tapping and slag tapping
are captured and collected uaing BAT.
These controls are required by existing
Federally enforceable regulations or are
expected by EPA to remain in place and
to be properly operated and maintained.
With the exception of the prototype
secondary hood on one converter, no
controls are currently in place to limit
secondary emissions from the
converters. Therefore, because capture
technology has been demonstrated. EPA
decided to develop standards baaed, aa
a minurnum. on BAT for secondary
emissions from converters.
Selection of BA Tfor Converters
Control Technology. Primary
converter hoods capture process
emissions during converter blowing
penods: but. dunng charging, skimming,
holding, or pounng operations, the
mouth of the converter is no longer
under the primary hood, and converter
emissions escape capture by the hood.
There are three alternative control
methods for capturing secondary
emissions from converter operations: (1)
fixed and retractable secondary hoods.
(2) air curtain secondary hoods, and (3)
building evacuation.
Four domestic smelters currently use
fixed secondary hoods to capture
converter secondary emissions. These
hoods are attached to the upper front
side of the converter primary hoods.
More complex retractable secondary
hood designs are used at one domestic
smelter and smelters in japan. Visual
observations made at two domestic
copper smelters showed that fixed and
retractable secondary hoods captured a
portion of the secondary emissions from
converter operationa. However, the
capture efficiencies of existing fixed and
retractable secondary hood designs are
judged by EPA to be less than 90
A more advanced method for the
capture of converter secondary
emissions is the use of an air curtain
secondary hood. Walls are erected to
enclose the sides and the back of the
area around tha converter mouth. A
portion of tha endoaura back wall is
formed by tha primary hood. Openings
st tha top and in tha front of the
enclosure allow for movement of the
overhead crane cables and block, and
the ladle. Edges of the walls in contact
with the primary hood or the converter
vessel are sealed. A broad, horizontal
sirstream blows across the entire width
of the open space at tha top of the
enclosure. This airstream is called an
"air curtain." The air curtain is produced
by blowing compressed air from a
narrow horizontal slot extending the
length of a plenum along the top of one
of the sida walla. The air is directed to a
receiving hood along the top of the
opposite side walL An Induced draft fan
in the ducting behind the receiving hood
pulla the airstream Into the hood. When
the converter is rolled out away from
the primary hood for charging,
skimming, or pouring, the air curtain
sweeps the converter offgases and
emissions which are generated by
matenal transfer between the converter
and the ladle into the receiving hood.
The captured emissions are then vented
to a collection device or released
directly to the atmosphere through a
The air curtain secondary hood has
been demonstrated as an effec'
method for capturing convene!
secondary emissions. For the past J
years, air curtain secondary hooda hai
been in place to control converter
secondary emissions at copper smelter
in |apan. A prototype air curtain
secondary hood was installed in t982 c
one of the converters at the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter.
In {anuary 1983. EPA conducted a tes
program designed to evaluate the
effectiveness of the capture of
secondary emissions by the prototype
air curtain secondary hood at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter. The captun
efficiency of the system was evaluated
by performing a gas tracer study and
visual observations. The gas tracer
study involved iniecting a gas tracer
inside the boundanes of the fixed
enclosure and measuring the amount o
the gas tracer in the exhaust gases in i
ducting downstream of the enclosure
receiving hood. The capture efficiency
was then calculated by a matenal
balance of the inlet and outlet tracer g<
maas flow rates. Based on the results c
this test program. EPA believes an air
curtain rscondary hood is capable of
achieving an overall capture er "ci
of 95 percent.
Capture of converter seconi
emissions by building evacuation is
accomplished by controlling the airflo*
patterns within tha building housing th
converters and by maintaining a
sufficient air change or ventilation rait
Control of airflow in the ventilated are
Is obtained by Isolating it from other
areas and by the proper design and
placement of Inlet and outlet openings
Proper location and sizing of inlet and
outlet openings provide effective airflc
patterns so that the secondary emissic
cannot escape to adjacent areas or
recirculate within tha area.
EPA believes that a well-designed
building evacuation system should be
capable of achieving at least 96 percer
capture efficiency of secondary
emissions. However, (he building
evacuation systems currently used in
non-ferrous metallurgical Industry ha\
not demonstrated this level of control
building evacuation system is being
used at the ASARCO copper, lead, an
zinc smelter located in El Paso. Texas
to capture aecondary emissions from
copper converters and a zinc smelting
fumaca operated inside a bui'-' -
While preventing the ventin
secondary emissions to the i t a
outside tha building, usa of the uuildir
evacuation system at the ASARCQ-E.

Federal Register / Vol. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules
Paso smelter has resulted in elevated
concentrations of inorganic arsenic,
lead, and SO* inside the building in
addition to excessive heat buildup. To
alleviate these unacceptable working
conditions, building openings have been
increased and roof vemitators designed
for emergency use only have been
operated routinely. As a result of
increasing the number of building
openings, the capture efficiency of the
building evacuation system hat been
decreased. The building evacuation
system as presently operated at the
ASARCO-E1 Paso smelter achieves a
capture efficiency of less than 95
The control technology for (he
collection of secondary inorganic
nrsenic emission* ta based on the
cooling of the exhaust gases to condense
ihe inorganic arsenic vapors to form
particulates, and the subsequent
collection of the inorganic arsenic
particulates in a conventional
particulate control device. Baghouse and
electrostatic precipitator control devicei
are currently used al primary copper
smelters to collect secondary inorgaoic
arsenic emissions 9s well as particulate
matter emission*.
To evaluate the efficiency of a
conventional particulate control device.
EPA tested (he baghouse in place at the
ASARCO-E1 Paso smelter used for the
collection of secondary emissions from
the converters. Emission measurements
for inorganic arsenic and total
particulates were conducted at the
hnshouse inlet and outlet for three (est
runs. At the baghouse outlet, inorganic
arsenic concentrations ranged from
0 01S (0 0.39 milligram per dry standard
cubic meter of exhaust gas (mg/dscm).
The corresponding total particulate
concentrations at the baghouse outlet
ranged from 1.1 to 11.8 mg/dscm. Gas
temperatures at the baghouse inlet were
less than SO'C (112"F). The Inorganic
arsenic collection efficiency was over 99
percent for two of the test runs and was
greater than 94 percent for the third test
run. The test results showed that the
overall average inorganic arsenic
collection efficiency of the baghouse for
three test runs was 98 percent. EPA
concluded from (he tests that a properly
designed, operated, and maintained
baghouse or equivalent particulate
control device can achieve a collection
efficiency of at least 96 percent for
inorganic arsenic.
Regulatory Alternatives. To determine
the level of control that reflects OAT for
control of converter secondary
emissions, technical alternatives were
identified for reducing inorganic arsenic
emissions from the ASARCO-Tacoma
For the purpose of analysis, these
alternatives are identified here and in
the background information document
as Regulatory Alternatives I and II. For
Regulatory Alternative I. no national
emission standard would be established
for inorganic arsenic emissions from
high-arsenic-throughput smelten. No
additional controls the controls
already in place at the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter to comply with existing
regulations (e.g. Washington Slate
implementation plan. OSHA inorganic
arsenic worker exposure standard)
would be required. Regulatory
Alternative 1 corresponds to the
baseline level of control.
Regulatory Alternative II represents
control of secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions from converter opertions at
the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter. This
alternative is based on capture of the
secondary emissions usuig a secondary
hood consisting of a fixed enclosure
with a horizontal air curtain. The
captured secondary emissions would be
vented to a baghouse or equivalent
control device for collection.
Regulatory Alternative I (baseline
case) would not change the existing air
and non-air quality environmental
impacts of operations at the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter. Total inorganic arsenic
emissions from the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter would remain at the current
level of 282 Mg (311 tons) per year. In
addition, there would be no energy or
economic impacts associated with this
Regulatory Alternative II would
reduce total inorganic arsenic emissions
from the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter by
110 Mg (121 tons) per year to a level of
172 Mg (189 tons) per year. The amount
of collected particulate matter
containing Inorganic arsenic would be
approximately 11 gigagrams (Cg) (12.000
tons) per year. This would increase the
amount of solid waste generated at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter from 102 to
193 Cg (200.000 to 213.000 tons) per year,
an increase of about 0 percent. The
additional solid waste can be handled
by the smelter s existing solid waste
disposal system. Because the alternative
is based on use of an electrostatic
precipitator, a dry particulate collection
device, there would be no water
pollution impact.
The energy Impacts of Regulatory
Alternative II would be increased
electrical energy consumption. To
operate the control system specified by
the alternative, annual electrical energy
consumption would be 1.5 xlOT
kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/y). Total
smelter energy consumption is
approximately 2.9X10* kWh/y. Thus.
Regulatory Alternative II would increase
the total ASARCO-Tacoma electrical
energy consumption by 0.5 percent.
The capital costs for installing the
control system specified by Regulatory
Alternadve II is S3.S million. This
represents a maior capital expenditure
for ASARCO. However. ASAJRCO is a
major publicly held corporation with a
good credit rating and good access to
financing. Even considering the
possibility of additional capital
expenditures for control equipment for
the two ASARCO low-arsenic-
throughput smelters (the ASARCO-E1
Paso aod Hayden primary copper
smelters are addressed in Part III of this
preamble), it is EPA's determination that
ASARCO would be able to obtain the
necessary capital to install the control
system at the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter. The annualized cost to
implement Regulatory Alternative 111*
estimated to be $1.5 million. If ASARCO
chooses to absorb the costs by reducing
Its profit margin, the profitability of the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter could be
reduced up to 8 percent If ASARCO
chooses to maintain its normal profit
margin and attempts to recover the costi
by increcung copper prices, the price
increase would amount to 0-S to 0.8
In summary, under Regulatory
Alternative 1L total smelter inorganic
arsenic emissions would be reduced by
39 percent from 282 Mg per year to 172
Mg per year. The reduction in emissions
would be achieved with a small increas<
in the amount of solid waste generated
at the smelter. There would be no water
pollution impact. Energy consumption a>
the smelter would be slightly increased.
The primary economic impacts
associated with this alternative are a
prelected modest decrease in
profitablity for the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter and a possible small increase in
the price of copper. In EPA's iudgment.
this alternative would not adversely
affect the economic viability of the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter or
employment at the smelter. Because a
significant reduction in inorganic
arsenic emissions from the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter is achievable with
reasonable economic, energy, and non-
air quality environmental impacts. EPA
selected Regulatory Alternative II as
It should be noted that the level of
control selected as BAT is based upon
the Adminstrator's best judgement and
the information available at this time
As discussed later, comments and
information are being requested on

