National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Primary Lead Smelters

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-5996-7]

RIN 2060-AE97

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for

Primary Lead Smelters

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rule; notice of public hearing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous

air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing primary lead smelters

pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act (Act) as amended in

November 1990. Primary lead smelters have been identified by the EPA as

significant emitters of lead compounds, and other metal hazardous air

pollutants (HAP) including arsenic, antimony, and cadmium. Exposure to

lead compounds may result in adverse effects on the blood, central

nervous system and kidneys. Chronic exposure to arsenic is associated

with skin, bladder, liver and lung cancer and other developmental and

reproductive effects. This proposed NESHAP provides protection to the

public by requiring all primary lead smelters to meet emission

standards that reflect the application of maximum achievable control

technology (MACT).

DATES: Comments. Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or

before June 16, 1998.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a

public hearing by May 8, 1998, a public hearing will be held on May 18,

1998, beginning at 10:00 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Written comments should be submitted (in

duplicate, if possible) to: Docket No. A-97-33 at the following

address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket

and Information Center (6102), 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

The EPA requests that a separate copy of the comments also be sent to

the contact person listed below.

Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA's Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center at: ``A-and-R-D[email protected].''

Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use

of special characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data

will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format or ASCII

file format. All comments and data in electronic form must be

identified by the docket number (A-97-33). No Confidential Business

Information (CBI) should be submitted through electronic mail.

Electronic comments on this proposed rule may be filed online at many

Federal Depository Libraries.

Docket. Docket No. A-97-33 contains supporting information used in

developing the proposed standards. The docket is located at the U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

20460 in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may be

inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 to 3:00 p.m., Monday

through Friday. The proposed regulatory text and other materials

related to this rulemaking are available for review in the docket or

copies may be mailed on request from the Air Docket by calling (202)

260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a public

hearing by the required date (see DATES), the public hearing will be

held at the EPA Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle

Park, NC. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring

as to whether a hearing is to be held should notify the contact person

listed below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the

proposed standards and technical aspects of primary lead smelting

emissions and control, contact Mr. Kevin Cavender, Environmental

Protection Agency MD-13, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone

number (919) 541-2364, facsimile number (919) 541-5600, electronic mail

address ``[email protected].''.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 19201]]

Regulated Entities

The regulated category and entities affected by this action include

Primary Lead Smelting (SIC 3339). This action will affect three

existing primary lead smelting facilities and any new primary lead

smelting facilities built in the future.

Technology Transfer Network

The text of today's notice will also be available on the Technology

Transfer Network (TTN), one of EPA's electronic bulletin boards. The

TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of

air pollution control. The service is free, except for the cost of a

phone call. Dial (919) 541-5742 for up to a 14,400 BPS modem. The TTN

also is accessible through the Internet at ``http://www.epa.gov/ttn''.

If more information on the TTN is needed, call the HELP line at (919)

541-5348. The HELP desk is staffed from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m.; a voice menu

system is available at other times.

Outline

The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Statutory Authority

II. Initial List of Categories of Major and Area Sources

III. Background

A. Description of Source Category

B. Emissions and Factors Affecting Emissions

C. Regulatory History

IV. NESHAP Decision Process

A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development

B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP

C. Determining the MACT Floor

V. Summary of the Proposed Standards

A. Sources to be Regulated

B. Proposed Standards for Process and Process Fugitive Sources

C. Proposed Standards for Fugitive Dust Sources

D. Compliance Dates

E. Compliance Test Methods

F. Monitoring Requirements

G. Notification Requirements

H. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

VII. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards

A. Selection of Pollutants and Source Category

B. Selection of Affected Sources

C. Selection of Basis and Level for the Proposed Standards for

New and Existing Sources

D. Reconstruction Considerations

E. Selection of Compliance Dates

F. Selection of Emission Test Methods and Schedule

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Solicitation of Comments

B. Public Hearing

C. Docket

D. Executive Order 12866

E. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive

Order 12875

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

I. Clean Air Act

J. Pollution Prevention Considerations

I. Statutory Authority

The statutory authority for this proposal is provided by sections

101, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.

7401, 7412, 7414, 7416, and 7601).

II. Initial List of Categories of Major and Area Sources

Section 112 of the Act requires that the EPA promulgate regulations

requiring the control of HAP emissions from major and area sources. The

control of HAP's is achieved through promulgation of emission standards

under sections 112 (d) and (f) and work practice standards under

section 112(h).

An initial list of categories of major and area sources of HAP's

selected for regulation in accordance with section 112(c) of the Act

was published in the Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576).

Primary lead smelting is one of the 174 categories of sources listed.

The category consists of smelters that process lead bearing ore

concentrates into lead metal. The listing was based on the

Administrator's determination that primary lead smelters may reasonably

be anticipated to emit several of the 189 listed HAP's in quantities

sufficient to designate them as major sources. Information subsequently

collected by the EPA as part of this rulemaking confirms that all three

operating primary lead smelters have the potential to emit greater than

9.1 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) [10 tons per year (tpy)] of a single HAP

or greater than 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tpy) of a combination of HAP's (Docket

ID No. II-B-4). Therefore, all three primary lead smelters are major

sources.

III. Background

A. Description of Source Category

Primary lead smelters smelt lead bearing ore concentrates producing

lead metal. The primary lead smelting source category does not include

secondary lead smelters, lead remelters, or lead refiners.

There are three operating primary lead smelters in the United

States. The Doe Run Company owns and operates a primary lead smelter in

Herculaneum, Missouri (Doe Run). The ASARCO Inc. owns and operates two

primary lead smelters, one located in East Helena, Montana (ASARCO-MT),

and a second located in Glover, Missouri (ASARCO-MO). No new primary

lead smelters have been built in the last 10 years, and one smelter has

closed during that time. No new primary smelters are anticipated in the

foreseeable future.

Lead sulfide (PbS) ore concentrates are the main feed material to

primary lead smelters. The two smelters located in Missouri obtain

their concentrates from local mines. The ore concentrates coming from

these mines have very high lead contents (about 70%), and low

impurities. The ASARCO-Montana smelter buys its concentrates on the

world market. These concentrates often have higher impurity contents.

The primary lead smelting process consists of: (1) Concentrate

storage and handling, (2) sintering of ore concentrates, (3) sinter

crushing and handling, (4) smelting of sinter to lead metal, (5)

drossing, refining, and alloying of lead metal, and (6) smelting of

drosses.

Lead concentrate, limestone, iron ore, silica and coke are received

by truck and/or rail car where they are transferred to storage bins or

piles. These materials and other in-process materials (including

recycled flue dust) are weighed and mixed prior to charging into the

sinter machine.

A sinter machine is essentially a continuous steel pallet conveyor

belt. Each pallet consists of perforated or slotted plates. The purpose

of sintering is to reduce the sulfur content of the lead sulfide

concentrate by oxidizing it to lead oxide and sulfur dioxide, while

simultaneously producing a hard porous clinker material (``sinter'')

suitable for processing in the blast furnace. The charge is ignited in

two stages. In the first stage, the charge is dumped onto the pallets

to a depth of approximately 1 inch. Gas burners are directed to the

upper surface of the charge. Air and combustion gases are pulled

through the top of the charge and are removed from the bottom. This is

conducted over the first several feet of the machine. After this layer

is completely ignited, a second layer of sinter is placed on top of the

first to obtain a total depth of roughly one foot. At the same time the

second layer is added, the airflow through the bed is reversed, blowing

up through the bottom of the charge, and is removed from the top of the

machine. This allows the oxygen and hot combustion gases to ignite and

burn the remainder of the charge.

As sinter is discharged from the machine, it falls into a series of

crushers and screens where it is reduced and

[[Page 19202]]

sized into two fractions, smaller than and greater than 1.5 inches in

diameter. The greater than 1.5 inch fraction is transferred to the

blast furnace for smelting. The smaller than approximately 1.5 inch

fraction is further crushed to a size of less than \1/4\ inch and is

returned to the sinter machine bedding area for reprocessing.

Smelting of the sinter takes place in a blast furnace. The two

ASARCO facilities operate two blast furnaces, while the Doe Run

facility operates three blast furnaces. At all three facilities one

blast furnace is typically shutdown for service at any given time. A

blast furnace is a rectangular shaped shaft furnace. Tuyeres through

which combustion air is admitted under pressure are located near the

bottom, and are evenly spaced on either side of the furnace. The

combustion zone of the furnace is at the same level as the tuyeres, and

the hot combustion gases filter through the charge, preheat the charge,

and are discharged through the top of the furnace.

The furnaces are charged periodically through the top by a charge

car as frequently as needed to maintain a constant bed height in the

furnace. A typical charge consists of 90 percent sinter and 10 percent

coke.

As the smelting reaction takes place, molten metal and slag pool at

the bottom of the furnace, where it is continuously tapped into a

settling chamber. In this chamber the slag is tapped from the top, and

the lead bullion is tapped from the bottom. Bullion is transferred to

drossing kettles. Slag is tapped into a chamber where water is injected

and the slag is granulated. The granulated slag is then either sent to

storage for charge to the sinter machine, or is sent to a ``slag pile''

for disposal.

The bullion is allowed to cool in the drossing kettles. While

cooling, copper dross floats to the surface and is periodically

skimmed. Once the dross is removed, the bullion is transferred to other

kettles for further refining and alloying. Once the desired product is

obtained, the lead is cast into various size molds, ranging in size

from 65 pounds to 2000 pounds.

The dross obtained from the drossing kettles may be sent off-site

for processing, or may be processed on-site in a small reverberatory

furnace. The reverberatory furnace, referred to as a dross furnace,

uses direct heat supplied by a natural gas burner to further reduce and

separate the dross into lead bullion, copper matte, and copper speiss

which contains arsenic. The lead bullion is added back to the dross

kettles, while the matte and speiss are sent off-site to a copper

smelter for copper recovery.

