federal register

Friday

June 4, 1999

Part III

Environmental

Protection Agency

40 CFR Part 63

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Primary

Lead Smelting; Final Rule
30194 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD–FRL–6345–8]

RIN 2060–AE97

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Primary

Lead Smelting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action promulgates

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 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).

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 4, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A–97–

33 contains supporting information

used in developing the standards. The

docket is located at the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW, Washington, DC. 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 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information concerning these 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 ‘‘cavender.kevin@epa.gov.’’.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities. The regulated

category and entities affected by this

action include primary lead smelters

(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. Background

II. Summary

A. Summary of the Promulgated Standards

B. Summary of Major Changes Since

Proposal

C. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and

Economic Impacts

III. Public Participation

IV. Summary of Comments and Responses

A. Comments on April 1998 Proposal

B. Comments on February 1999

Supplemental Proposal

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

B. Executive Order 12866

C. Executive Order 12875

D. Executive Order 13084

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

H. Submission to Congress and the General

Accounting Office

I. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

J. Pollution Prevention Considerations

K. Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risk Under Executive Order 13045

L. Judicial Review

I. Background

Section 112 of the Act requires that

the EPA promulgate regulations

requiring the control of HAP emissions

from major and certain area sources.

The control of HAP’s is achieved

through promulgation of emission

standards under sections 112(d) and (f)

and, in appropriate circumstances, 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 188 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. IIB–4). Therefore, all three primary lead

smelters are major sources.

This NESHAP was proposed in the

Federal Register on April 17, 1998 (63

FR 19200). The EPA received 2 letters

commenting on the proposed rule. The

EPA received no requests for a public

hearing.

A supplemental proposal was

published in the Federal Register on

February 12, 1999 (64 FR 7149). This

notice proposed an operating limit that

would require owners and operators of

a primary lead smelter (referred to as

operators in the remainder of this

preamble) to operate and maintain each

affected baghouse such that the required

bag leak detection system would not

sound more than five percent of the

operating time. The EPA received three

letters commenting on the supplemental

proposal. The EPA received no requests

for a public hearing on the

supplemental proposal.

II. Summary

A. Summary of the Promulgated

Standards

Standards are being promulgated 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 are

regulated include sinter machines, blast

furnaces, and dross furnaces.

Process fugitive emission sources that

are regulated include sinter machine

charging and discharging, sinter

crushing and sizing, blast furnace

tapping, and dross furnace charging and

tapping.

Fugitive dust sources that are

regulated include plant yards and

roadways subject to wind and vehicle

traffic, process areas, and materials

handling and storage areas.
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 30195

1. Process and Process Fugitive Sources

A ‘‘plant wide’’ emission limit is

being promulgated for lead compounds

from process and process fugitive

emission sources. The lead compound

emission limit is 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 are limited to 500 g/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

(9) Sinter machine area.

In addition to the emission limit,

work practice standards are required for

the above listed fugitive sources (items

4 through 9). The charging, tapping, and

sinter handling sources identified above

(items 4 through 8) shall be equipped

with a hood ventilated to an air

pollution 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 sinter

machine and sinter crushing and sizing

equipment shall be located in a building

ventilated to a baghouse or equivalent

device at a rate that maintains in-draft

through any doorway opening.

The operator must install a bag leak

detection system for each baghouse used

on a process or process fugitive source.

The bag leak detection system shall be

equipped with an audible alarm that

automatically sounds when an increase

in particulate matter (PM) emissions

above a predetermined level is detected.

Operators are further required to

maintain and operate each affected

baghouse such that the bag leak

detection device does not sound more

than five percent of the total operating

time in any 6-month period. Alarms

caused by startups, shutdowns, or

malfunctions are not included in the

alarm time calculation if the condition

is described in the startup, shutdown,

and malfunction plan and the operator

follows all the procedures in the plan

prescribed for the subject condition.

Alarms caused by a malfunction of the

bag leak detection system are also

excluded from the alarm time

calculation.