Federal Remitter / Vol. «. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20. 1963 / Proposed Rulea
additional control measure*. The final
decision on BAT will reflect
consideration of these comments and
may. tbwefore. include measures (e g..
production curtsilments or improved
operating and housekeeping practices)
which are not now included in
Alternative II.
Consideration of Emission Reduction
Beyond BA T and Decision on Basis for
Proposed Standards.
After identifying BAT. EPA
considered the estimated residual health
nsks and possible control alternatives
that would reduce emissions to rates
lower than that achievable with BAT.
The health risk is expressed by the
number of Incidences of cancer due to
inorganic arsenic exposure in the
population distributed around the
ASARCO-Tacoma imelter. Based on
epidemiological studies. EPA denved a
unit nsk number for exposure to
airborne inorganic arsenic The unit nsk
number n a measure of potency
expressed as the probability of cancer in
a person exposed to 1 fig/m * of
airborne inorganic arsenic for a lifetime
(70 years). Annual cancer incidence (the
number of caaea per year) aasociated
with Inorganic arsenic emissions from
'he ASAKCO-Tacoma smelter is the
product of the total population exposure
around the smelter and the unit nsk
number divided by 70 years. Total
exposure is determined by dispersion
modeling estimates of the inorganic
arsenic concentration in the ambient air
surrounding the smelter combined with
data for the distribution of the estimated
000 people living within about 20
kilometers (12.5 miles) of the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter. For the current level of
inorganic arsenic emissions from the
ASARCO-Tscoma smelter, the annual
cancer incidence is estimated to range
from 1.1 to 17.8 cases per year. With
BAT in place at the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter for all of the significant
inorganic asemc emission points it is
estimated that the annual cancer
Incidence would be reduced to a range
of 0 2 to 3.4 cases per year. Application
of BAT would reduce the estimated
maximum lifetime risk from exposure to
airborne inorganic arsenic from a range
of 2 3 to 37 in 100 to a range of 0.58 to 9 2
in 100. The maximum lifetime nsk
represents the probability of a person
contracting cancer who has been
continuousl| exposed during a 70-year
penod to the maximum annual inorganic
arsenic concentration due to Inorganic
arsenic emissions from the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter.
All known control alternatives were
examined with the particular emphasis
on the further contol of secondary
emissions, which on the basis of
modeling results, cause the highest
ambient exposure and resultant health
nsks. This examination, which included
evaluation of controls used on smelters
in both the United Slates and |apan as
well as the possibility of technology
transfer from other source categories,
identified no demonstrated
technological controls mora efficient
than those Identified as BAT. Therefore,
the remaining alternatives are limited to
two basic categories: (1) production
limitations or curtailments and (2)
limitations on the smeller inorganic
arsenic throughput.
Impacts of Controls Beyond BA T
Without specific and detailed
knowledge of all economic information,
which is known only to ASARCO. EPA
cannot estimate with certainty the
extent to which production curtailment
or limitation on inorganic arsenic feed
rate may be affordable*. The smelter is
currently operating under a production
curtailment program designed to limit
ambient sulfur dioxide (SO<) levels. This
program, which EPA believes to achieve
at least a corresponding effect on
ambient inorganic arsenic
concentrations, currently results in
production curtailment of approximately
30 percent. When converter controls are
in place, the amount of curtailment
needed may be less but is expected to
be not less than 20 or 23 percent. Thus,
while further curtailments may be
possible, it is doubtful that the degree of
curtailment necessary to significantly
reduce nsk (e.g.. a SO percent additional
curtailment would reduce the estimated
maximum nsk from a range of 0.58 to 9 2
in 100 to a range of 0.29 to 4.8 in 100)
would be affordable.
An analysis of the importance of high-
inorganic-arsenic feed to the economic
viability of the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter leads to the conclusion that the
imelter would probably close if high-
morganic-arsenic-contact materials
could not be processed. High-inorganic-
arsenic-content copper ore concentrate
and lead smelter by-products represent
about one third of the feed matenal
input to the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter
If forced to discontinue use of these feed
matenals. ASARCO would need to
compete with other copper smelting
companies for additional supplies of
copper ore. In the face of Japanese
competition and current copper ore
shortages, it Is questionable whether
sufficient supplies of low-arsenic-
content copper ore concentrate could be
obtained at prices that would allow
profitable operation. More Importantly,
the use of hlgh-inorganic-arsenic feed
allows ASARCO to produce arsenic
tnoxide and metallic arsenic. EPA
estimstes that the sale of srsenic
tnoxide and metallic arsenic represent
about 10 to 15 percent of the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter s total revenue
could account for most of the pt\
Therefore, for purposes of this anaiysn
EPA is concluding that any potential
means for limiting inorganic arsenic
emissions to the extent necessary to
significantly reduce risks would result in
closure of the ASARCO-Tacoma
The arsenic produced by the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter supplies
about one third of the total nationwide
demand for arsenic The remaining two-
thirds is imported and represents over
half of the world production outside the
U.S. If ASARCO-Tacoma stopped
production of arsenic the world arsenic
production capacity would have to
increase by 25 percent to makeup the
shortage. It is considered doubtful thai
such an increase would be possible ever
with substantial upward price pressure.
The impact that this shortage would
have on industrial products-(e g..
pressure treated lumber) and
agnculturnl uses (e.g.. cotton desiccunts
herbicides) has not been estimated.
Consideration cf Health Risks
As detailed in Section I of thi?
preamble, the estimated health
cited above associated with exj, to
ambient inorganic arsenic are at best
only a very crude estimator of the actua
health effects. TV degree of uncertainty
in these estimate is very large because
of the many assumptions and
approximationa involved in their
derivation. Nevertheless, the estimated
risks due to emissions from the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter are high
relative to other inorganic arsenic
sources and to other sources of
hazardoua pollutants that have been
regulated. These levels, therefore,
provide a basis for serious question as
to whether limiting emissions based on
BAT would protect public health and
provide an ample margin of safety.
Moreover, direct ambient exposure is
not the only potential health impact
since the inorganic arsenic emitted into
the atmosphere accumulates on land
and in water resulting In other avenues
of exposure. It should be noted that
pnmanly due to arsenic the
Commencement Bay Near Shore Tide
Rats area (which Includes the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter) has been
proposed as a National Prionti it'
by EPA under the Superfund p.
(47 FR 58478. December 30.1982).