B. Emissions and Factors Affecting Emissions

Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are emitted from primary lead

smelters as: (1) Process emissions, (2) process fugitive emissions, and

(3) fugitive dust emissions. Table 1 summarizes the estimated HAP

emissions from each of the primary lead smelters (Docket ID No. II-B-

4). These estimates represent potential to emit estimates based on

current Federally enforceable emission limits and air pollution

controls.

Table 1.--Summary of Potential To Emit HAP Emission Estimates From

Primary Lead Smelters (TPY)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Total

Company Lead metal organic

compounds HAP HAP

------------------------------------------------------------------------

ASARCO--MO................................ 60 80 6

ASARCO--MT................................ 70 90 5

Doe Run--MO............................... 90 110 10

------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Process Emissions

Process emissions include emissions associated with the exhaust

gases from sinter machines and blast and dross furnaces. Metal HAP

emissions from process sources are produced through the volatilization

of the metals contained in the feed materials by the elevated smelting

temperatures and by the entrainment of metal-containing PM in the

furnace exhaust. Both sinter machines and blast furnaces emit

substantial quantities of metal HAP. Dross furnaces, being considerably

smaller, emit lesser amounts. About 80 percent of metal HAP emissions

are lead compounds, with lesser amounts of antimony, arsenic, and other

metal compounds.

Organic HAP emissions from blast furnaces result from incomplete

combustion of organic-containing materials (coke) in the furnace

charge. None of the existing primary lead blast furnaces are equipped

with organic emissions controls (e.g., afterburners). Emissions testing

was performed by the EPA on the uncontrolled blast furnace exhaust at

the Doe Run--MO smelter to determine the magnitude of organic HAP

emissions from primary lead blast furnaces (Docket ID No. II-A-1). The

emissions data obtained indicate low (part per billion) levels of

several organic HAP compounds. The five compounds with the highest

measured emission rates were benzene (62 ppb, 0.29 lb/hr), methylene

chloride (50 ppb, 0.26 lb/hr), acetaldehyde (60 ppb, 0.15 lb/hr),

carbon disulfide (33 ppb, 0.15 lb/hr), and formaldehyde (87 ppb, 0.15

lb/hr). Combined, the measured organic HAP emissions total 2.3 lb/hr,

which is equivalent to an annual emission rate approaching 10 tons per

year. The EPA believes these levels of organic HAP emissions are not

significant enough to warrant regulation.

Furthermore, the organic HAP concentrations measured at primary

lead smelters are far below what the EPA has historically considered

achievable with add-on controls (e.g., thermal oxidizers). The EPA

generally considers thermal oxidizers capable of achieving a 98 percent

emission reduction or an outlet concentration of 20 ppm, which ever is

greater (Docket ID No. II-B-6). As stated above, organic HAP

concentrations at primary lead smelters are on the order of 50 to 60

ppb, or three orders of magnitude less than what the EPA has considered

achievable with thermal oxidizers. Therefore, the EPA believes that it

is technically infeasible to reduce organic HAP emissions from primary

lead blast furnaces through the use of add-on controls.

2. Process Fugitive Emissions

Process fugitive emissions result from sinter machine and furnace

charging, sinter crushing and sizing, furnace tapping, drossing,

refining, and casting. Process fugitive emissions contain metal HAP's.

The majority of process fugitive sources at primary lead smelters are

currently hooded and ventilated to control devices. Ventilated

enclosures are also used to further reduce process fugitive emissions

at some sources.

3. Fugitive Dust Emissions

Fugitive dust emissions result from the entrainment of dust due to

material handling, vehicle traffic, and wind erosion from storage

piles. Fugitive dust emissions contain metal HAP's. The quantity of

fugitive dust emissions is dependent on the size of the facility and

the fugitive dust controls and practices in place. These emissions can

not be measured directly, and can only be roughly estimated using

emission factors and facility-specific data or through indirect

monitoring methods. Fugitive dust sources are typically controlled by

reducing the potential for entrainment through measures such as

wetting, pavement cleaning, use of chemical stabilizers, and protection

from wind.

[[Page 19203]]

C. Regulatory History

1. New Source Performance Standards

The EPA promulgated new source performance standards (NSPS) for

primary lead smelters on January 15, 1976 (40 CFR part 60, subpart R).

The NSPS limits emissions of particulate matter (PM) from blast and

reverberatory furnaces (including rotary furnaces) to a concentration

of 50 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) [0.022 grains

per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)] and emissions from refining

kettles (pot furnaces) to 10 percent opacity. However, none of the

primary lead smelters have undergone any major construction or

reconstruction since the rule became effective, and are, for the most

part, not subject to the NSPS requirements.

2. State Implementation Plans for Lead

On October 5, 1978, the EPA promulgated National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for lead at a level of 1.5 micrograms of lead

per cubic meter of air averaged over a calendar quarter. The NAAQS

defines levels of air quality that are determined by EPA to be

necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public

health (42 U.S.C. 7409). The areas around all three primary lead

smelters were and continue to be designated as nonattainment areas for

lead. Since the early 1980's, all three primary lead smelters and

states have been involved in an ongoing effort to develop Federally

enforceable control strategies to be incorporated into State

Implementation Plans (SIP) in order to bring the areas into attainment

with the lead NAAQS. The following paragraphs detail the history of the

SIP development for the three primary smelters.

ASARCO-MT. Ambient air quality monitoring data collected during the

period of 1977-1981 by the state of Montana indicated that there were

recorded violations of the NAAQS for lead in the East Helena area. On

September 29, 1983, the State of Montana submitted a plan for the

control of lead emissions from the ASARCO-MT facility as part of the

Montana State Implementation Plan for lead. The EPA published a final

approval of the SIP on July 9, 1984 (49 FR 27944).

As of December 31, 1986, all of the control strategies in the 1983

lead SIP were implemented. Ambient monitoring data for the fourth

quarter of 1988 indicated that the lead NAAQS was not met. On November

6, 1991, the EPA designated the East Helena area as a nonattainment

area for lead (56 FR 56694), effective January 6, 1992. As a result of

this designation, Montana was required to submit a revised lead SIP

that meets the requirements of the NAAQS. The State of Montana

submitted a new SIP proposal to the EPA on August 16, 1996 (Docket ID

No. II-I-2). This submittal is still under review by the EPA.

ASARCO-MO. The original Glover lead SIP was approved by EPA in

1981. On November 6, 1991, the EPA designated the Liberty and Arcadia

Townships which surround the ASARCO-MO facility as nonattainment for

lead. This designation became effective on January 6, 1992. On August

14, 1996, the State of Missouri submitted a revised SIP (Docket ID No.

II-I-1). The EPA promulgated final approval of the submittal on March

5, 1997 (62 FR 9970).

Doe Run-MO. On June 3, 1986, the EPA issued a call for a revision

to the Missouri SIP in response to violations of the NAAQS for lead

near the Doe Run primary lead smelter in Herculaneum, Missouri. The

state of Missouri submitted a SIP revision on September 6, 1990, with

additional materials submitted on May 8, 1991. Before the EPA acted on

the state's submission, the EPA promulgated a nonattainment designation

for the area in the vicinity of Doe Run. The designation was published

on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694), and became effective on January 6,

1992. As a result of the nonattainment designation, the Part D

requirements of the act became applicable to the Missouri SIP revision

for Doe Run. The EPA granted limited approval for Missouri's 1990 SIP

revision on March 6, 1992 (57 FR 8076). The EPA explained that the

basis for the limited approval was that the state would be required to

submit a supplemental SIP revision meeting the applicable Part D

requirements. On July 2, 1993, The state of Missouri submitted a lead

attainment plan for the Doe Run-MO facility meeting the Part D

requirements. In response to the EPA's comments, the state submitted

revisions to the SIP on June 30, 1994, and November 23, 1994 (Docket ID

No. II-I-3). The EPA found that these SIP components satisfy the Part D

requirements of the Act. The EPA promulgated final approval of the

submittals on May 5, 1995 (52 FR 22274).

3. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

On July 16, 1992, the EPA published an initial list of categories

of major and area sources selected for regulation in accordance with

section 112(c) of the Act (57 FR 31476). Primary lead smelters were

among the listed categories. Today, the EPA is issuing a notice of

proposed rulemaking for primary lead smelters and is soliciting

comments on the proposed rule.

IV. NESHAP Decision Process

A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development

Section 112 specifically directs the EPA to develop a list of all

categories of all major and such area sources as appropriate emitting

one or more of the 189 HAP listed in section 112(b) (section 112(c)).

Section 112 of the Act replaces the previous system of pollutant-by-

pollutant health-based regulation that proved ineffective at

controlling the high volumes and concentrations of HAP in air

emissions. The provision directs that this deficiency be redressed by

imposing technology-based controls on sources emitting HAP, and that

these technology-based standards may later be reduced further to

address residual risk that may remain even after imposition of

technology-based controls. A major source is any source that emits, or

has the potential to emit considering Federally enforceable controls,

10 tons per year or more of any one HAP or 25 tons per year or more of

any combination of HAP. The EPA published an initial list of source

categories on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), and may amend the list at

any time.

B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP

The NESHAP are to be developed to control HAP emissions from both

new and existing sources according to the statutory directives set out

in section 112, as amended. The statute requires the standard to

reflect the maximum degree of reduction of HAP emissions that is

achievable taking into consideration the cost of achieving the emission

reduction, any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and

energy requirements.