2. Standards for Fugitive Dust Sources

The standards for fugitive dust

sources are in the form of work practice

and operating standards. The EPA is

setting work practice and operating

standards based on the determination in

accordance with section 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 shall develop a

Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)

manual for fugitive dust sources that

details procedures to limit fugitive dust

emissions. Each smelter’s SOP manual

shall be reviewed and subject to

approval by the Administrator. Existing

manuals developed as part of a control

strategy to meet a facility’s State

implementation plan (SIP) may be used

to meet this requirement if the existing

manuals address the identified fugitive

dust sources.

3. Compliance Dates

Compliance with the standards must

be achieved by June 4, 2001 for existing

primary lead smelters, and upon startup

for new and reconstructed smelters.

4. Compliance Test Methods

The following EPA test methods will

be used to measure the lead emissions

from the process and process fugitive

sources included in the plant wide

emission limit. Testing of lead

compound emissions from process and

process fugitive emission control

devices shall be conducted according to

EPA reference method 12 (40 CFR part

60, appendix A). Sampling locations for

all compliance tests shall be determined

by EPA reference method 1. Stack gas

velocity and volumetric flow rate shall

be determined by EPA reference method

2. Gas analysis shall be conducted

according to EPA reference method 3 for

carbon dioxide, oxygen, excess air, and

molecular weight on a dry basis.

The plant wide emission rate will be

calculated as follows. The previous 12

calender months production data shall

be used to calculate lead production

based on the mass produced, and the

lead content of lead products, copper

speiss, and copper matte. Plant records

will be used to determine the facility

operating hours for the previous 12

calender months. The plant wide

emission rate is calculated by dividing

the sum of lead emission rates,

determined through stack testing, for the

process and process fugitive sources by

the average hourly lead production rate

for the previous 12 calender months.

Operators are required to perform an

initial compliance demonstration for the

sinter machine building in-draft

requirement. Operators are required to

demonstrate in-draft at all doorway

openings using an anemometer or

equivalent device. The demonstration is

to be conducted when wind speed is

less than two meters per second (five

miles per hour.)

5. Monitoring Requirements

Each operator subject to the NESHAP

shall 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 shall

be reviewed and subject to approval by

the Administrator. The minimum SOP

requirements identified in the rule shall

serve as the criteria by which the

Administrator would decide whether to

approve a smelter’s SOP.

Minimum requirements for the bag

leak detection system required in the

process and process fugitive standards

section are detailed. The bag leak

detection system shall be equipped with

an audible alarm that automatically

sounds when an increase in particulate

emissions above a predetermined level

is detected. The system shall 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. Operators

shall continuously record the bag leak

detection system output. Such a device

shall serve as an indicator of the

performance of the baghouse and shall

provide an indication of when

maintenance of the baghouse is needed.

An alarm by itself will not necessarily

indicate noncompliance with the lead

limit, but would indicate an increase in

PM emissions and trigger an inspection

of the baghouse to determine the cause

of the alarm. The operator would

initiate corrective actions according to

the procedures in their operation,

maintenance, and monitoring plan. The

operator would be considered out of

compliance upon failure to initiate

within one hour the procedures to

determine the cause of the alarm, as

specified in the baghouse operation and

maintenance SOP manual.

Operators are given three options for

the monitoring of sinter building indraft. Under the first option, operators

may elect to perform daily checks for indraft at all doorway openings using an

anemometer or equivalent device.

Checks are only to be conducted when

ambient wind speed is less than two

meters per second (five miles per hour).
30196 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

Under the second option, operators

are required to establish and maintain

the ventilation exhaust rate and damper

positions at settings that result in an indraft at each open doorway. Operators

are required to install and operate a flow

monitor device on the ventilation

system that would continuously record

the ventilation exhaust rate. Operators

are required to conduct an initial

demonstration of in-draft at all doorway

openings using an anemometer or

equivalent device while simultaneously

recording the ventilation system exhaust

rate and damper positions. Operators

are then required to maintain the

ventilation rate at or above the average

rate recorded during the in-draft

demonstration, and check and record

daily the damper positions to ensure

that they are maintained in the position

they were in when the in-draft

demonstration was performed.

As a third option, operators may

petition the administrator or delegated

authority for an alternative monitoring

method by following the procedures and

requirements in § 63.8(f) of the General

Provisions.

