[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 74 (Friday, April 17, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19200-19216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10011]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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