Emission reductions may be accomplished through application of

measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including, but

not limited to: (1) Reducing the volume of, or eliminating emissions

of, such pollutants through process changes, substitution of materials,

or other modifications, (2) enclosing systems or processes to eliminate

emissions, (3) collecting, capturing, or treating such pollutants when

released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point,

(4) design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards

[[Page 19204]]

(including requirements for operator training or certification) as

provided in subsection (h) of section 112, or (5) a combination of the

above (section 112(d)(2)).

To develop a NESHAP, the EPA collects information about the

industry, including information on emission source characteristics,

control technologies, data from HAP emissions tests at well-controlled

facilities, and information on the costs and other energy and

environmental impacts of emission control techniques. The EPA uses this

information to analyze possible regulatory approaches.

Although NESHAP are normally structured in terms of numerical

emission limits, alternative approaches are sometimes necessary. In

some cases, for example, physically measuring emissions from a source

may be impossible, or at least impractical, because of technological

and economic limitations. Section 112(h) authorizes the Administrator

to promulgate a design, equipment, work practice, or operational

standard, or a combination thereof, in those cases where it is not

feasible to prescribe or enforce an emissions standard.

If sources in the source category are major sources, then a MACT

standard is required for those major sources. The regulation of the

area sources in a source category is discretionary. If there is a

finding of a threat of adverse effects on human health or the

environment, then the source category can be added to the list of area

sources to be regulated.

C. Determining the MACT Floor

After the EPA has identified the specific source categories or

subcategories of major sources to regulate under section 112, it must

set MACT standards for each category or subcategory. Section 112 limits

the EPA's discretion by establishing a minimum baseline or ``floor''

for standards. For new sources, the standards for a source category or

subcategory cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is

achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source, as

determined by the Administrator (section 112(d)(3)).

The standards for existing sources can be less stringent than

standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent and may be

more stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the

best-performing 12 percent of existing sources (excluding certain

sources) for categories and subcategories with 30 or more sources, or

the best-performing 5 sources for categories or subcategories with

fewer than 30 sources (section 112(d)(3)).

After the floor has been determined for a new or existing source in

a source category or subcategory, the Administrator must set MACT

standards that are no less stringent than the floor. Such standards

must then be met by all sources within the category or subcategory.

Section 112(d)(2) specifies that the EPA shall establish standards

that require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of hazardous

air pollutants

* * * that the Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of

achieving such emission reduction, and any non-air quality health

and environmental impacts and energy requirements, determines is

achievable * * *.

In establishing standards, the Administrator may distinguish among

classes, types, and sizes of sources within a category or subcategory

(section 112(d)(1)). For example, the Administrator could establish two

classes of sources within a category or subcategory based on size and

establish a different emissions standard for each class, provided both

standards are at least as stringent as the MACT floor for that class of

sources.

The next step in establishing MACT standards is the investigation

of regulatory alternatives. With MACT standards, only alternatives at

least as stringent as the floor may be selected. Information about the

industry is analyzed to develop model plant populations for projecting

national impacts, including HAP emission reduction levels, costs,

energy, and secondary impacts. Several regulatory alternative levels

(which may be different levels of emissions control or different levels

of applicability or both) are then evaluated to select the regulatory

alternative that best reflects the appropriate MACT level.

The selected alternative may be more stringent than the MACT floor,

but the control level selected must be technically achievable. In

selecting a regulatory alternative that represents MACT, the EPA

considers the achievable emission reductions of HAP (and possibly other

pollutants that are co-controlled), cost, and economic impacts, energy

impacts, and other environmental impacts. The objective is to achieve

the maximum degree of emissions reduction without unreasonable economic

or other impacts (section 112(d)(2)). The regulatory alternatives

selected for new and existing sources may be different because of

different MACT floors, and separate regulatory decisions may be made

for new and existing sources.

The selected regulatory alternative is then translated into a

proposed regulation. The regulation implementing the MACT decision

typically includes sections on applicability, standards, test methods

and compliance demonstration, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping.

The preamble to the proposed regulation provides an explanation of the

rationale for the decision. The public is invited to comment on the

proposed regulation during the public comment period. Based on an

evaluation of these comments, the EPA reaches a final decision and

promulgates the standard.

V. Summary of the Proposed Standards

A. Sources to be Regulated

Standards are being proposed to limit metal HAP emissions from: (1)

Process sources, (2) process fugitive sources, and (3) fugitive dust

sources at primary lead smelters. Process source emissions are

discharged as the main exhaust of a sinter machine or smelting furnace

through a chimney, flue, or ductwork. Process sources that would be

regulated include sinter machines, blast furnaces, and dross furnaces.

Process fugitive emission sources that would be regulated include

sinter machine charging and discharging, sinter crushing and sizing,

blast furnace tapping, and dross furnace charging and tapping.

Fugitive dust sources that would be regulated include plant yards

and roadways subject to wind and vehicle traffic, process areas, and

materials handling and storage areas.

B. Proposed Standards for Process and Process Fugitive Sources

A ``plant wide'' emission limit is being proposed for lead

compounds from process and process fugitive emission sources. The lead

compound emission limit is being proposed as a surrogate for all metal

HAP's and will apply to both existing and new sources. The aggregated

lead emissions from the following process and process fugitive sources

would be limited to 500 mg/Mg of lead produced (1.0 lb/ton of lead

produced):

(1) Sinter machine;

(2) Blast furnace;

(3) Dross furnace;

(4) Dross furnace charging location;

(5) Blast and dross furnace tapping locations;

(6) Sinter machine charging location;

(7) Sinter machine discharge end;

(8) Sinter crushing and sizing equipment; and

[[Page 19205]]

(9) Sinter machine area.

In addition to the emission limit, work practice standards are

proposed for the above listed fugitive sources (items 4 through 9). The

proposed rule requires that the charging, tapping, and sinter handling

sources identified above (items 4 through 8) be equipped with a hood

ventilated to a control device. The hood design and ventilation rate

shall be consistent with the American Conference of Governmental

Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) recommended practices. In addition, the

proposed rule requires that the sinter machine and sinter crushing and

sizing equipment be located in a building ventilated to a baghouse or

equivalent device at a rate that maintains the building at a lower than

ambient pressure, ensuring in-draft through any doorway opening.

C. Proposed Standards for Fugitive Dust Sources

The proposed standards for fugitive dust sources are in the form of

work practice and operating standards. The EPA is proposing work

practice and operating standards based on the determination in

accordance with Sec. 112 (h)(2)(A) that the HAPs controlled by those

standards cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and

constructed to emit or capture those HAP. Again, the standards apply to

fugitive dust sources at both new and existing smelters. Each primary

lead smelter would be required to develop a Standard Operating

Procedures (SOP) manual for fugitive dust sources that details

procedures to limit fugitive dust emissions. Each smelter's SOP manual

would be reviewed and subject to approval by the Administrator.

Existing manuals developed as part of a facilities SIP control strategy

may be used to meet this requirement if the existing manuals address

the identified fugitive dust sources.

D. Compliance Dates

Compliance with the standards would be achieved within 24 months of

promulgation for existing primary lead smelters, and upon startup for

new and reconstructed smelters.

E. Compliance Test Methods

Testing of lead compound emissions from process and process

fugitive emission control devices would be conducted according to EPA

reference method 12 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A). Sampling locations

for all compliance tests would be determined by EPA reference method 1.

Stack gas velocity and volumetric flow rate would be determined by EPA

reference method 2. Gas analysis would be conducted according to EPA

reference method 3 for CO2, oxygen, excess air, and

molecular weight on a dry basis. The previous 12 calender months worth

of production data will be used to calculate lead production based on

the mass produced, and the lead content of lead products, copper

speiss, and copper matte.

F. Monitoring Requirements

Each owner or operator subject to the proposed NESHAP would be

required to develop and operate according to a SOP manual for operation

and maintenance of the control devices used to comply with the emission

limits. Each smelter's SOP manual would be reviewed and subject to

approval by the Administrator. The minimum SOP requirements identified

in the proposed rule would serve as the criteria by which the

Administrator would decide whether to approve a smelter's SOP.

As proposed, the owner or operator must install a bag leak

detection system for each fabric filter used on a process or process

fugitive source. The bag leak detection system would be equipped with

an audible alarm that automatically sounds when an increase in

particulate emissions above a predetermined level is detected. The

proposed rule requires that the monitor be capable of detecting PM

emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter

(0.004 grains per actual cubic foot) and provide an output of relative

PM emissions. Such a device would serve as an indicator of the

performance of the fabric filter and would provide an indication of

when maintenance of the fabric filter is needed. An alarm by itself

does not indicate noncompliance with the lead limit, but would indicate

an increase in PM emissions and trigger an inspection of the fabric

filter to determine the cause of the alarm. The owner or operator would

initiate corrective actions according to the procedures in their

operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan. The owner or operator

would be considered out of compliance upon failure to initiate

corrective actions within 1 hour of the alarm.

G. Notification Requirements

The owner or operator of a primary lead smelter would be required

to submit the notifications described in section 63.9 of the General

Provisions to part 63, (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). These would include

the initial notification, notifications of performance tests, and the

notification of compliance status. In addition, each owner or operator

would be required to submit the baghouse operation and maintenance SOP

manual and the fugitive dust control SOP manual along with a

notification to the Administrator requesting review and approval of the

smelter's SOP manuals.

H. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

The owner or operator of a primary lead smelter would be required

to comply with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements described

in section 63.10 of the General Provisions to part 63, (40 CFR part 63,

subpart A). In addition, the owner or operator of a primary lead

smelter would be required to retain for 5 years records of: (1)

production data of the weight and lead content of lead products, copper

matte, and copper speiss, (2) an identification of the date and time of

all bag leak detection system alarms, their cause, and an explanation

of the corrective actions taken, (3) records demonstrating

implementation of the baghouse SOP, and (4) records demonstrating

implementation of the fugitive dust controls contained in the smelter's

SOP manual.