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday, july 2a 1963 / Proposed Rules
Consideration of Impacts of Beyond
Cloture of the ASARCO-Tacoma
seller would reault in aevere social
nd economic impact on the local
economy. Moreover, since the
ASARCO-Tacoma amelterts the only
domestic smelter capable of smelting
high-impunty copper ores and
production of aasociated by-products
including arsenic, cloture of the smelter
would result in a total loss of this
domestic production capability. Closure
of the smelter would eliminate the }obs
of about 500 ASARCO employees and
300 additional jobs In the Tacoma area.
Cloture would alto mean elimination of
S20 million per year in revenuea to local
companies and S2 million per year in
State and local taxes.
Decision and Proposed Standards
As detailed in Part I of thit preamble,
under EPA'a interpretation of Section
HZ. the smelter should be controlled at
least to the level that reflects BAT and
to a mors stringent level if necessary to
prevent unreasonable risks. The
decision as to whether the remaining
risks sre unressonable Is based upon
consideration of the individual and
population nsks and consideration of
the impacts, including costs, economic.
«nd other impacta associated with
jrther reduction of these nsks.
The primary purpose of standards
promulgated under Section 112 is to
protect the public health. The
Administrator is concerned that the
estimated residual risk after application
of BAT at ASARCO-Tacoma may be
uiucasonable. and, aa such, that
additional controls beyond BAT may be
warranted. As indicated earlier. EPA
has not identified technological controls
more efficient than BAT: therefore. In
making a decision on an appropriate
control level of ASARCO-Tacoma. the
Administrator's considerstion of beyond
BAT alternatives was limited to
production and arsenic throughput
limitations. These control measures
could further reduca emissions of
inorganic arsenic and associated health
risks. Arsenic throughput for example,
could be limited to s level comparable
to a low-arsemc-throughput smelter
(less than 0 7 percent inorganic arsenic
in the total smelter charge), although
estimated health risks would still be
expected to be higher for ASARCO-
Tacoma than for the other smelters due
to its location in a highly populated
The Administrator believes that
control beyond BAT could result in
closure of the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter This would reduce the smelter
contribution to the estimated health
nska to zero: but would also result in a
loss of lobs, a loss of domestic
production capacity in both the copper
and arsenic industries, and a loss of
revenues to local businesses and
governments. Certainly the Impacts
associated with closure of the smelter
would be felt directly snd immediately
by the local population, particularly the
employees of the smelter. With these
potential tenout negative impacts, a
decision to require beyond BAT controls
must be carefully considered.
Given that the calculated health risks
estimated to remain after the application
of BAT would be the basis for a decision
to require beyond BAT controls and. in
this case, possibly cause closure of the
ASARCO-Tacoma amelter. the
Administrator believes it is necessary to
scrutinize the basis for these calculated
estimates as a part of the decision-
making process. The estimated health
risks were calculated by combining a
unit riak estimate for inorganic arsenic
with the ambient concentrations of
inorganic arsenic predicted by modeling
and with population data for the area
surrounding the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter. As discussed in Part I of this
preamble and Appendix C of the BiO.
there are simplifying assumptions snd
fundamental uncertainties inherent in
each of the components of the
calculation, resulting in a number of
uncertaintiea in the nsk estimates.
Uncertainties in the unit risk estimate
exist due to a number of simplifying
assumptions. Among these is the
assumption that a linear relationship
exists between cancer nsks snd level of
exposure and this relationship Is the
same at the low levels of public
exposure as at the high levels of
occupational exposure. There Is no solid
scientific basis for any mathematical
extrapolation model that relates
carcinogen exposure to cancer risk at
the extremely low concentrations that
must be dealt with In evaluating
environmental hazarda. Because its
scientific basis, although limited, is the
best of any of the current mathematical
extrapolation models, the linear
nonthreshold model has been adopted
here as the primary basis for nak
extrapolation at low levels of exposure.
Additional assumptions made in the
determination of the unit nak eatimate
are that all people are equally
susceptible to cancer and that persons
are exposed continuously from birth
throughout their lifetimes (70 years). The
Administrator believes that the
assumptions made In determining the
unit risk estimate are reasonable for
public health protection in that they lead
to a rough but plauaible eatimate of the
upper-limit of nsk. That is. it is not likely
that the true unit nsk would be much
more than the estimated unit nsk. but It
could be considerably lower.
Uncertaintiea in the ambient modeling
exiat due to the limitations of the
dispersion model snd the assumptions
and potentisl error in the data input to
the model. Umitationa in the model
include ita inability to account for the
vanable operating conditions of the
smelter and vanable meteorology; that
ia. one set of operating and
meteorological conditions was aaaumed
for modeling purposes. The
meteorological conditions used are
believed to be representative. However,
the smelter operating conditions used in
the modeling do not account for the
frequent curtailment of operations now
required at ASARCO-Tacoma to reduce
emisaiona of sulfur dioxide, and
therefore, probably result in an
overestimate of ambient air
concentration of Inorganic arsenic
(since arsenic emissions would be
reduced as well). Also, the model does
not account for sources of arsenic other
than the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter that
are in the area.
In additioa there were many inputs to
the model such as location of each
emission source at the smelter and the
rate, temperature, and height at which
those emissions are released to the
atmosphere. Each of these input
parameters is subject to error, but
perhaps the most crucial parameter is
the estimate of emission rates. The
emission rates used by EPA were based
on actual emiaaion test data whenever
possible. However, for some sources,
most notably converter secondary
emissions, test data were not available
at the time the estlmatee were made:
therefore, some essumptions were made
for modeling and impact analysis
purposes. The EPA assumed, for
instance, that converter secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions were
approximately IS percent of those
measured In the primary converter
oflgases. Preliminary results of testing
conducted in lanuary 1983 on converter
No. 4 at ASARCO-Tacoma indicate that
emiasions may be significantly less than
Additional uncertainties anie from
the use of population data. The people
dealt with in the analysis sre not
located by actual residence. They are
"located" in the Bureau of Census data
for 1970 (the most recent available) by
population centroids of census districts.
The effect is that the actual locations of
residences with respect to the estimated
ambient air concentrations is not known

rwoivi iwgiaivi / tui, no. iiu* iiu i Tvcuucauaj* juij	J90«j / riupwacy i-vuica
and the relative locations used in the
exposure model have changed unce the
1970 census. In addition, it is assumed
that people remain in the same location
for a lifetime (70 yean), the only
exposure of the population that occurs is
due to the ASARCO»Tacoma smelter,
and only persons within 20 kilometers of
the emission source are affected.
In summary, there ia a high degree of
uncertainty in the eatimated health naks
due to the many assumptions and
uncertainties associated with the
componenta of the estimates. While the
estimated naks may be meaningful in a
relative sense, they should not be
regarded aa accurate repreaentations of
true cancer risks. Furthermore, it should
be noted that: (l) ambient monitoring
data available for the Tacoma area
show significantly lower ambient
concentrationa of inorganic arsenic than
those predicted by the model, and (2)
data on lung cancer incidence rates for
the ten largest citiea in Waahington for
the years 1970 through 1979 show that
Tacoma ranks Tilth, and the lung cancer
rates in Tacoma are below the national
average lung cancer rate.
In light of the high degree of
uncertainty in the estimated health
risks, the apparent absence of further
control alternatives short of closure, the
serious negative impacts associated
with closure, and the absence uf
comments from the affected public, the
Administrator cannot conclude at this
time that the risks remaining after the
application of BAT are unreasonable.
Therefore, standards are being proposed
for the category of high-arsenic-
ih-~.,ghput smelters based on the
application of BAT.
Even though standards are proposed
based on BAT. the Administrator
remains concerned that the estimated
residual health risks, although uncertain,
are high relative to those estimated for
other source categories regulated by
NESHAPs as well aa other sources of
arsenic The Administrator believes it is
necessary to take extraordinary
measures to ensure thai hia final
determination of th« control level that is
appropriate for high-araenic-thraughput
copper smelters is baaed on the most
complete and accurate information
available. Therefore, the following steps
are being taken:
First EPA is continuing to refine its
estimates of emissions and associated
health risks for the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter. This will include a complete,
on-site emission source inventory by
EPA personnel, emisaion testing where
feasible. and Improved modeling. In
particular, efforta are currently
underway to model the effect of
ASARCO-Tacoma'a production
curtailment. Additionally, further
evaluation of controls that could
potentially be applied to reduce
emissions of inorganic arsenic
[particulary secondary emissions! at
ASARCO-Tacoma will take place. This
evaluation will not be limited to add-on
control equipment but will also cover
other measures such aa improved
operating and housekeeping practices.
Secondly, a public hearing for the
proposed standards for high-arsenic-
throughput copper smelter* will be held
in the Tacoma. Washington area. This
will give those people who would be
most affected by the standards the
opportunity to comment in person.
Finally, the Administrator has
establiahed a special task force to be
chaired by EPA's Region X office in
Seattle. Washington. The task force will
aid the Administrator in secunng
available information from the area
which would be most pertinent in the
development of the final standarda for
high-arsemc-throughput copper smelters.
In addition to participating in EPA's
evaluation of emission sources and
applicable control technologies, the task
force will consult with experts outside
of EPA in the areas of health impacts
analysis and innnovative control
technologies for arsenic.
The Administrator is requesting
comments on all aspecta of the proposed
standarda and their associated impacts.
Comments ore also requested on other
control measures that may be BAT and
on alternatives that would reduce
estimated health nsks mora than the
alternative of applying BAT. but would
not result in smeller closure. These
comments should consider in particular,
the means of reducing low-level
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions,
which result in the highest exposure.
The Administrator Is also specifically
requesting commenta on whether the
estimated residual health risks
associated with the BAT alternative are
unreasonable, considering the
uncertainty of these estimates and that
the only apparent alternative for
significantly reducing the risks would
likely result In closure of the ASARCO
Tacoma smelter.
Selection of Format of Proposed
Under the authority of Section 112 of
the Clean Air Act. national emiasion
standards must, whenever possible, take
the format of a numerical emission limit.
Typically, an emission limit is written in
terms of an allowable mass emission
rate (mass of pollutant per unit time) or
an allowable concentration (mass of
pollutant per volume of gss). In some
instancea. a process weight limit (weight
uf pollutant per unit of product or inpui)
ur a minimum percent emission
reduction of pollutant (control system
collection efficiency] is used. All of
these types of standards require in-
direct measurement of emission
determine compliance. As a alte
or as a supplement to a standard
involving direct measurement of
emissions, an emission limit may take
the form of a restriction on opacity as
measured by EPA Reference Method 9
or on visible emissions as measured by
EPA Reference Method 22 or other
method. However, in certain instances,
numerical emission limits are not
possible. Section 112(e)(2) recognizes
this situation by defining two conditions
when it is not feasible to prescribe or
enforce an emission limit. The
conditions are: (1) when the pollutants
cannot be emitted through a conveyance
designed and constructed to emit or
capture the pollutant: or (2) when the
application of a measurement
methodology is not practicable due to
technological or economic limitations In
such instances. Section 112(e)(1)
authorizes design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standards.
For the development of a standard for
the capture of secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions from converter
operationa. EPA firnt considered
establishing a numerical emission limn
However, mass rate, concentrat'
process weight, and percent em
reduction formats for the capture .
secondary emissions from converter
operations are not feasible because
neither the capture efficiency nor the
quantity of emissions that escape
capture by the secondary hood system
can be measured accurately. Visible
emission data are available which
describe the performance of secondary
hood systems over a limited range of
operating conditions. However, these
data are not considered to represent a
sufficient basis for establishing emission
standards which must be achieved at all
times. Therefore, the format selected for
the proposed standards for the capture
of secondary inorgonic arsenic
emissions from converter operations is
one in which equipment and work
practices are specified.
For the development of a standard for
the collection of secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions from converter
operations. EPA concluded a numerical
emission limit is feasible. EPA first
considered developing an emission limn
specifically for Inorganic arsenic.
Inorganic arsenic emissions from
converter operations vary in re1 >o
the Inorganic arsenic content ( »
concentrate processed. Smeltln n-

Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules	33133
inorgamc-arsenic-content ore
concentrate haa the potential for higher
inorganic arsenic emissions than a low-
icentrate. Tha ASARCO-Tacoma
-melter it a custom smeller processing
ore concentrates shipped (com domestic
dnd foreign copper mines. An
interruption or discontinuation in
shipments from one supplier could
change the average inorganic arsenic
content of the total smelter charge
processed at the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter. Thus, the future inorganic
arsenic content of secondary emissions
from the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter may
increase or decrease depending on the
mix of suppliers selling ore concentrate
The potential variability in the
inorganic arsenic content of secondary
emissions from the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter increases the complexity of
developing numerical emission limits
specifically for inorganic arsenic.
Emission limits for inorganic arsenic
based on a mass emission rate, process
m eight, or concentration format would
establish an upper limit on inorganic
drsenic emissions only. An inorganic
arsenic emission limit based on the BAT
emission control requirements
specifically for the ASARCO-Tacoma
•nelter based on current data might not
luire application of BAT is other ore
-ncentrates were processed. In
contrast. * percent reduction format
would require the application of BAT
regardless of the level of inorganic
drsenic content in the feed materials.
However, high collection efficiency may
not ue continuously schievable for the
entire range of inorganic arsenic
conrentrations which could occur in the
captured gas streams from the
secondary emission sources.
As an alternative, an emission limit
for total particulates thst reflects the
level of control device performance
necessary to achieve BAT for collection
of secondary inorganic arsenic
omissions can be developed. There are
several advantagea to using a total
pjrticulata emission limit to regulate
inorganic arsenic emissions. First, totnl
pdrticuldte emissions from primary
copper smelter operations remain
reldtively content regardless of the
inorganic arsenic content of the ore
concentrate. Thus, a total particulate
emission limit would require the use of
BAT for all high-arsenic ore
concentrates regardless of vanutions in
¦he inorganic arsenic content of lha feed,
e second advantage to a total
articulate emission limit is that EPA
Reference Method 5 can be used to
determine compliance. This method is
widely used: and because it captures
larger quantities of particulates, it offers
the potential for greater precision.
Therefore, for these reasons EPA
decided to develop standards for
collection of inorganic arsenic emissions
based on a total paniculate emission
Mass emission rate, percent emission
reduction, process weight rate, and
concentration formats were considered
by EPA for setting emission limits for
the collection of captured secondary
emission gas streams. All four of these
formats provide viable alternatives for
setting total particulate emission limits.
A mass rate format would limit total
particulate emissions per unit of time.
However, this format would not reflect
differences in production rates (e.g..
amount of ore concentrate, calcine, and
matte processed). The mass emission
rate standard would only place an upper
limit on the total amount of particulates
emitted per hour or per day.
A percent reduction format would
specify a minimum percent reduction of
total particulate emissions across a
control device. Determination of
compliance with a percent reduction
standard requires measurement of Hoth
uncontrolled and controlled emissions.
The measurement of emissions at the
inlet lo control devices poses testing
difficulties due to ductwork and control
device configurations. The ductwork
modifications necessary to perform
accurate inlet testing at the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter would significantly
increase the cost of the compliance
A mass per unit production format
would limit total paniculate emissions
per unit of copper produced or smelter
charge. Determination of compliance
with a mass per production unit
standard requires the development of a
material balance or production values
concerning the operation of the copper
smelter. Development of this
information depends on the availability
and reliability of process data provided
by the company. Gathering these data
increases the testing and recordkeeping
requirements and. consequently,
increases the compliance determination
A concentration format would limit
total particulate emissions per unit
volume of exhaust gases discharged to
the atmosphere. Compliance
determination of concentration
stundards requires a minimum of data
and information, decreasing the costs of
testing and reducing chances of
measurement errors. Furthermore,
vendors of particulate control devices
usually guarantee equipment
performance in terms of pollutant
concentration in the discharge gas
stream. There is a potential for
circumventing a concentration standard
by diluting the exhaust gases discharged
to the atmosphere with excess air. thus
lowering the concentration of total
particulates emitted but not the total
mass emitted. However, for this
application, this problem can be solved
by specifying a measurement location.
Therefore, because a concentration
format would involve lower resource
requirements and a less complicated
compliance determination procedure
than the other formats. EPA selected a
concentration format as the most
suitable format for the proposed
standards for collection of secondary
Sr/rt turn nf Xumerial Emotion Unit)
tmri Hqtiifimrtu Specifications
The proposed standards are based
upon the application of a secondary
hood system to capture converter
secondary emissions and a baghouse or
equivalent particulate control device to
collect the captured secondacy
emissions from converters.
The format selected for the proposed
standard for capture of secondary
inorganic Arsenic emissions from
converters consists of equipment and
work practice specifications. EPA
believes that the prototype secondary
hood design installed on converter No. 4
at the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter is
capable of achieving a capture
efficiency level consistent with BAT if
the system is installed and operated
properly^ Therefore. the design and
operation of this system were the basis
for the equipment and work practice
The principal components of the
secondary hood system are a hood
enclosure, an air curtain plenum and
exhaust hood. fans, and sufficient
ductwork to convey the captured
emissions to a control device. Because
each secondary hood system muM be
custom designed due to variations in
converter configuration and space
availability. EPA chose not to specify
physical dimensions for the hood
enclosure. Instead. EPA decided to
specify the design practices that are
necessary to follow in order to obtain a
secondary hood system capable of
achieving at least a 95 percent capture
efficiency. These design practices are:
(1) the configuration and dimensions of
the hood enclosure are sized so that the
converter mouth, charging ladles,
skimming ladles, and other material
transfer vessels are housed within the
confines or influence of the hood during

33134	Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules
each mode of converter operation: (2)
tha back of tha hood enclosure la fully
enclosed and sealed against the primary
hood: (3) the edge* of the hood enclosure
side walls in contact with the converter
•mI remain saaled during each mode
. inverter operation: (4) the size of the
opening at the top and front of the hood
enclosure necessary for the entry and
egress of ladles and crane apparatus is
minimized to the fullest extent practical:
and (S) the hood enclosure is fabricated
in such a manner and of materials of
sufficient strength to withstand
incidental contact with ladles and crane
apparatus with no damage.
The air curtain la produced by
blowing compressed air from a narrow
horizontal slot extending the length of a
plenum along the top of one side wall of
(ha hood enclosure. The dimensions of
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20, 19S3 / Proposed Rules
converter operations. This would allow
the correlation of recorded gai flow
rates with the corresponding converter
To help the Admiristrstor determine
whether each seconi'sry hood system is
being properly operatki and maintained,
measured sirfloyv rates would be
compared to source specific reference
values established during the
optimization of each system for each
convener operating mode. (See
"Optimization of Secondary Hood
Syitem'*.) To establish source specific
airflow reference values, the owner or
operator would determine the flow rates
that correspond to each converter
operating mode while the secondary
hood system is operating under optimum
The proposed standards for the
collection of secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions are based upon a total
particulate concentration limit. One
alternative to monitoring the
performance of the collection device is
to periodically test the collection device
using Method S. However, this
sltemstive is costly and is not
considered reasonable. Continuous
monitoring of opacity or sn operating
psrameter of the collection device may
be used to indirectly monitor
performance by indicating whether or
>ot the collection device is operating in
tie same manner as when it
demonstrated compliance during the
emission test. Of these two alternatives,
monitoring opacity is simpler to apply.
Therefore, the monitoring requirement
selected for the collection of secondary
(>. „..uc emissions is to continuously
monitor opacity using s
To implement this monitoring
requirement it would be necessary to
establish a reference opacity level
againat which future performance of the
control system could be compared. To
establiah the source specific reference
opacity level the owner or operator of
the source would be required to conduct
continuous opacity monitoring dunng
the emission test The opacity
monitoring results would be reduced to
6-minute averages, and the opacity level
would be establiahed at the 97-5 percent
upper confidence level of a normal or
log normal (whichever is more
representative) distribution of the d-
minute average opacity values. This
opacity value would be the basis for
determining whether the collection
device is continuously performing
effectively. Any monitored opacity
iading above the emission test opacity
reading would indicate that the
collection device may no longer be
meeting the proposed total particulate
emission limit A Method S test could
then be performed to determine
Optimization Of Air Curtain Secondary
Hood System
It is intended that the Installation of
equipment specified in the proposed
standarda for the capture of converter
secondary emissions will give the owner
or operator of esch affected converter
the capability of reducing emissions to a
level consistent with the application of
BAT. In developing the equipment
specifications, the Administrator has
been specific for some requirements ss
in the case of fan horsepower capacity,
and more general for others, such as the
dimensions of the secondary hood.
Some of the requirements are general
because unless there are any new
smelters, which is considered unlikely,
each installation will be a retrofit: that
is. each air curtain secondary hood
system will have to be custom designed
to fit each existing converter. Due to
space limitations. existing pollution
control equipment siready in place and
other considerations, the exact
configuration of each secondary hood
with air curtain system installed «:11
vary from smelter to smelter.
Beyond hood configuration, the
performance of each air curtain
secondary hood system will depend on a
balance of several other parameters,
including the dimensions of the air
curtain slot, the velocity of air through
the slot and the distance from the slot
to the offtake. These parameters are
adiustsble in the sense that they can be
altered in a relatively short time and at
relatively small cost It is expected that
after the initial installation of each air
curtain secondary hood system, there
will be a "shakedown" or optimisation
period during which the proper balance
of system parameters will be determined
for each particular installation.
For every air curtain aecondary hood
installation, there will be an optimum
set of operating conditions, beyond
which further "fine tuning" of the system
will not result in increased capture
efficiency. Section 112(e)(1) of the Clean
Air Act states, in part that if the
Administrator promulgates a design or
equipment standard, "he shall include ss
part of such standard such requirements
as will aasure the proper operation and
maintenance of any such element of
design or equipment" "Proper
operation" of an air curtain secondary
hood system includes operating the
system ss close to optimum conditions
as possible, and the owner or operator
would be required to do so under the
proposed standards. It is not the
Administrator's Intent however, to
require the owner or operator to operate
a system beyond optimum conditions
(i.e.. at flow rates and power
requirements that do not achieve
additional capture) or to prevent
operational changes that may not affect
the capture efficiency of the system.
Authority for determination of the
optimum conditions for each air curtain
secondary hood system installed to meet
the proposed standards would rest with
the Administrator. Due to the variables
involved, and the fact each installation
will be site specific It is not possible for
the Administrator to prescribe in
advance what will conatitute optimum
operating conditions for each air curtain
secondary hood instsllalion. Objective
techniques, such aa the tracer study
used to evaluate the air curtain
aecondary hood system on the No. 4
converter at the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter, are available to help determine
capture efTeidency. However, a final
determination of whether a system haa
truly been optimised. or If not what
steps should (or could) be taken to
improve it will largely be abetter of
One approach the Administrator ia
considering ss s method for determining
optimum conditions for each air curtain
secondary hood lnstslladon would be to
have each system evaluated by a panel
of persons with expertise in aaaeaaing
visible emissions of air pollutants. The
panel could be comprised of 3 or more
persons, including representatives of
industry. EPA snd local air pollution
control agencies.
The panel would evaluate each air
curtain secondary hood aa follows: (1)
the panel would review the plana and
specifications of the system prior to
instslladon: (2) the panel would agree
on inidal operating condibona for the
system: (3) the panel would obaerve the
operation of the system during each
mode of converter operation under the
initial operating conditions. Estimates of
the capture effectiveness achieved,
based on viaual observations, would be
recorded by each panel member for
each mode of operation. In addition,
comments on the minimum and
maximum capture effectiveness
achieved, the duration, location and
density of visible emissions observed,
and a qualitative aaaesament of the
volume of the emissions escaping
capture (e.g.. light moderate, heavy,
etc.) would be recorded: (4) baaed on
this initial evaluation, the panel would
agree on what modifications would be
needed to further optimize the operation
of the air curtain aecondary hood: and
(S) the panel would again view the

Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20. 1963 / Proposed Rules
system (m in 3) after modification to
compare its performance to pre-
modification performance. After this,
steps 4 and S would be repeated as
needed until there was agreement
among the panel member* that the
system had been optimised. The penei
would then recommend a set of optimum
operating conditions for that system to
the Administrator along with
documentation of their evaluation. In the
event of disputes, panel members would
submit separate recommendations. The
Administrator would meke e final
determination of the optimum conditions
based on the panel's recommendation
and supporting documentation.
If. subsequent to a determination that
a system has been optimised, an owner
of operator proposee to moke an
sdditional modification to the system,
the panel would again be convened and
would observe the system both before
end after the change as prescribed in (3)
above. The modification could be
approved by the Administrator if the
panel found It aid not reduce capture
The Administrator believes this
spproach would assure that the air
curtain secondary hood system is
designed and operating conditions
established which will minimize
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
lo the greetest extent possible, but
would also allow the owner or operator
to make modifications to the system that
would not reduce capture efficiency.
The public Is invited to comment on the
need to evaluate the optimization of
each air curtain secondary hood system
••"1 on the penei approach being
considered by the Administrator.
Reporting and Recordkeeping
Owners or operators of sources
covered by the proposed standards
would be subject to the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of the
proposed standards, at well as those
prescribed in the General Provisions
[Subpart A) of 40 CFR Part 61. Under
101.10 of the General Provisions, en
initial report from eech existing source
Is required to be submitted within 90
days of the effective date. For purposes
of determining initial applicability, the
proposed standards for high-arsenic*
throughput smelters specify that the
initial report required in 161.10(a) will
include information on the weight
percent inorganic arsenic ui the total
smelter cherge. The proposed standards
further require that each month the
computation of a rolling annual average
of the inorganic arsenic content of the
total smelter charge be made end that
the monthly computation of a rolling
annual average of the inorganic arsentic
content of the total smelter charge be
made and that the monthly
computations be recorded and dept on
site for at leest 2 years; The monthly
computations would have to be reported
to EPA on an annual basis to ensure that
applicability with respect to the
standards had not changed.
Under Section 114. EPA is authorized
to establish reporting requirements to
determine whether there is a violation of
standards proposed under the Clean Air
Act Concern aa to whether the systems
for the control of inorgenic arsenic
emissions are continuing to meet the
proposed standards would primarily
arise when monitoring showed opacity
levels In excess of those determined
during the complience demonstration or
sirflow rates that vary significantly from
those established during the
optimisation procedure. Therefore, in
determining the necessary reporting
requirementa. It was considered
reesoneble to require reporting only
when such "excess emission" conditions
exist. Reporting of these excess
emission conditions would be required
on e semiannual basis. Currently, only
the copper smelting companies collect
any of this information. In addition,
then are no reporting requirements by
other governmental agendas for this
type if information which would result
in overlapping data requirements. The
types of information to be included in
the reports are discussed below.
For the converter secondary hood
system, eech semiannual report would
indicate: (1) the reference sirflow rates
established for each converter
operational mode, end (2) a record of
eirflow rates for eech day when the
airflow rates are lesa than 20 percent of
the corresponding reference values.
For the collection devicee for
secondary emissions, each semiannual
report would provide: (1) a record of
tranamissometer readings for eech day
on which the opadty exceeded the
reference opadty limit determined at the
time the collection device demonstrated
compliance, and (2) the velues of the
emission test opacity limits.
Impacts of Reporting and Recordkeeping
EPA believes that these reporting snd
recordkeeping requirements ere
necessery to essist the Agency in (1)
identifying sources. (2) observing the
compliance testing and demonstration of
monitoring devices. (3) determining
initial compliance, and (4) enforcing the
standard after the initial compliance
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
O (Pub. L 90-511) requires that the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) approve reporting end
recordkeeping requirements that qualify
as an "information collection request
(ICR). For the purposes of
accommodating OMB's review. E
uses 2-year penods in its impact
analysis procedures for estimating the
labor>hour burden of reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
The average annual burden on high-
arsenic-throughput copper smelters to
comply with the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of the
proposed standards over the first 2
years after the effective date is
estimated to be 1J10 person-hours.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of I960
(RFA) requires that differential impacts
of Federal regulations upon small
businesses be identified and analyzed.
The RFA stipuiatea that an analysis it
required if a substantial number of small
businesses will experience significant
impacts. Both measures must be met:
that is. a substantial number of small
businesses must be affected and they
muat experience significant Impacts, to
require an analysis. Twenty percent or
more of the small businesses in an
affected industry is considered a
substantial number. The EPA definition
of significant impact invoivea thre^^
tests, as follows: (1) prices of prtj^fe
produced by small ontities rise Si^Psnt
or more, essuming costs are passed on
to consumers: (2) annualized investment
costs for pollution control are greater
than 20 percent of total capital spending:
or (3) costs as a percent of sales for
small entitiee are 10 percent greater than
costs aa a percent of salea for large
The Small Buaineas Administration
(SBA) definition of a small business for
Standard Industrial Clsssiflcation (SIC)
Code 3331. Primery Smelting and
Refining of Copper. Is 1.000 employees.
The ASARCO-Tscome smelter is ownea
by a company that has more than 1.000
employees. Therefore ASARCO does
not meet the SBA definition of s small
business snd thus no regulatory
flexibility enalysis is required.


A-14 Tacoma, Sun., July 17, 1983, The News Tribune
Smelter battle
Politics, economics and environmental issues
are whirling around the Asarco controversy

a-14 Tacoma. Sun., July 17, 1983, The News Tribune
Smelier battle
fi I hope it will be decided on the scientific
merits of the case. I think emotional
appeals will be made, based on emotion
alone. This is inevitable in "something like
this, y
— Larry Lindquiat
Aaarco •metter manager
(Continued from
preceding page)
He said Asarco officials are
scheduled to discos this week
what presentation the company
will present to the EPA.
As in the past, th« theme, but*
tressed by testimony from
doctors and university research-
ers. is expected to be that smelter
emrniotri do dm harm people. At
the 1981 variance hearing. Asarco
hired the Seattle public relations
firm of Hill and Knowlton to han-
dle publicity.
Additionally, Asarco is likely to
emphasise the good the smelter
does in the area. It employs some
570 people, has a mold-million
payroll, pays taxes and makes
large purchases on the load mar-
There an some mare exotic
benefits toa Aura Is tto only
manufacturer at arsenic la the
'foiled States.
Pesticide manufacturers and
others who usa aneme in thetf
prod acts would Incur higher casts
ti they had to	the meal
in foreign countries which don't
have to pay for expensive pollu-
tion controls. Undquist said.
Brian Bairt a member of Taho-
mans for a Healthy Environment
(THE), said he is already warned
about the kind of	Ajar*
co may wage.
"Tacoma is setting a precedent
(in EPA policy) and it is qrnte con-
ceivable Asarco would launch a
publicity <»amp«'gp and
distorting facts or information
that suits their desires . . said
He said he is concerned that the
issue could become an »«—"""i"
or public relations controversy
rather than a health and scientific
Lmdquist, the smelter mana-
ger. has a similar concern.
"I hope it will be decided on the
scientific merits of the case," he
said. "I think emotional appeals
11 be made, based on emotion
ne. This is inevitable in some-
cning like this."
He said smelter employees have
already beard one person call a
radio talk show and complain it
smeUed as though Asarco was
"frying dogs."
On the other side. Baird «im-
pentad. "I am concerned about
the wuy in which public opinion is
shaped often by the party with the
tait** don't have
the mosey the
can tap^ be said. What mooey they
"scrape" together a	into
a number of Issues, such as pr»»
serving wikkRMBS, be said,
Baird said the environmentalist
will try to counter Aaarco's finan-
cial might by forming coalitions
with groups like the Washington
Long Association and others to
"Inform the public and get proper
repw wmartnn at the bearing."
"We may have demonstrations
to highlight the issue," Baird «"*
He added the environmental
community will also be reviewing
arsenic and EPA coet-nsk benefit
stadias to prepare for the bearing.
The EPA is eipwteid to provide
Ore boxes	studies and
other data on the isne to the Ta-
coma PnbUe Library so residents
can prepare (or the bearing, ac-
cording to Bob Jacobton, a
spokesman for the EPA.
Another tactic of the environ-
mental community; approach la-
bor and try to recruit an ally.
Smelter workers, members of the
United Steel workers of America,
have traditionally stood solidly
behind the smelter management
on the environmental issues. The
sneltermen have been supported
in the past by some other unions.
"For too long, the industrial
coram unity has been playing the
two groups (environmentalists and
labor) against each other," said
An effort likely will be made to
convince labor leaden that "the
net effect of pollution controls is
the creation of jobs," Baud said.
Perhaps in an effort to recnut
allim turn	¦>—
aboot calling for a shutting down
of the smelter.
"I don't believe anyone is seek-
ing total closure of the mill," said
Dong Jartman. of the Washington
Long Association.
Baud said,"Wfc will stand for
very tight health protection, and it
does not appear Asarco will be
able to meet that.
"Tfi time for Tacoma to change
its image. Insteid of covering for
these guys like Asarco, it should
try to bring In new industries to
take'the place of the polluters.
"We want Tacoma to be able to
employ people without killing peo-
Baird also suggested that the
smelter and the publicity it has
been receiving could hurt conven-
tion and entertainment business
the aty hopes the Tacoma Dome
will attract.
Conversely. Baird said his or-
ganization doesn't want the word
to go oat that Tacoma residents
are willing to take risks with their
"If every company learns Taco-
mam are willing to die for em-
ployment the the aggregate effect
can be unacceptahly large," be
Baird also hopes national clean-
air groups will become involved tn
the Tacoma smelter case.
"This is a precedeot-setung
case," he said. "It has never been
put in the lap of the community
before to say bow much nsk it is
willing to take. So it is very im-
portant for national groups to get
together." Baird said.
Dale Jones, director of field of-
fices for the Seattle Office of
Continued on Page A-15