6. Notification Requirements

The operator of a primary lead smelter

is required to submit the notifications

described in § 63.9 of the General

Provisions to part 63, (40 CFR part 63,

subpart A). These will include the

initial notification, notifications of

performance tests, and the notification

of compliance status. In addition, each

operator will 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.

7. Recordkeeping and Reporting

Requirements

The operator of a primary lead smelter

will be required to comply with the

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements described in § 63.10 of the

General Provisions to part 63, (40 CFR

part 63, subpart A). In addition, the

operator of a primary lead smelter will

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) records of

bag leak detection system output; (3) an

identification of the date and time of all

bag leak detection system alarms, the

time procedures to determine the cause

of the alarm were initiated, their cause,

and an explanation of the corrective

actions taken; (4) records of daily indraft checks (if applicable); (5) records

of the output from the flow monitoring

system (if applicable); (6) records of the

daily damper position checks (if

applicable); (7) records demonstrating

implementation of the baghouse SOP;

and (8) 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

operator of a primary lead smelter will

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) the

percent of operating time the bag leak

detection alarmed; (3) a summary of the

records maintained as part of the

practices described in the baghouse

SOP, including an explanation of the

periods when the procedures were not

followed and the corrective actions

taken; (4) an identification of the

periods when the in-draft was 0.0

meters per second or less, and an

explanation of the corrective actions

taken (if applicable); (5) an

identification of the periods when the

15-minute volumetric flow rate(s)

dropped below the minimum

established during the most recent indraft determination (if applicable); (6)

an identification of the days that the

damper positions were not in the

positions established during the most

recent in-draft determination, and an

explanation of the corrective actions

taken (if applicable); and (7) a summary

of the fugitive dust control measures

performed during the required reporting

period, including when procedures

outlined in the fugitive dust control

SOP were not followed and the

corrective actions taken.

B. Summary of Major Changes Since

Proposal

Based on public comments received

in response to both the initial notice of

proposal and the supplemental notice,

the EPA has made several changes to the

proposed rule. A summary of the major

changes is presented below.

1. Definitions

A definition of bag leak detection

system has been added to the final rule.

Based on the definition, a ‘‘bag leak

detection system means a system that is

capable of monitoring particulate matter

(dust) loadings in the exhaust of a

baghouse in order to detect bag failures.

A bag leak detection system includes,

but is not limited to, an instrument that

operates on triboelectric, light

scattering, transmittance or other effect

to monitor relative particulate matter

loadings.’’

The definition of total enclosure has

been replaced with a definition of a

building. For the purpose of this

subpart, a ‘‘building means a roofed and

walled structure with limited openings

to allow access and egress for people

and vehicles.’’

The definition of malfunction

included in the General Provisions has

been added to the subpart for clarity. A

‘‘malfunction means any sudden,

infrequent, and not reasonably

preventable failure of air pollution

control equipment, process equipment,

or a process to operate in a normal or

usual manner. Failures that are caused

in part by poor maintenance or careless

operation are not malfunctions.’’

A definition of operating time has

been added. For the purpose of this

subpart, ‘‘operating time means the

period of time in hours that an affected

source is in operation beginning at a

startup and ending at the next

shutdown.’’

A definition of plant operating time

has been added. For the purpose of this

subpart, ‘‘plant operating time means

the period of time in hours that either

a sinter machine or blast furnace is in

operation.’’

The definition of shutdown in the

General Provisions has been added to

the subpart for clarity. A ‘‘shutdown

means the cessation of operation of an

affected source for any purpose.’’

The definition of startup in the

General Provisions has been added to

the subpart for clarity. A ‘‘startup means

the setting in operation of an affected

source for any purpose.’’

2. Standards for Process and Process

Fugitive Sources

The requirements for annual

compliance tests have been changed.

Upon demonstrating compliance for 3

consecutive years, operators will be

allowed up to 24 months between

compliance tests. Operators will retain

the 24 month compliance test schedule

as long as each subsequent test

demonstrates that the facility is in

compliance with the plant wide

emission limit.