In addition to the information required by the General Provisions

to part 63, (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), the owner or operator of a

primary lead smelter would be required to submit semi-annual reports

containing (1) records of all alarms from the bag leak detection system

including a description of the procedures taken following each bag leak

detection system alarm, (2) a summary of the records maintained as part

of the practices described in the baghouse SOP, and (3) a summary of

the fugitive dust control measures performed during the required

reporting period.

VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

There are only three existing primary lead smelters that would be

subject to the proposed standards, and no new facilities are

anticipated in the next 5 years. The proposed levels of control are

based on existing SIP emission limits for lead. No additional emission

controls would be required to comply with the proposed standards.

Therefore, no quantifiable emission reduction or other environmental

impacts are anticipated to result from this rulemaking. However, it is

anticipated that improved baghouse operation and maintenance procedures

coupled with continuous bag leak detection may result in unquantifiable

reductions in emissions of lead compounds and other metal HAP.

Similarly, cost and economic impacts are expected to be minimal.

The only costs associated with the proposed standards are those

required to perform

[[Page 19206]]

compliance assurance activities such as performance testing,

monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping. These costs are minimal, and

will not result in any significant economic impact.

VII. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards

This section describes the rationale for the decisions made by the

Administrator in selecting the proposed standards.

A. Selection of Pollutants and Source Category

Primary lead smelters emit several of the 189 HAP's listed in

section 112(b) of the Act. Metal HAP's emitted include primarily

compounds of lead, antimony, and arsenic, with lesser quantities of

compounds of chromium, nickel, manganese, mercury, and cadmium. Organic

HAP's are emitted at insignificant levels by primary lead smelters.

Criteria pollutants emitted include lead, PM, SO2,

NoX, CO, and hydrocarbons.

All three primary lead smelters in the United States are major

sources of HAP's, based on potential-to-emit estimates that take into

account air pollution control measures currently in place at each

smelter. Although no new primary lead smelters are anticipated, any new

primary lead smelter would certainly be a major source of metal HAP

emissions. As such, area sources are not addressed by this proposed

standard.

The emission, equipment, and work practice standards being proposed

today are based on existing SIP requirements that substantially limit

emissions of metal HAP's from primary lead smelters. The lead emission

limit being proposed is a surrogate for individual metal HAP compounds.

Strong correlations exist between lead emissions and other metal HAP

emissions. In addition, the technologies identified for the control of

metal HAP's are the same as those used to control lead emissions.

Therefore, emissions standards requiring good control of lead will also

achieve good control of the other metal HAP's emitted from primary lead

smelters. Further, establishing emission limits for each of the

numerous metal HAP compounds emitted from primary lead smelters is

considered impractical because measuring each compound would be too

costly and would pose unreasonable compliance and monitoring costs

while achieving little, if any, emission reduction above the surrogate

pollutant approach.

B. Selection of Affected Sources

Nearly all activities at a primary lead smelter have the potential

to emit metal HAP. In selecting the affected sources for this subpart,

the EPA attempted to identify all operations that have the potential to

emit appreciable quantities of HAP. As a result, the proposed standards

apply to three types of emission sources at primary lead smelters: (1)

Process sources, (2) process fugitive sources, and (3) fugitive dust

sources.

Process source emissions are discharged as the main exhaust of a

sinter machine or smelting furnace through a chimney, flue, or

ductwork. Process sources that would be regulated include sinter

machines, blast furnaces, and dross furnaces. Process sources have the

potential to emit significant amounts of metal HAP.

Process fugitive emission sources that would be regulated include

sinter machine charging and discharging, sinter crushing and sizing,

blast furnace tapping, and dross furnace charging and tapping. Process

fugitive sources are also a significant source of metal HAP.

Fugitive dust sources that would be regulated include plant yards

and roadways subject to wind and vehicle traffic, process areas, and

materials handling and storage areas. Fugitive dust sources emit

appreciable quantities of metal HAP.

C. Selection of Basis and Level for the Proposed Standards for New and

Existing Sources

Each of the three primary lead smelters are subject to federally

enforceable SIP emission limitations and work practice requirements for

the control of lead. In developing a SIP, the State and facility work

together to develop an emission inventory which includes process,

process fugitive, and fugitive dust sources. Once the emission

inventory is developed, dispersion modeling is performed to identify

the emission sources contributing to NAAQS violations. Emission control

options are identified and evaluated for each of the sources

contributing to the NAAQS violation. The combination of controls,

including contingency measures, found to be technically feasible and

that bring the modeled air concentrations below the NAAQS are selected

for the ``Control Strategy''. The facilities and the State agree to a

Consent Order which legally binds them to implement the Control

Strategy. The Consent Order also sets forth the administrative

requirements for the implementation of the control measures. The state

then submits a revision to the existing SIP to the EPA for approval.

As part of this rulemaking, the EPA has reviewed the proposed SIP

requirements and Control Strategies for each of the three facilities,

and has determined that the SIP emission limits and work practice

requirements represent MACT for this industry. As such, the EPA's goal

in this rulemaking is to develop MACT limitations compatible with the

SIP requirements. The following paragraphs provide the rationale and

supporting information for selection of MACT for the primary lead

smelting source category.

1. Selection of MACT for Process and Process Fugitive Sources

Metal HAP emissions from all of the major process and process

fugitive sources are well controlled at the three primary lead smelters

and all three facilities have SIP lead emission limits for the process

and main process fugitive emission sources (Tables 2-4). Baghouses are

used to control emissions from all existing blast furnace exhausts.

ASARCO-MO uses a baghouse to control emissions from their sinter

machine exhausts, while the other two facilities send the sinter

machine strong gasses to an acid plant for SO2 control, and

the weak gasses to a baghouse. Due to the extensive cooling and

precleaning associated with an acid plant, it is believed that an acid

plant provides a higher level of control of metal HAP emissions as

compared to baghouses alone.

Table 2.--Summary of SIP Emission Limits for ASARCO--MO

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lead

emission

Emission point Sources included limits (lb/

day)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Main Stack...................... Sinter Machine.......... 184.2

Sinter Machine Charging

Sinter Machine Discharge

Sinter Crushing

[[Page 19207]]

Ventilation Stack............... Sinter Machine Area 125.4

Ventilation.

Blast Furnace Tapping

Blast Furnace Stack............. Blast Furnace........... 82.3

Sinter Sizing

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3. Summary of SIP Emission Limits for ASARCO--MT

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lead

emission

Emission point Sources included limits (lb/

day)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blast Furnace Baghouse Stack.... Blast Furnaces.......... 89.1

Blast Furnace Charge

Location

Blast Furnace Tap

Location

Dross Plant Baghouse Stack...... Dross Furnace........... 83.8

Dross Furnace Charge

Location

Dross Furnace Tap

Location

Lead Granulator

Kettle Covers

Sinter Storage

Blast Furnace Charge Car

Pneumatic Flue Dust

Handling

Sinter Plant Baghouse Stack..... Sinter Machine Weak Gas. 43.6

Sinter Machine Charge

Location

Sinter Machine Discharge

Sinter Crushing and

Sizing

Pneumatic Flue Dust

Handling

Flue Dust Storage

Acid Plant Stack................ Sinter Machine Strong 1.7

Gas.

Crushing Mill #1 Baghouse Stack. Sinter Machine Area 1.35

Ventilation.

Crushing Mill #2 Baghouse Stack. Sinter Machine Area 1.35

Ventilation.

CSHB Baghouse Stack............. Concentrate Storage/ 98.1

Handling.

Pneumatic Flue Dust

Handling

Sinter Crushing and

Sizing

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 4.--Summary of SIP Emission Limits for DOE Run

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lead

emission

Emission point Sources included limits (lb/

day)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Main Stack...................... Blast Furances.......... 446.6

Blast Furnace Tap

Location

Sinter Machine

Sinter Crushing

Cooler/Crusher Baghouse......... Sinter Crushing and 21.8

Sizing.

Sinter Cooling

Sinter Plant Southend Baghouse.. Sinter Machine Area..... 2.6

Smooth Rolls Baghouse........... Sinter Crushing......... 2.2

Sinter Machine Area

Mixing Drum Baghouse............ Sinter Charge Mixing 10.2

Drum.

Dross Plant Baghouse............ Dross Furnace........... 36.2

Dross Furnace Talling

Dross Kettle Ventilation

------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of the process fugitive sources identified at primary lead

smelters are hooded, and ventilated to a baghouse with the exception of

blast furnace charging and drossing and refining kettles. At the

ASARCO--MT facility, the drossing and refining kettles are located in a

totally enclosed building ventilated to a baghouse, and the blast

furnace charging location is hooded and ventilated to a baghouse. At

the other two facilities, the blast furnace charging location and the

drossing and refining kettles are located in partially enclosed

buildings which are not ventilated to a baghouse. The sinter machine

and sinter crushing and sizing equipment at all three smelters are

housed in buildings which are ventilated to an air pollution control

device.

Several approaches were identified and evaluated for determining

MACT for process and process fugitive sources at primary lead smelters.

One common regulatory approach is to establish emission limits for each

individual source (sinter machine, blast furnace, etc.). For the

primary lead smelting category, this approach has several

disadvantages. Due to the manner in

[[Page 19208]]

which many of the process and process fugitive sources are

``commingled'' into a single stack, emission from individual sources

can not be isolated. As a result, it would not be possible to monitor

compliance with emission limits for individual sources. In addition,

this approach would result in emission limits inconsistent with the

existing SIP, where emission limits are set for stacks rather than for

individual emission sources.