Taccma, Sua, July 17t 1983, The News Tribune
Asarco From Page A-14
Fneads at the Earth. guessed Hut
environmental experts won't be
b ran gilt is from New Yorx and
Washington, D.C, to testify is Ta-
He said Ruckeishaus' proposal
that tbe public fiejp define the ar-
senic raft it wtU accept is a "trial
balloon that baa already bant."
Jonas sud that S Ruekebfaan'
decision was in any way based on-
a "public opuuoa polL it wouldn't
subd op ia tbe courts."
Barnes die regional EPA ad-
ministrator in Seattle, baa said
public tapot wtU be "extremely
important" to tbe decmoo-makuig
Jones said that If Ruckelshaus'
proposal waa valid, it would mean
that people ia Uie industrial Ohio
Valley would be helping to make
dfccnons about acid mo caused
by their industrial plana that falls
u New England
Tlie law requires that tbe ded-
s.00 be baaed oa the EPA's provid-
ing a "margin of {public* safety,"
tie said.
"II (Ruckelshaus) wants to
change the law, he has to go to
Congress." Joaa said.
Otter groops are also waning
tbat tbe EPA mot be careful oi
tbe grounds oa whica it makes its
deossa oa Aura's nrnmnrrt,
"The Clean Air Act does oot in-
clude cost as a criterion for devel-
opment of hazardous air
pollutants (controls)," said Jack*
man. of ute Washington Lung As-
Ruth Weioer. chairwoman at
the Cascades Chapter at the Stern
Club, said she thought Ruck-
elshata was attempting to make it
"an environment-versos-pbs is-
sue" without really trying to ex-
plore what new technology is
available to control the arsenic
emissions and allow the plant to
stay open.
But Joe Stortim. the Pleree
County councilman who sits oa the
Paget Sound Air Pollution Control
Board, said he thinks it is "super"
that the federal government is
asking local residents what they
Some groups have sol deeded
what to do.
Arthur Dammkoehler. air pollu-
tion control officer for Uie Paget
Sound Aar Pollution Control Agen-
cy, said that agency first has to
evaluate the EPA oroposal and its
back-up information.
He said the PSAPCA board is
scheduled to vote on its formal po-
sition at its Aug. ll meeting.
Stortial said be hopes the PSAP-
CA board will vote to continue its
position of requiring the air pollu-
tion eqotpment to be Installed. Tb*
proposed EPA position is an en-
dorsement of the PSAPCA order
issued in 1981.
Tbe League of Wooes Voters is
expected to develop its position oa
the arsenic cssoe next week, ac-
cording to a league spokeswoman.
While anemc baa been attract-
ing all the attention this week,
other smelter-related issues are
4 waiting thev tana.
For example
•	The EPA. state Department
of Ecology aad Tacoma-Pierce
County Health Department an at*
tempting to deal with a wide
range of poUnOoa met that are
affecting the land, grwnd water
and Commencement Bay. The
ComzDencement Bay area has.
beea identified aa oae of the 10
areaa most polluted by <~bemtnft
aad metals la the country by the
EPA. One et tbe metals involved
is anemc. |iiiiimimlily from the
•	PSAPCA has given the smelt-
er until 1937 to pot into effect a
way to leiaore 90 peccant at the
sulfur rttando from its wvmwms
Tbm smelter says it can tetnwe
only about 49 percent, aad wans
it woold hare to reMld Uie whole
plant ta da better. Meanwhile, the
smelter a likely to remain a tar-
get for its suspected role ia creat-
ing aad rata that say be harming
mountain takes aad creating res-
piratory problem /or people with
lung diseases.
•	A group of Vasboo Island res-
idents is planning a law stut
against Asarn because smelter
emissions from the stack ram on
Balrd. of Tahomani for a
Healthy Environment, explained
the issae is more than the statisti-
cal possibility that the Tacotsa
area would have to 'sacrifice"
oae penon a year to arseuc-ta-
duced lung cancer if the EPA pro-
posal is endorsed by Rnckeiahaus.
"We most add .. . their sulfur
dioxide, plus cadmium and lead.
That oae arsenic death excludes
everything else Asarco pats oat,"
Baird said.
Ironically, economia may re-
solve the smelter issue.
'"Tiie entire copper Industry is
oot doing well- financially." said
Tirafcyiisr. He claimed chat while
the smelter had a "modest profit"
ia the first quarter of 1983. it had
a large lass last year.
"Foreign competition ia bnng
mora aad mere (copper! material
Into the U.S. every year." Uadr

Smolter letters:
Rr Jerr weatiiuisbv
Th»H|w| tflbw	
SEATTl-E — By a larft mafcr-
"f. rnpli	lk« Enlf(»
menial Proltrllen t|Mtf I*
wmiiml en Oit Aum am*|l1
lI'Kjr aorkikopi cm Vaakoa It-
land iii( I* Imm
r«i, ihit wrr# nlilnl of |t<
imtllir I# rim 4r(m, It loot
ae petition and II ipfaitl la At-
tend lite mxllir
iMh kill, n CPA official
•cling m ¦ notMor lor IM
• into inn, till ik* 1*4
mtM «m libftOM call la
akkt a pnon aikri lor Informa-
tion, Bill* da or acuta rthcr pc-
tcni Ian called la aar lk*y nil
la Icallff al Um EPA'a patdlc
krartng No* I
n* pakOc la Wn| iM It
comment aa * propottd EPA
•I 'ndard fir atitnk TV pro-
p"n-d lUmtari weald Itdac* Ml
•ol tllmlntK irmk cmlaaloaa
Irom lb* amcllar.
Some Irllrra are loaf iil
tloujMlnl, a Ilk eUcr*. Ill* Ik*
letlevlH aiamlfSMhtlirel
IIU S. Mim A . ara iM aad
"TVt ma* anm Ikoalitcl 41*4
•4 toot rtnrtr I i»o /can age Aad
U« ailr *4 ear Mil fewaalgkkor
4M mtril nan ap •( nam I
lt»a Ira 19 far «nt II pin
alter WiW l*ta« etnett Hf
katfcond and I Iktak Ita fttam
amtllrt airi llllaner* prcf K Uia*
H rmploj* Wa ltd ll b men a
llrtat Ikaa a kelp I* mt carntn*-
•lit aad economy V< mri VI Mt
•4 Tamil*
W a mlrxjrllJ ol atllcr* taw
ae canrtt Ikrral and *aha*d k»
aerate bcMfUt IromtlM troll tt
Hn Ma Mtaa at IIJ» S
Stttalk At* »re
PRO: Many Rustonites
ite smelter's benefits
HUSTON - "Baloney."
This epitaet spoken politely but
firmly was Owen T. Gallagher's
considered opinion of the Eaviroo-
meaul Protection Agency's war»>
inp this week a boat the hazards
oi living un the shadow of the
Uara imetter's smokestack.
All of this half-mile-square
town of SOO residents ties wiciiis
the 1-mile radius of the smelter —
the area where the CPA said the
chances of contracting incurable
lung cancer ire U percent higher
than elsewhere.
Owen Gallagher scoffs at the
CPA's warnings and the call by
some environmentalist! for the
agency to tighten its restriction*
on cancer-causing arsenic smelter
emissions u levels that could
force the smelter to shut down.
"They're going ta loll the goose
that laid the golden egg," said
Gallagher, seated in tus neat brick
ome just five blocks from the
eiter gate.
fhe smelter, the town and its
residents, he said, have enjoyed a
mutually comfortable relationship
for more than 90 yean.
Gallagher well mows how the
three are intimately connected.
The lives of Gallagher. the Asareo
smelter and thb town near Pout
Defiance Part are lfltncately in-
Gallagher was born here on
North Winni/red Street, four
blocks trora the smelter gate,
more than TO years ago. He
worked for Marco (or 43 yean,
starting as a laborer in the copper
smelter and retiring fire yean
ago as personnel manager.
Gallagher is a legend in town
politics. He founded the volunteer
(ire department. He served on the
Town Council (or IS years. He was
mayor (or 20 yean before step-
ping down two yean ago. tus yean of public ser-
vice. said Gallagher. Asarco was
good (or Ruston and its people.
The smelter provided as much as
70 percent of the town's budget,
furnished steam to heat the Rus-
n Elementary School and hand-
.mely paying jobs to support a
number of its residents.
Environmental restrictions that
could threaten the smelter's very
existence, said the former mayor,
are "just a bunch of foolishness."
Living by the smelter does pose
Owen Gallagher
said, hot the benefits far outweigh
Juxt recently, be said, alter the
smelter restarted its furnaces that
wen stat down became of the
threat of » strike that didn't mate-
nailsa. the area was hit with a
sooty fallout, tt landed on can la
Rostoa and on bean at the oearby
Tacsma Yacht dub.
"All yoo*re got ta do is go out
and (In yow ear a quick wash,"
he said. "If yoo leavt it cm, it
might eat into the paint"
Bat the smelter has bees good
a boot taking care of any damage.
"The smelter has painted a lot ot
can over Um years." he said.
The payoff for the "inconveni-
ences.'' he said, are lower taxes
and tetter aty sen toes than in
neighboring Tacoma.
Twice-weekly garbage service
here is free, he said. With the ex-
ception of a single street, all of the
town's alleys and streets are
paved without the need lor local
residents to pay for them directly.
The town employs a seven-mem-
ber (two tall-time and five part-
time) police force, a relatively
large force for a town of Huston's
sue. he said.
More threatening than the soot,
the EPA said, is the 310 tons af
airborne arsenic the smelter em-
its each year.
Gallagher dismisses arsenic
emissions, too.
"When yoo're in a bakery, yon
expect to get some flour on you."
he said.
While the smelter's chief arsen-
ic-containing byproduct, arsenic
tnocde, bears an uncanny resem-
blance to cake flour it*
are not nearly so benign, said the
The arsenic emitted by the
smelter, the EPA estimated, cans*
es an additional tour cancer
deaths yearly in the Tacoma met-
ropolitan area.
IT EPA Administrator William
Rackeishaas adopts lus proposed
arsenic Limitation rales, those ar-
senic-related cancer deaths' m the
Tacoma area are expected to drop
to one.
But Rnekebhau. in the first
test of his new regime at the em-
battled agency, has asked those
touched by the smelter's arsenic
emissues to tell him tl his prtv
posed standards represent aa ac-
ceptable nsk level.
A tearing is set for Aug. 40 in
II Gallagher and other Raton
town officials an typical, t&en
many may speak oat against eves
farther restrictions that could
dose the 570-onptoyee smelter
and rat off its »—«»» $23
Mary Joyce and her hmbud
turn raised their six children fig-
uratively in the smelter's back-
Her home's picture window
neatly frames the smelter's SW»
foot smokestack, a stractiire ;nst
29 feet shorter than Seattle's
Space Needle.
Her home's elevated front yard
is lanritciped with chunks of the
black. obstdlaiMike slag from the
Joyce, a town council woman,
said she knows of only one family
among Huston's population that
has made any strong protest about
smelter emissions.
Those who are bothered by the
smelter's emissions, she said, ei-
ther don't boy in Ruston or they
move away.
"I think that if anyone felt that
strongly about it. they would
move. A person shouldn't bave to
live in a community if they're oat
happy with it," she said.
Ruston Mayor Peter Bra devoid
believes the populace here would
agree with him that the smelter's
(Ccntlnuad an next page)
I f—