The EPA proposes to establish MACT for process and process fugitive

sources at primary lead smelters based on a ``plant wide'' approach

(Docket ID No. II-B-5). Using this approach, the emissions from all of

the process and process fugitive sources are aggregated, and then

divided by the facility's lead production rate to provide a production

based lead emission rate in units of grams of lead emitted per megagram

of lead produced. The plant wide emission limit approach has several

advantages. It is very compatible with the existing SIPs, and it

provides facilities with more flexibility in complying with the MACT

standard. Furthermore, the plant wide production based emission limit

helps promote pollution prevention within the facilities by giving each

facility the ability to meet the emission limit through any combination

of source reduction and control technology options. Table 5 summarizes

the calculations used to derive the production based MACT floor.

Table 5.--Summary of Plant Wide Lead Emission Rates

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lead production

Company Lead SIP emission limit capacity [Mg/day(ton/ Plant wide emission

[Mg/day(lb/day)] day)] rate [g/Mg(lb/ton)]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ASARCO--MO........................... 0.178(392) 357(394) 500(1.0)

ASARCO--MT........................... 0.145(319) 279(307) 520(1.0)

Doe Run.............................. 0.236(520) 559(616) 420(0.84)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The median value was selected to represent the MACT floor--500

grams lead per megagram of lead produced (1.0 pounds of lead per ton of

lead produced).

In addition to the lead emission limit, the EPA is proposing

equipment standards for several process fugitive sources at primary

lead smelters including dross furnace charging and tapping locations,

blast furnace tapping locations, sinter machine charge and discharge

points, and sinter crushing and sizing equipment. The proposed standard

would require that each of these sources be hooded and ventilated to a

baghouse or equivalent control device. The hood design and ventilation

rate shall be consistent with ACGIH recommended practices. In addition,

the rule will require that sinter machines and sinter crushing and

sizing equipment be located in a building which is ventilated to a

baghouse or equivalent control device at a rate that would maintain the

building at a lower than ambient pressure. Based on observations at

operating primary lead smelters (Docket ID No.'s II-B-1, II-B-2, and

II-B-3), the EPA believes that the capture and ventilation systems

currently installed and operated at primary lead smelters are

consistent with the proposed requirements. These controls consequently

establish the MACT floor. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to

incorporate these specifications into the proposed MACT for new and

existing process fugitive sources.

2. Selection of MACT for Fugitive Dust Sources

The EPA is proposing that each smelter develop and submit to the

Administrator for approval an SOP manual that would describe the

controls and work practices that would be implemented to control

fugitive dust emissions. The EPA is proposing to require the

implementation of work practices based on its determination in

accordance with Sec. 112(h)(2)(A) that the HAPs controlled by those

practices cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and

constructed to emit those HAPs. The use of a site-specific SOP manual

is being proposed, rather than a list of required work practices,

because there are several equivalent control options available for

fugitive dust. The flexibility of the SOP approach is needed because

the best control option for a particular smelter would be determined by

the physical layout of the smelter and the control measures that are

already in place. These two factors vary greatly among smelters.

All three facilities currently operate according to SOP manuals,

required as part of their SIP control strategy, that address the

control of fugitive dust from these sources. Existing manuals developed

as part of a facilities SIP control strategy may be used to meet this

requirement provided the existing manuals address the fugitive dust

sources identified in this proposed rule.

D. Reconstruction Considerations

Section 112(a) of the Act defines a new source as a stationary

source, the construction or reconstruction of which is commenced after

the proposal date of a relevant regulation. An existing source is

defined as any stationary source other than a new source.

Reconstructed sources are considered to be new sources.

Reconstruction means the replacement of components of an existing

source to such an extent that: (1) The fixed capital cost of the new

components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be

required to construct a comparable new source, and (2) it is

technologically and economically feasible for the reconstructed source

to meet all relevant promulgated standards for new sources.

Some changes can be made at primary lead smelters that may be

deemed reconstructions under section 63.5 of the General Provisions.

However, the proposed standards for primary lead smelters are the same

for both existing and new sources. As a result, the designation of a

change as a ``reconstruction'' has limited practical significance.

E. Selection of Compliance Dates

The proposed regulation would require owners or operators of

existing primary lead smelters to achieve compliance with the proposed

standards within 24 months of promulgation. This schedule would allow

the affected sources the time necessary to modify existing processes

and control equipment; design, fabricate, and install new control

equipment as needed; develop and implement the SOP for equipment and

work practice standards; and complete installation of all required

continuous monitoring systems. The EPA believes that a 2-year period is

realistic and practical to accomplish these required tasks. The

proposed standard is also

[[Page 19209]]

consistent with compliance deadlines allowed by section 112(i) of the

Act, which allows existing sources up to 3 years to achieve compliance.

Owners or operators of new or reconstructed primary lead smelters

would be required to achieve compliance upon startup or promulgation of

this NESHAP (whichever is later) and must perform compliance testing

within 6 months of startup or promulgation, pursuant to sections 63.6

and 63.7 of the General Provisions.

F. Selection of Emission Test Methods and Schedule

Testing requirements are being proposed for lead emissions and

total enclosure pressure.

1. Lead Emissions

Lead emissions would be measured using EPA reference method 12. EPA

reference method 1 would be used to determine the number and locations

of sampling points, method 2 would be used to determine stack gas

velocity and volumetric flow rate, method 3 would be used for flue gas

analysis, and method 4 would be used to determine the volume percent

moisture content in the stack gas.

Each test would consist of three runs conducted under

representative operating conditions. The average of the three runs

would be used to determine compliance.

The lead emission rates from the affected sources would be summed,

and the sum divided by the average daily lead production rate for the

previous 12 calender months. The lead production rate would be

calculated based on the sum of the lead contained in the lead products,

copper matte, and copper speiss produced.

The proposed standard would require initial and annual tests of

lead emissions from the identified process and process fugitive

sources.

2. Total Enclosure Pressure

Compliance with the ventilation requirements for total enclosures

would be determined using a hand-held anemometer capable of

demonstrating that air flow is into the building at all openings.

Alternatively, a differential pressure gauge installed on the leeward

wall of the enclosure can be used to demonstrate that the building is

maintained at a negative pressure as compared to the outside of the

building of no less than 0.02 mm Hg when all doors are in the position

they are in during normal operation.

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Solicitation of Comments

The EPA seeks full public participation in arriving at its final

decisions, and strongly encourages comments on all aspects of this

proposal from all interested parties. Full supporting data and detailed

analyses should be submitted with comments to allow the EPA to make

maximum use of the comments. All comments should be directed to the Air

and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Docket No. A-97-33 (see

ADDRESSES). Comments on this notice must be submitted on or before the

date specified in DATES.

Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for

consideration should clearly distinguish such information from other

comments, and clearly label it ``Confidential Business Information''

(CBI). Submissions containing such proprietary information should be

sent directly to the following address, and not to the public docket,

to ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in

the docket: Attention: Kevin Cavender, c/o Ms. Melva Toomer, U.S. EPA

Confidential Business Information Manager, OAQPS (MD-13); Research

Triangle Park, NC 27711. Information covered by such a claim of

confidentiality will be disclosed by the EPA only to the extent allowed

and by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of

confidentiality accompanies the submission when it is received by the

EPA, the submission may be made available to the public without further

notice to the commenter.

B. Public Hearing

If a request to speak at a public hearing is received, a public

hearing on the proposed standards will be held in accordance with

section 307(d)(5) of the Act. Persons wishing to present oral testimony

or to inquire as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact EPA

(see ADDRESSES). To provide an opportunity for all who may wish to

speak, oral presentations will be limited to 15 minutes each.

Any member of the public may file a written statement on or before

June 16, 1998. Written statements should be addressed to the Air and

Radiation Docket and Information Center (see ADDRESSES) and refer to

Docket No. A-97-33. A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written

statements will be placed in the docket and be available for public

inspection and copying, or mailed upon request, at the Air and

Radiation Docket and Information Center.

C. Docket

The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information

considered by the EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket

is a dynamic file because material is added throughout the rulemaking

development. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the

public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents

so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process.

Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles,

the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the case of

judicial review. [See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act.]

D. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA

must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and

therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order

defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to

result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public

health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an

action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,

user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients

thereof; or

(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in

the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been

determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action''

because none of the listed criteria apply to this action. Consequently,

this action was not submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order

12866.

E. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive Order

12875

In compliance with Executive Order 12875, the EPA has involved

State regulatory experts in the development of this proposed rule. No

tribal governments are believed to be affected by this proposed rule.

Although not directly impacted by the rule, State

[[Page 19210]]

governments will be required to implement the rule by incorporating the

rule into permits and enforcing the rule upon delegation. They will

collect permit fees that will be used to offset the resources burden of

implementing the rule. Comments have been solicited from state partners

and have been carefully considered in the rule development process. In

addition, all states are encouraged to comment on this proposed rule

during the public comment period, and the EPA intends to fully consider

these comments in the development of the final rule.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L.

104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the

effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal

governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the

EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-

benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal

mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal

governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or

more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires

the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory

alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least

burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The

provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA to adopt an

alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least

burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before the

EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it

must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government

agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected

small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to

have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

The EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal

mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for

State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private

sector in any one year. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the EPA

has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that

might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it

contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose

obligations upon them. Therefore, today's rule is not subject to the

requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act

As amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness

Act (SBREFA), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires

an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule

subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, as well as take

other actions intended to minimize the rule's potential impact on small

entities, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and small government jurisdictions.

The EPA has determined that none of the existing primary lead

smelters are small entities, and has concluded that this proposed rule

would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of

small entities. Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have

been submitted for approval to the OMB under the requirements of the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An information

collection request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA, and a copy

may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 401 M Street

SW., Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.

The proposed information requirements are based on notification,

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP general

provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all

owners or operators subject to national emission standards. These

recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by

section 114 of the Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7414). All information submitted

to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for

which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to

Agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.

The proposed rule would require maintenance inspections of the

control devices but would not require any notifications or reports

beyond those required by the general provisions. The proposed

recordkeeping requirements require only the specific information needed

to determine compliance.

The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this

collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of

the rule) is estimated to be 1,000 labor hours per year at a total

annual cost of $64,000. This estimate includes a one-time performance

test and report (with repeat tests where needed); one-time purchase and

installation of bag leak detection systems; one-time submission of a

startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan with semiannual reports for any

event when the procedures in the plan were not followed; semiannual

excess emission reports; maintenance inspections; notifications; and

recordkeeping. Total capital/startup costs associated with the

monitoring requirements over the 3-year period of the ICR are estimated

at $93,000, with operation and maintenance costs of $4,500/yr.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources

expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose, or

provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize

technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and

verifying information; processing and maintaining information, and

disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to

comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;

train personnel to respond to a request for the collection of

information; search existing data sources; complete and review the

collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the

information.

An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required

to respond to, a request for the collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers

for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter

15.

Comments are requested on the EPA's need for this information, the

accuracy

[[Page 19211]]

of the provided burden estimates, any suggested methods for minimizing

respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection

techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the Director, OPPE Regulatory

Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 401

M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th

Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for

EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Because OMB is

required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days

after April 17, 1998, comment to OMB is best assured of having its full

effect if OMB receives it by May 18, 1998. The final rule will respond

to any OMB or public comments on the information collection

requirements contained in this proposal.

I. Clean Air Act

In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this

proposal was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory

committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies.

This regulation will be reviewed 8 years from the date of promulgation.

This review will include an assessment of such factors as evaluation of

the residual health risks, any overlap with other programs, the

existence of alternative methods, enforceability, improvements in

emission control technology and health data, and the recordkeeping and

reporting requirements.

J. Pollution Prevention Considerations

The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., Pub.

L. 101-508, November 5, 1990) establishes the national policy of the

United States for pollution prevention. This act declares that: (1)

Pollution should be prevented or reduced whenever feasible; (2)

pollution that cannot be prevented or reduced should be recycled or

reused in an environmentally-safe manner wherever feasible; (3)

pollution that cannot be recycled or reused should be treated; and (4)

disposal or release into the atmosphere should be chosen only if none

of the other options is available.

The plant wide emission limit approach proposed by the EPA promotes

the use of pollution prevention alternatives by giving facilities full

credit for source reduction in determining compliance with the emission

limit. Furthermore, the focus of the fugitive dust requirements is on

work practice and operating standards that reduce emission potential,

rather than capture and treatment options.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Primary lead

smelters.

Dated: April 9, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For reasons set out in the preamble, it is proposed that 40 CFR

part 63 be amended as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart TTT, to read as follows:

Subpart TTT--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Primary Lead Smelters.

Sec.

63.1541 Applicability.

63.1542 Definitions.

63.1543 Standards for process and process fugitive sources.

63.1544 Standards for fugitive dust sources.

63.1545 Compliance dates.

63.1546 Test methods.

63.1547 Monitoring requirements.

63.1548 Notification requirements.

63.1549 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

63.1550 Delegation of Authority.

Subpart TTT--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants for Primary Lead Smelters

Sec. 63.1541 Applicability.

(a) The provisions of this subpart apply to the following affected

sources at primary lead smelters: sinter machine, blast furnace, dross

furnace, process fugitive sources, and fugitive dust sources. The

provisions of this subpart do not apply to secondary lead smelters,

lead refiners, or lead remelters.

(b) Table 1 of this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A

that apply and those that do not apply to owners and operators of

primary lead smelters. The following sections of part 63 apply to this

subpart as stated in subpart A and Table 1: Sec. 63.1 (Applicability),

Sec. 63.2 (Definitions), Sec. 63.3 (Units and abbreviations), Sec. 63.4

(Prohibited activities and circumvention), Sec. 63.5 (Construction and

reconstruction), Sec. 63.7 (Performance testing requirements),

Sec. 63.12 (State authority and delegations), Sec. 63.13 (Addresses of

State air pollution control agencies and EPA Regional Offices),

Sec. 63.14 (Incorporations by reference), and Sec. 63.15 (Availability

of information and confidentiality). The following sections of part 63

apply to the extent specified in this subpart and Table 1: Sec. 63.6

(Compliance with standards and maintenance requirements), Sec. 63.8

(Monitoring requirements), Sec. 63.9 (Notification requirements), and

Sec. 63.10 (Recordkeeping and reporting requirements). Sections

Sec. 63.11 (Control device requirements) does not apply to this

subpart.

Table 1.--General Provisions Applicability To Subpart TTT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reference Applies to subpart TTT Comment

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

63.1................................. ....................... Yes.................... .......................

63.2................................. ....................... Yes.................... .......................

63.3................................. ....................... Yes.................... .......................

63.4................................. ....................... Yes.................... .......................

63.5................................. ....................... Yes.................... .......................

63.6................................. (a), (b), (c), (e), Yes.................... .......................

(f), (g), (i) and (j).

63.6................................. (d) and (h)............ No..................... No opacity limits in

rule.

63.7................................. ....................... Yes.................... .......................

63.8................................. ....................... Yes.................... .......................

63.9................................. (a), (b), (c), (d), Yes.................... .......................

(e), (g), (h)(1-3),

(h)(5-6), (i), and (j).

63.9................................. (g).................... No..................... No CMS required by

rule.

[[Page 19212]]

63.9................................. (f) and (h)(4)......... No..................... No opacity or visible

emission limits in

rule.

63.10................................ ....................... Yes.................... .......................

63.11................................ ....................... No..................... Flares will not be used

to comply with the

emission limits.

63.12 to 63.15....................... ....................... Yes.................... .......................

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 63.1542 Definitions.

Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Act, in subpart A of

this part, or in this section as follows:

Blast furnace means any reduction furnace to which sinter is

charged and which forms separate layers of molten slag and lead

bullion.

Charging location means the physical opening through which raw

materials are introduced into a sinter machine, blast furnace, or dross

furnace.

Dross furnace means any smelting furnace to which drosses are

charged and which chemically and physically separates lead from other

impurities.

Drossing and refining kettle means an open-top vessel that is

constructed of cast iron or steel and is indirectly heated from below

and contains molten lead for the purpose of drossing, refining, or

alloying lead. Included are pot furnaces, receiving kettles, and

holding kettles.

Fugitive dust source means a stationary source of hazardous air

pollutant emissions at a primary lead smelter resulting from the

handling, storage, transfer, or other management of lead-bearing

materials where the source is not associated with a specific process,

process vent, or stack. Fugitive dust sources include roadways, storage

piles, materials handling transfer points, and materials transport

areas.

Furnace area means any area of a primary lead smelter in which a

blast furnace or dross furnace is located.

Materials storage and handling area means any area of a primary

lead smelter in which lead-bearing materials (including ore

concentrate, sinter, granulated lead, dross, slag, and flue dust) are

stored or handled between process steps, including areas in which

materials are stored in piles, bins, or tubs, and areas in which

material is prepared for charging to a sinter machine or smelting

furnace.

Plant roadway means any area of a primary lead smelter that is

subject to vehicle traffic, including traffic by fork lifts, front-end

loaders, or vehicles carrying ore concentrates or cast lead ingots.

Excluded from this definition are employee and visitor parking areas,

provided they are not subject to traffic by vehicles carrying lead-

bearing materials.

Primary lead smelter means any facility engaged in the production

of lead metal from lead sulfide ore concentrates through the use of

pyrometallurigal techniques.

Process fugitive source means a source of hazardous air pollutant

emissions at a primary lead smelter that is associated with lead

smelting or refining but is not the primary exhaust stream and is not a

fugitive dust source. Process fugitive sources include sinter machine

charging locations, sinter machine discharge locations, sinter crushing

and sizing equipment, furnace charging locations, furnace taps,

drossing kettles, and refining kettles.

Refining and casting area means any area of a primary lead smelter

in which drossing or refining operations occur, or casting operations

occur.

Sinter machine means any device in which a lead sulfide ore

concentrate charge is heated in the presence of air to eliminate sulfur

contained in the charge and to agglomerate the charge into a hard

porous mass called sinter.

Sinter machine area means any area of a primary lead smelter where

a sinter machine, or sinter crushing and sizing equipment is located.

Sinter machine discharge end means the physical opening at the end

of a sinter machine where the sinter exits the sinter machine.

Tapping location means the opening thru which lead and slag are

removed from the furnace.

Total enclosure means a roofed and walled building with limited

openings to allow access and egress for people and vehicles.

Sec. 63.1543 Standards for process and process fugitive sources.

(a) No owner or operator of any existing, new, or reconstructed

primary lead smelter shall discharge or cause to be discharged into the

atmosphere lead compounds in excess of 500 grams of lead per megagram

of lead metal produced (1.0 pounds of lead per ton of lead metal

produced) from the aggregation of emissions discharged from the air

pollution control devices used to control emissions from the sources

listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(9) of this section.

(1) Sinter machine;

(2) Blast furnace;

(3) Dross furnace;

(4) Dross furnace charging location;

(5) Blast furnace and dross furnace tapping location;

(6) Sinter machine charging location;

(7) Sinter machine discharge end;

(8) Sinter crushing and sizing equipment; and

(9) Sinter machine area.

(b) The process fugitive sources listed in paragraphs (a)(4)

through (a)(8) of this section shall be equipped with a hood and shall

be ventilated to a baghouse or equivalent control device. The hood

design and ventilation rate shall be consistent with American

Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists recommended practices.