PRO: Many Rustonites
cite smelter's benefits
' a

Vashon residents: Fallout
'WOn't |et us enjoy our land'
common people, oot rabble-
rousers." said Michael Bradley, a
Vashoa bland construction work-
er leading a group threatening to
take Asareo lac. to coon over its
tone emissions.
Tm oot for the loss of job*."
Bradley was careful to explain.
'Tm a construction worker. I ap-
preciate industry and trades."
But Bradley said he and others
want the smelter to stop spewing
arsenic and other chemuals.
Bradley is chairman of a group
tentatively named Island Resi-
dents Against Tone Fm.—¦—
IRATE (or short — that is prepar-
ing to battle oa several fronts the
corporate basuoa symbolised by
the smelter across Cannnonwh
meat Bay.
The major concern of the groap
is the tone arsenic and cadmium
deposited oa the island, apparent-
ly from the smelter.
"Numerous people wbo staked
their life savings oa a place and a
loroe are finding they can't enjoy
the land because of the rmininns
of the Asareo plant," Bradley said.
Many residents bought acreage
on rural Vashon Island so they
could raise their own vegetables,
hogs and turkeys, Bradley said.
And. lie said, they purchased the
land long before anyone knew
\sarco may be responsible for an
Michael Bradley
island pollution problem.
Bradley and other members of
the group now at* a recent Taco-
m»-Pierce County Health Depart-
ment stady of areas around the
Tnaelter which found that soil oa
Vashoa and Maury '«'"**¦ has the
second-highest levels of cadmium
and anenie. The highest level was
found in Tacoma's North End.
Vashon residents also are
awaiting results of testa to deter-
mine the level of arsenic in the
urine of their children.
Smelter Manager Larry Lied-
quist domed the smelter fmrninw
were harming residents of
"Until they have analysed the
vegetables they have grown. U
selves needlessly," r	aid.
"la ail the years we've bare and
have takes soil and vegetable
samples and taken urinary arsenic
levels in people. I never have seen
values high enough to worry
about" Unriqam added.
"The studies don't suppwt the
contention there are harmful
health effects." he said
Bill Tobia. an attorney living on
Vashoa. said the group must de-
cide whether to file a class-action
suit or individual civil suits
against the smelter.
Because of the high smokestack
and prevailing wind directions.
Tobin explained, "We are the
dumping ground for these pollu-
tants without any benefits (such as
jobs or Asareo tax payments)."
The attorney said he is not dis-
couraged by a recent Pierce Coun-
ty Superior Court case la which
Rustoa residents Larry and Jeaa
Wlngard failed to convince a jury
that smelter —had poi-
soned their garden.
Tobin said the ease had "several
twtimcal defects" la its presenta-
He said the Vashon case would
be filed in King County Instead,
where he believes a jury may be
more sympathetic.
The attorney also noted that the
WIngards moved into Rusten,
where they knew the smelter was
already operating.
"This (Vashon) is a rural com-
munity, not heavily populated,
where a lot of people rely heavily
on gardens for food." Tobin said.
ToMn also said preliminary re-
suits of a computer study indicate
property values on the southern
part of Vashoa may be adversely
affected by the smelter's toxic
Soma real estate agents also
have said some prospective -
buyers will oot look at timpeny on
the southern part of the island be-
cause of the smelter fnraT.
ToMn said.
Commuting on a new Environ-
mental Protection Agency propos-
al that would order Asareo to
install sew air-pollution control
equipment. Tobin said he is both
encouraged and disturbed by the
ToMn said he is happy the pub-
lic will have an opportunity to
comment on the proposal. But he
said pnHnrtJi —Amm.gwrf
to capture arsenic escaping into
the Rustoa area may mean more
toxic metals may escape through
the stack aad end up on Vashoa.
Bart Klein, another attorney
living on'Vashon who is active in
IRATE, said he thinks Asareo is
simply "milking" the situation in
the Tacoma area as much as it
can while it prepares to shift its
operations to other parts of the
Klein said the smelter has been
allowed to violate air pollution
regulations for years.
"How many times," he asked,
"can you go past go without stop-

tic reus iniauNc
Tacoaa, WobIi.
Wadnesday, 10 Aug 83
Sutherland calls Asarco 'good neighbor' on national TV
By JOIIMflllLie
Taeoma Mayor Dn| Satker-
find uM Ml) to larora keeping
tfce turn tmcHer apea *»in aa to
ikoai ntdenra Ikat Um onetter"!
¦rtettk efnbaJona arc rawing can-
ret death* ktn
Satkerland,	tart;
today by Good Momkig Ameritw
boat David Hartnua aa Um ABC
aaUoaaltf-lrierbed An, called
Aiarco a food corporate aelgk-
"Urttl I've bm able ta to
ikowa ipc(lkill| I* km that
Ikere I* Indeed dealk* being mil-
ed ky Ik* erntntora eat of Aurro,
I *»1 I kink II ikoaM t» ctoaed.
aaM Ik* mayor.
Til federal Kitlinmntil
hulnUw Ageocy't duUVm la
koM paNle keiftap tore rt|ird-
b| propcud irtnlc amltiloa
iUmm kai focaaed ulletul
madia alMbo aa Taeoma.
Tto BP A kaa yunmd repair-
ing Awrt la mail aoma |4I
Mllloa war Ik «( koob aver II*
tapper caaaettera ta trap fart al
tka aiaentt Uat Mtipa lata tka
•k atar tk* aroettrr Krta wltk
tka kead* hatalM, knnnr, tka
ETA predlcla Ikat ana pnaa wilt
die ytiil) ker* bnam a( arara-
te-ladae*d hma nam
Enactlag aliller aiaealt ctnla-
ttoa alandardk coald lorn tka
plant lnMlmlacMfli.Mk
(una and Ika EPA k»i nli
la Mfadarlaf Ika I)T»nMa
argmeat aa Aaarca, Hartmaa hM
Ttnma area mMnti are latiag
"a choke Ikat wlQ lata amy
Americana la Ika I Ida — either
Job* er cteaa air "
Hartnua ad ad tka mayor kow
be mid Jaallly kla ataad la keep
Ika plant ape* taneldrilag KfAl
iM yufcWaa.
'Mr Harlmaa," tatd tka ma far.
Ikal'* part o< Ika problem Ikat
we're trying ta (are ker* Tk*
BTA uya there 'may k* * Now, are
deal realty know Ikat.
"Ike* doal really (ay Ikal
Uera b We're «*rklag alU
ta lontf aa R'a aaed
w«k al *ma* aad "perkapa* aal
Ikoaa Ibrfa al war da, I caa apn
wltk what yoa'ra trying la say
ika tkey Marl lefflng Ikal lketl
b' aad tkeea will ka.'" aaM
¦wtkeilaitd aaM Uat wMIe Ika
tM k*t«*«a caaret aad araeale
ka* keea pi area. tkera la Ml
¦betker Ike ceaciatraUoaa prea-
ent beta are enoagk la caoae ran-
Firstoa luldent Jeaa Wlngard
laM Harlmaa Ikal rite aad ker
ta kati Itartaa ba-
Wfegard aad ker kobaad ned
Aaarca arer damage* ta Ikelr or-
nate ftrdra ud Iketr car al
leg«dt* ta—I by amelter laltoot
nit kat tka nit kelora a Baperl-
er uteri (ay earlier tkb year
. (nailer Fare ma a M ear Ire
Wummam. aba Merrlawed ky
Hartmaa la aa alwtioalt lak-ap
ketweea ROMO-TTe Seattle ata-
dlot and llailman la New Vork.
Uat ke kad worked al the plant tl
yen* wltkoat gelling nam
Tk* Impact el doling Ike plant,
ke aaM, nail be trrkm lor local
work ere aad bmlnnta
Tk* EPA ptin Um tint ol Itm
eckedaled Inlormallonal work-
ikope aa Ika araetilt emlnlon
qaeatloa taolgkt at Vaskoa la-
Uad't McMarray Inlermedlale
Brkool Ika meeting la to begin at
I	pat. Tka otker twa workabops
•r* act lor neat Taetday and A«g
II	al T pm. botk al Tammi a
Vlhaa lllgk IcM