(c) The sinter machine area shall be enclosed in a building that is

ventilated to a baghouse or equivalent control device at a rate that

maintains the building at a lower than ambient pressure to ensure in-

draft through any doorway opening.

(d) Following the initial test to demonstrate compliance with

paragraph (a) of this section, the owner or operator of a primary lead

smelter shall conduct a compliance test for lead compounds on an annual

basis (no later than 12 calendar months following the previous

compliance test).

Sec. 63.1544 Standards for fugitive dust sources.

(a) Each owner or operator of a primary lead smelter shall prepare,

and at all times operate according to, a standard operating procedures

manual that describes in detail the measures that will be put in place

to control fugitive dust emissions from the sources listed in

paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section:

(1) Plant roadways;

(2) Material storage and handling area;

(3) Sinter machine area;

(4) Furnace area; and

(5) Refining and casting area.

(b) The standard operating procedures manual shall be submitted to

the Administrator or delegated authority for review and approval.

[[Page 19213]]

(c) Existing manuals that describe the measures in place to control

fugitive emission sources required as part of a State Implementation

Plan for lead shall satisfy the requirements of paragraph (a) of this

section provided they address the sources listed in paragraphs (a)(1)

through (a)(5) of this section.

Sec. 63.1545 Compliance dates.

(a) Each owner or operator of an existing primary lead smelter

shall achieve compliance with the requirements of this subpart no later

than [date 24 months after publication of the final rule].

(b) Each owner or operator of a primary lead smelter that commences

construction or reconstruction after April 17, 1998 shall achieve

compliance with the requirements of this subpart by [Insert date of

publication of final rule] or upon startup of operations, whichever is

later.

Sec. 63.1546 Test methods.

(a) The following procedure shall be used to determine compliance

with the emissions standard for lead compounds under Sec. 63.1543(a):

(1) The lead compound emission rate, in units of grams of lead per

hour, for each source listed in Sec. 63.1543(a)(1) through (9) shall be

determined according to the following test methods in appendix A of

part 60 of this chapter:

(i) Method 1 shall be used to select the sampling port location and

the number of traverse points.

(ii) Method 2 shall be used to measure volumetric flow rate.

(iii) Method 3 shall be used for gas analysis.

(iv) Method 4 shall be used to determine moisture content of the

stack gas.

(v) Method 12 shall be used to measure the lead emission rate of

the stack gas. The minimum sample volume shall be 0.85 dry standard

cubic meters (30 dry standard cubic feet) and the minimum sampling time

shall be 60 minutes for each run. Three runs shall be performed and the

average of the three runs shall be used to determine compliance.

(2) The lead production rate, in units of megagrams per hour, shall

be determined based on production data for the previous 12 calender

months according to the procedure detailed in paragraphs (a)(2)(i)

through (v) of this section:

(i) Total lead products production multiplied by the fractional

lead content shall be determined in units of megagrams.

(ii) Total copper matte production multiplied by the fractional

lead content shall be determined in units of megagrams.

(iii) Total copper speiss production multiplied by the fractional

lead content shall be determined in units of megagrams.

(iv) Total lead production shall be determined by summing the

values obtained in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.

(v) The lead production rate, in units of megagrams per hour, shall

be calculated based on the total lead production obtained in paragraph

(a)(2)(iv) of this section divided by 8760 hours.

(3) The sum of lead compound emission rates for the sources in

Sec. 63.1543(a)(1) through (9) obtained in paragraph (a)(1) of this

section shall be divided by the lead production rate obtained in

paragraph (a)(2)(v) of this section to obtain a production based lead

compound emission rate in units of grams of lead per megagram of lead

metal produced. The production based lead compound emission rate shall

be used to determine compliance with the emissions standard for lead

compounds under Sec. 63.1543(a).

(b) Owners and operators shall determine compliance with the

doorway in-draft requirement for buildings in Sec. 63.1543(b) and

Sec. 63.1544(c) using the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of

this section.

(1)(i) Owners and operators shall use a propeller anemometer or

equivalent device.

(ii) Doorway in-draft shall be determined by placing the anemometer

in the plane of the doorway opening near its center.

(iii) Doorway in-draft shall be demonstrated for each doorway that

is open during normal operation with all remaining doorways in their

customary position during normal operation.

(2)(i) Owners and operators shall install a differential pressure

gage on the leeward wall of the building to measure the pressure

difference between the inside and outside of the building.

(ii) The pressure gage shall be certified by the manufacturer to be

capable of measuring pressure differential in the range of 0.02 to 0.2

mm Hg.

(iii) Both the inside and outside taps shall be shielded to reduce

the effects of wind.

(iv) Owners and operators shall demonstrate the inside of the

building is maintained at a negative pressure as compared to the

outside of the building of no less than 0.02 mm Hg when all doors are

in the position they are in during normal operation.

Sec. 63.1547 Monitoring requirements.

(a) Owners and operators of primary lead smelters shall prepare,

and at all times operate according to, a standard operating procedures

manual that describes in detail procedures for inspection, maintenance,

and bag leak detection and corrective action for all baghouses that are

used to control process, process fugitive, or fugitive dust emissions

from any source subject to the lead emission standards in Secs. 63.1543

and 63.1544 including those used to control emissions from building

ventilation.

(b) The standard operating procedures manual for baghouses required

by paragraph (a) of this section shall be submitted to the

Administrator or delegated authority for review and approval.

(c) The procedures specified in the standard operating procedures

manual for inspections and routine maintenance shall, at a minimum,

include the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(9) of this

section.

(1) Daily monitoring of pressure drop across each baghouse cell.

(2) Weekly confirmation that dust is being removed from hoppers

through visual inspection, or equivalent means of ensuring the proper

functioning of removal mechanisms.

(3) Daily check of compressed air supply for pulse-jet baghouses.

(4) An appropriate methodology for monitoring cleaning cycles to

ensure proper operation.

(5) Monthly check of bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning

through visual inspection or equivalent means.

(6) Quarterly check of bag tension on reverse air and shaker-type

baghouses. Such checks are not required for shaker-type baghouses using

self-tensioning (spring loaded) devices.

(7) Quarterly confirmation of the physical integrity of the

baghouse through visual inspection of the baghouse interior for air

leaks.

(8) Quarterly inspection of fans for wear, material buildup, and

corrosion through visual inspection, vibration detectors, or equivalent

means.

(9) Except as provided in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section,

continuous operation of a bag leak detection system.

(d) The procedures specified in the standard operating procedures

manual for maintenance shall, at a minimum, include a preventative

maintenance schedule that is consistent with the baghouse

manufacturer's instructions for routine and long-term maintenance.

(e) The bag leak detection system required by paragraph (c)(9) of

this section, shall meet the specifications

[[Page 19214]]

and requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(8) of this section.

(1) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the

manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter emissions at

concentrations of 10 milligram per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains

per actual cubic foot) or less.

(2) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of

relative particulate matter loadings.

(3) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm

system that will alarm when an increase in relative particulate

loadings is detected over a preset level.

(4) The bag leak detection system shall be installed and operated

in a manner consistent with available written guidance from the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency or, in the absence of such written

guidance, the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations

for installation, operation, and adjustment of the system.

(5) The initial adjustment of the system shall, at a minimum,

consist of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the

sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, and

establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.

(6) Following initial adjustment, the owner or operator shall not

adjust the sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or

alarm delay time, except as detailed in the approved SOP required under

paragraph (a) of this section. In no event shall the sensitivity be

increased by more than 100 percent or decreased more than 50 percent

over a 365 day period unless such adjustment follows a complete

baghouse inspection which demonstrates the baghouse is in good

operating condition.

(7) For negative pressure, induced air baghouses, and positive

pressure baghouses that are discharged to the atmosphere through a

stack, the bag leak detector must be installed downstream of the

baghouse and upstream of any wet acid gas scrubber.

(8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's

instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.

(f) The standard operating procedures manual required by paragraph

(a) of this section shall include a corrective action plan that

specifies the procedures to be followed in the event of a bag leak

detection system alarm. The corrective action plan shall include, at a

minimum, the procedures used to determine and record the time and cause

of the alarm as well as the corrective actions taken to correct the

control device malfunction or minimize emissions as specified in

paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section.

(1) The procedures used to determine the cause of the alarm must be

initiated within 30 minutes of the alarm.

(2) The cause of the alarm must be alleviated by taking the

necessary corrective action(s) which may include, but not be limited

to, paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (f)(2)(vi) of this section.

(i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken filter

elements, or any other malfunction that may cause an increase in

emissions.

(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.

(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media, or otherwise

repairing the control device.

(iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment.

(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise

repairing the bag leak detection system.

(vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.

(g) Baghouses equipped with HEPA filters as a secondary filter used

to control process or process fugitive sources subject to the lead

emission standards in Sec. 63.1543 are exempt from the requirement in

paragraph (c)(9) of this section to be equipped with a bag leak

detector. The owner or operator of an affected source that uses a HEPA

filter shall monitor and record the pressure drop across the HEPA

filter system daily. If the pressure drop is outside the limit(s)

specified by the filter manufacturer, the owner or operator must take

appropriate corrective measures, which may include, but not be limited

to, those set forth in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this

section.

(1) Inspecting the filter and filter housing for air leaks and torn

or broken filters.

(2) Replacing defective filter media, or otherwise repairing the

control device.

(3) Sealing off a defective control device by routing air to other

control devices.

(4) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.

(h) Baghouses that are used exclusively for the control of fugitive

dust emissions from any source subject to the lead emissions standard

in Sec. 63.1544 are exempt from the requirement in paragraph (c)(9) of

this section to be equipped with a bag leak detector.

Sec. 63.1548 Notification requirements.