Tacoma mayor
wants to keep
smelter open
TACOMA (AP) — The mayor
of Tacoma says im favors keep-
ing the Anno copper tmrttirr
open until ha ia shown evidence
Uut arsenic wnfationt an can>
ing cancer deaths in the diy.
"Until rw been able ta ba
shows specifically that than is
indeed deaths being treated by
the rmtsriwia oat at Asareo, I
dent it «tw»w be doeed,"
Mayor Dong Smheriand said
Wednesday oa ABCs nationally
televised "Good Morning.
Sutherland said that while the
link between cancer and anode
baa been proven, then ta doofat
whether the concentrations pre-
sent ta Tacoma an enough to
cairn cucv.
National	m«w» |jgg
S—w	i< rrt Tvyww «im«n
the EuvliuuiBentai Protection
Agency drd rtrt U Ud public
The EPA has pwpuaed making
Asareo install J4JJ anUtao worth
of hoods over its capper «o»
raters to trap part of the arsenic
that escapes into the air near the
But the EPA haa predicted the
hoods vfll not •*><*!«#» arsenic*
induced lung cancer.
Both Asareo and EPA have
said enacting sttOer arsenic
emission standards could force
the plant to shot down to comply.

Cage tfi TlieVnshon Mmrf lalonil DRACIICOMIinn Aii| 18. I9R]
E.P.A. proposal isn't ample margin of safety
Nolf tn mf nearly 10 years of
mivi reporting. I ha*t itudhuify
awndeJ fi'ii ptrton crtkltt and
hove aiitmpled to Itave out my own
(V'otm/ ofintuni liowtvtr. aftrt
the Aiifutt 10 Bnrfronmtnlal Pro-
leclwit Agency woththop hirt torn
renting arwnic Haiidartk fat
ASARCO, jay Becker a ike J me to
write a pieet concerning mjr per-
sonal reaction! an J feeling]
I have lived on Vashon live
years I have grown a large
gnrilcn lour yrari and I Ireru
moil ol my produce, eating my
own garden vegetables
throughout the year I have alio
reported on developments regar-
ding ASARCO (or the
Beoehcombtr lor lour yean In
talking lo Islanders. collecting
dita on toll samples liom Islsitd
gnrdens, end questioning officials
atxHil what It all meani, I have
iKtomt Increasingly concerned
alioul living In ASARCO't
Neveilheless. I went alnng hap-
pily growing my garden and
eating my vegetables Then I
became pregnant My baby It due
In September
Recent Inlormatlon
ilittcailnnlnl by Ticanis Fierce
County Health Department
warns against eallng lealy
vegetables from gardens con
laminated with cadmium I also
learned that Ictuses. Infants, and
children arc Ihc most susceptible
populations I decided It might be
alright for me to eat these
vegetables, but I shouldn't e«-
rase my unborn child la this • Itk
didn't even plant lettuce, Swiss
chard, or spinach II was only
•ller I planted * big crop of
potatoes, some carrots, and beets
that I learned those vegetable*
too are suspect I haven't eaten
So ASARCO has really come
home Is roost, affecting mv life In
a real, tangible way. And likely to
do more to as In the course of my
research I hive heard officials teQ
me (hal It might be dangerous for
t child to play In the dirt on
Vashon because of elevated
arsenic tevels I think about what
tt meant foe a child to live It
yean here, esposed to the levels
of arsenic and cadmium and
sulfur dloilde which have ac-
cumulated and/or continue 
Friday, 19 Aug 83
Pag* On*
i should be dead, if
you listen to them..
Longtime Asarco employees contend
health risks are exaggerated by EPA
Rtsrat. Ptou Camtf — *1
1i ym mm m
w « ¦ . / ,|1 . .
¦ nmo-
rs if I OK.
I • pravaaUea wnd
Sm ASAmCO an a 10

A 18 Tfr« Ststt* Tlmw Friday. August 19.1 983
Workers say
health risks
VUrfom Ttftor Mi a un*
mm; Pirt audi at Tacooa M
"¦ t
You become immune to arsenic
To The Editor According to re- because of a regulation saying we
cent headlines in the Tacoma
News Tribune, I should have died
20 yean ago. 1 retired from the
Tacoma Smelter four years ago,
after working there for 30 years.
The first 20 yean I worked there,
I ate so much arsenic that when I
penpired my whita undershirt
would turn green from the arsenic
that came out of my body. No, the
areseuc did not lull me; and I
don't believe I will die from can-
cer. The human body builds up a
resistance to arsenic so that after
awhile you become Immune to it
The last 10 yean that 1 worked,
the smelter had cleaned up the air
had to wear a respirator the whole
eight-hour shift
You do-gooders don't know
what you are talking about most
of the time Sure, some people are
allergic to arsenic. The same as
some people are allergic to their
wife or husband. Heart disease
causes 51 percent of the U.S.
deaths. Cancer causes 21 percent
of the deaths in the U.S. Accidents
causa S percent of the deaths.
Other causes account for the final
23 percent
So what part of the 21 percent
cancer deaths Is the Tacoma
Smelter responsible for?
so that I no longer had green
streaks in my underwear. The _ Q - JOHN C. LARSEN,
main reason I retired early was	*301 So. Warner

ytsielter closuri opposed
Health hazards have not been proven, state scientist says
Health hazards resulting from
Tacoma smelter emlaslons have
never been proven, uyi a state
scientist who has studied the ef-
fects of the smeller's arsenic em-
Therefore the smelter should
not be shut down nor should
stricter clean-air standards neces-
sarily be Imposed, said Dr. Samu-
el Milham, an epidemiologist with
(he state Department df Social
and Health Services.
"Unless you can demonstrate
you're causing a public health
problem, I think It would be Irre-
sponsible to be closing the plant,"
Milham said. "And we definitely
haven't been able to demonstrate
Milham addressed a study ses-
sion of the Tacoma City Council
yesterday at the Invitation of
Mayor Doug Sutherland. The city
is to hast a daylong forum on the
Environmental Protection Agen-
cy's proposed tougher arsenic em-
issions standards on Oct. I. Aaarco
officials and a variety of environ-
mental and public health organ-
Dr. Samuel Milham
liatlons are being Invited to
"My recommendation la that we
should make the air as clean as
possible within the llmiU of exist-
ing technology," Milham aald.
Studies have Indicated that the
exposure of Aaarco workers to
ioslc arsenic b 20 to 100 times
greater than that among the gen-
eral population, and their lung
cancer rate Is 2 to J times that of
the general population, he said.
But studies have not established
any arsenic threshold, Milham
aald — that Is, the degree of expo-
sure at which arsenic emissions
may actually cause cancer.
The EPA has estimated that
four cancer deaths a year can be
attributed to the smelter and the
proposed stricter standards would
reduce that to one But Milham
said the EPA's figures "don't
match reality "
"The critical question Is
whether long-term low-level expo-
sure (to arsenic emissions) Is dan-
gerous," Milham said. "There's no
doubt that workers demonstrate a
higher cancer rate, but their expo-
sure Is a! blgb levels also "
Milham said he conducted ex-
tenslve'atudles In 1972 of pupils at
Huston Elementary School across
the street from the amelter and of
pupils at Pern Hill Elementary
several miles away (the control
group). The studies showed "the
only thing different about those
(Huston) kids is that they don't get
bee stings, 'cause arsenic kills the
bees," be aald.
Tbey haven't bad a bee atlng
there In 2ft years."
Although children In Huston
showed higher levels of arsenic la
their urine, fingernails «nd hair
than the other children, they did
not aeem to suffer any health
problems as a result, Milham
noted. Levels of absenteeism and
academic achievement were quite
similar at both schoola, he aald.
Fern Hill was chosen as a control
group because Its students' social
and economic backgrounds were
similar to those of Huston pupils.
Milham said In 1071 he
searched out m4n who attended
Ruston Elementary In I BIB, when
the smelter began processing ar-
aenlc-rlch copper. He traced 80
percent of them and found that
only 1 In 20 bad died of lung can-
cer, although at least hau had
worked at the amelter at one Ume
or another and many of them
lived la the Ruston area all their
While there la no doubt that ar-
aenlc can be dangerous, how much
arsenic exposure is harmful has
not been demonstrated, he said.
Tacoma, bJaah.
bJednaadny, lit Sep B3
Pnye B-l