(a) Initial notifications. As required by Sec. 63.9(b) of subpart

A, the owner or operator shall submit the following written

notifications to the Administrator:

(1) The owner or operator of an area source that subsequently

becomes subject to the requirements of the standard shall provide

notification to the applicable permitting authority as required by

Sec. 63.9(b)(1) of subpart A.

(2) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(2) of subpart A, the owner or

operator of an affected source that has an initial startup before [the

effective date of the final rule] shall notify the Administrator that

the source is subject to the requirements of the standard. The

notification shall be submitted not later than 120 calendar days after

[the effective date of the final rule] (or within 120 calendar days

after the source becomes subject to this standard) and shall contain

the information specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v) of

subpart A.

(3) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(3) of subpart A, the owner or

operator of a new or reconstructed affected source, or a source that

has been reconstructed such that it is an affected source, that has an

initial startup after [the effective date of the final rule] and for

which an application for approval of construction or reconstruction is

not required under Sec. 63.5(d) of subpart A, shall notify the

Administrator in writing that the source is subject to the standards no

later than 120 days after initial startup. The notification shall

contain the information specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2)(i) through

(b)(2)(v) of subpart A, delivered or postmarked with the notification

required in Sec. 63.9(b)(5) of subpart A.

(4) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(4) of subpart A, the owner or

operator of a new or reconstructed major affected source that has an

initial startup after [the effective date of the final rule] and for

which an application for approval of construction or reconstruction is

required under Sec. 63.5(d) of subpart A shall provide the information

specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(4)(i) through (b)(4)(v) of subpart A.

(5) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(5) of subpart A, the owner or

operator who, after [the effective date of the final rule], intends to

construct a new affected source or reconstruct an affected source

subject to this standard, or reconstruct a source such that it becomes

an affected source subject to this standard, shall notify the

Administrator, in writing, of the intended construction or

reconstruction.

(b) Request for extension of compliance. As provided by

Sec. 63.9(c) of subpart A, if the owner or operator of an affected

source cannot comply with this standard by the applicable compliance

date for that source, or if the owner or operator has installed BACT or

technology to meet LAER consistent

[[Page 19215]]

with Sec. 63.6(i)(5) of subpart A, they may submit to the Administrator

(or the State with an approved permit program) a request for an

extension of the applicable compliance date as specified in

Sec. 63.6(i)(4) through (i)(6) of subpart A.

(c) Notification that source is subject to special compliance

requirements. As required by Sec. 63.9(d) of subpart A, an owner or

operator of a new source that is subject to special compliance

requirements as specified in Sec. 63.6(b)(3) and (b)(4) of subpart A

shall notify the Administrator of his/her compliance obligations not

later than the notification dates established in Sec. 63.9(b) of

subpart A for new sources that are not subject to the special

provisions.

(d) Notification of performance test. As required by Sec. 63.9(e)

of subpart A, the owner or operator of an affected source shall notify

the Administrator in writing of his or her intention to conduct a

performance test at least 60 calendar days before the performance test

is scheduled to begin to allow the Administrator to review and approve

the site-specific test plan required under Sec. 63.7(c) of subpart A,

if requested by the Administrator, and to have an observer present

during the test.

(e) Notification of compliance status. The owner or operator of an

affected source shall submit a notification of compliance status as

required by Sec. 63.9(h) of subpart A when the source becomes subject

to this subpart.

(f) Additional notification requirements. The owner or operator of

a primary lead smelter shall submit the fugitive dust control standard

operating procedures manual required under Sec. 63.1544(a) and the

standard operating procedures manual for baghouses required under

Sec. 63.1547(a) to the Administrator or delegated authority along with

a notification that the smelter is seeking review and approval of these

plans and procedures. Owners or operators of existing primary lead

smelters shall submit this notification no later than [Insert date 18

months after publication of final rule]. The owner or operator of a

primary lead smelter that commences construction or reconstruction

after April 17, 1998, shall submit this notification no later than 180

days before startup of the constructed or reconstructed primary lead

smelter, but no sooner than [Insert date 90 days after publication of

final rule].

Sec. 63.1549 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

(a) General recordkeeping requirements. As required by

Sec. 63.10(b)(2) of subpart A, the owner or operator shall maintain the

following records for five years from the date of each record:

(1) The occurrence and duration of each startup, shutdown, or

malfunction of process equipment;

(2) The occurrence and duration of each malfunction of the source

or air pollution control equipment;

(3) All maintenance performed on the air pollution control

equipment;

(4) Actions taken during periods of startup, shutdown, and

malfunction (including corrective actions to restore malfunctioning

process and air pollution control equipment to its normal or usual

manner of operation) when such actions are different from the

procedures specified in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan;

(5) All information necessary to demonstrate conformance with the

startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan when all actions taken during

periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (including corrective

actions) are consistent with the procedures specified in such plan.

This information can be recorded in a checklist or similar form [see

Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(v) of subpart A.];

(6) All required measurements needed to demonstrate compliance with

the standard and to support data that the source is required to report,

including, but not limited to, performance test measurements (including

initial and any subsequent performance tests) and measurements as may

be necessary to determine the conditions of the initial test or

subsequent tests;

(7) All results of initial or subsequent performance tests;

(8) If the owner or operator has been granted a waiver from

recordkeeping or reporting requirements under Sec. 63.10(f) of subpart

A, any information demonstrating whether a source is meeting the

requirements for a waiver of recordkeeping or reporting requirements;

(9) If the owner or operator has been granted a waiver from the

initial performance test under Sec. 63.7(h) of subpart A, a copy of the

full request and the Administrator's approval or disapproval;

(10) All documentation supporting initial notifications and

notifications of compliance status required by Sec. 63.9 of subpart A;

and

(11) Records of any applicability determination, including

supporting analyses.

(b) Subpart TTT records. In addition to the general records

required by paragraph (a) of this section, each owner or operator of a

primary lead smelter shall maintain for a period of 5 years, records of

the information listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this

section.

(1) Production records of the weight and lead content of lead

products, copper matte, and copper speiss.

(2) An identification of the date and time of all bag leak

detection system alarms, their cause, and an explanation of the

corrective actions taken.

(3) Any recordkeeping required as part of the practices described

in the standard operating procedures manual required under

Sec. 63.1544(a) for the control of fugitive dust emissions.

(4) Any recordkeeping required as part of the practices described

in the standard operating procedures manual for baghouses required

under Sec. 63.1547(a).

(c) General records and subpart TTT records for the most recent two

years of operation must be maintained on site. Records for the previous

three years may be maintained off site.

(d) General reporting requirements. As required by subpart A, the

owner or operator shall submit the following reports to the

Administrator or delegated authority:

(1) As required by Sec. 63.10(d)(2) of this part, the owner or

operator of an affected source shall report the results of the initial

and any subsequent performance tests.

(2) The owner or operator of an affected source who is required to

submit progress reports under Sec. 63.6(i) of subpart A shall submit

such reports to the Administrator (or the State with an approved permit

program) by the dates specified in the written extension of compliance.

(3) Section 63.6(e) of subpart A requires the owner or operator of

an affected source to operate and maintain each affected emission

source and associated air pollution control equipment in a manner

consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing

emissions (at least to the level required by the standard) at all

times, including during any period of startup, shutdown, or

malfunction. Malfunctions must be corrected as soon as practicable

after their occurrence in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan.

(i) As required by Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of subpart A, the owner or

operator shall develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan that provides a detailed description of the procedures

for operating the emission source or control system during a period of

startup, shutdown, or malfunction and a program of corrective action

for malfunctioning process and

[[Page 19216]]

air pollution control equipment. The plan shall be submitted to the

Administrator for review and approval no later than the compliance date

given in Sec. 63.1545 of this subpart.

(ii) As required by Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i) of subpart A, if actions

taken by an owner or operator during a startup, shutdown, or

malfunction of an affected source (including actions taken to correct a

malfunction) are consistent with the procedures specified in the

startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, the owner or operator shall

state such information in a semiannual report. The report, to be

certified by the owner or operator or other responsible official, shall

be submitted semiannually and delivered or postmarked by the 30th day

following the end of each calendar half; and

(iii) Any time an action taken by an owner or operator during a

startup, shutdown, or malfunction (including actions taken to correct a

malfunction) is not consistent with the procedures in the startup,

shutdown, and malfunction plan, the owner or operator shall comply with

all requirements of Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii) of subpart A.

(e) Subpart TTT Reports. In addition to the information required

under Sec. 63.10 of the General Provisions, the owner or operator shall

provide semi-annual reports containing the information specified in

paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(4) of this section to the Administrator

or designated authority.

(1) The reports shall include records of all alarms from the bag

leak detection system specified in Sec. 63.1547(e).

(2) The reports shall include a description of the procedures taken

following each bag leak detection system alarm pursuant to

Sec. 63.1547(f)(1) and (2).

(3) The reports shall contain a summary of the records maintained

as part of the practices described in the standard operating procedures

manual for baghouses required under Sec. 63.1547(a), including an

explanation of the periods when the procedures were not followed and

the corrective actions taken.

(4) The reports shall contain a summary of the fugitive dust

control measures performed during the required reporting period,

including an explanation of any periods when the procedures outlined in

the standard operating procedures manual required by Sec. 63.1544(a)

were not followed and the corrective actions taken. The reports shall

not contain copies of the daily records required to demonstrate

compliance with the requirements of the standard operating procedures

manuals required under Secs. 63.1544(a) and 63.1547(a).

Sec. 63.1550 Delegation of Authority.

(a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a

state under section 112(d) of the Act, the authorities contained in

paragraph (b) of this section shall be retained by the administrator

and not transferred to a state.

(b) Authorities which will not be delegated to States: no

restrictions.

[FR Doc. 98-10011 Filed 4-16-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P