An operating limit has been added

that requires operators to maintain and

operate each affected baghouse such

that the bag leak detection system does

not alarm more than five percent of the

time in any 6-month period. Alarms

caused by startups, shutdowns, or

malfunctions are not included if the

condition is described in the startup,

shutdown, malfunction plan and the

operators follow all the procedures in

the plan prescribed for the subject
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 30197

condition. Alarms caused by a

malfunction of the bag leak detection

system are also excluded from the alarm

time calculation.

3. Monitoring Requirements

The monitoring requirements for

baghouses have been modified.

Operators will be required to identify,

and monitor against, the normal

pressure drop range across each

baghouse cell. Also, the requirement for

a quarterly check of bag tension has

been changed to a quarterly visual check

of bag tension.

The requirements for demonstrating

compliance with the sinter machine

building in-draft requirements have

been changed. Operators are given three

options for the continuous monitoring

of in-draft. Under the first option,

operators may elect to perform daily

checks for in-draft at all doorway

openings using an anemometer or

equivalent device.

Under the second option, operators

are required to establish and maintain

the ventilation exhaust rate and damper

positions at settings that result in an indraft at each open doorway. Operators

are required to install and operate a flow

monitor device on the ventilation

system that would continuously record

the ventilation exhaust rate. Operators

are required to conduct an initial

demonstration of in-draft at all doorway

openings using an anemometer or

equivalent device while simultaneously

recording the ventilation system exhaust

rate and damper positions. Operators

are then required to maintain the

ventilation rate at or above the average

rate recorded during the in-draft

demonstration, and check and record

daily the damper positions to ensure

that they are maintained in the position

they were in when the in-draft

demonstration was performed.

As a third option, operators may

petition the Administrator or delegated

authority for an alternative monitoring

method by following the procedures and

requirements in § 63.8(f) of the General

Provisions.

C. Summary of Environmental, Energy,

and Economic Impacts

There are only three existing primary

lead smelters that will be subject to the

standards, and no new facilities are

anticipated to be constructed in the next

5 years. The required levels of control

are based on existing SIP emission

limits for lead. No additional emission

controls will be required to comply with

the 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 will 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 standards are

those required to perform compliance

assurance activities such as performance

testing, monitoring, reporting, and

recordkeeping. These costs are minimal,

and will not result in any significant

economic impact.

III. Public Participation

Prior to proposal of the standards, the

EPA met with representatives from the

only operators of primary lead smelters.

The EPA discussed the standards being

evaluated for proposal. Comments

submitted following this meeting were

incorporated into the proposed rule as

appropriate.

The standards were proposed and

published in the Federal Register on

April 17, 1998 (63 FR 19200). The

preamble to the proposed standards

described the technical basis, purpose,

and impacts of the proposed standards.

Public comments were solicited at the

time of proposal.

To provide interested persons the

opportunity for oral presentation of

data, views, or arguments concerning

the proposed standards, the opportunity

for a public hearing was offered at

proposal; however, no requests for a

hearing were received. The public

comment period was from April 17,

1998 to June 16, 1998. Two comment

letters were received. The comments

were carefully considered in

formulating the final rule.

A supplemental proposal was

published in the Federal Register on

February 12, 1999 (64 FR 7149). That

notice proposed an operating limit that

would require owners and operators of

a primary lead smelter (referred to as

operators in the remainder of this

preamble) to operate and maintain each

affected baghouse such that the required

bag leak detection system would not

sound more than five percent of the

operating time. Again the opportunity

for a public hearing was offered at

proposal; however, no requests for a

hearing were received. The public

comment period was from February 12,

1999 to March 15, 1999. Three comment

letters were received. Again, the

comments were carefully considered in

formulating the final rule.

IV. Summary of Comments and

Responses

The EPA received two comment

letters (one letter contained joint

comments from two commenters) on the

initial proposal, and three letters

commenting on the supplemental

proposal (again, one letter contained

joint comments from two commenters).

Comment summaries and EPA

responses are presented below.

A. Comments on April 1998 Proposal

The comments contain both favorable

and adverse comments. Topics and

requirements which received favorable

and supportive comments include the

following:

—The use of lead as a surrogate

pollutant for all metal HAP,

—The conclusion that organic HAP

emissions from blast furnaces are not

significant enough to warrant

regulation,

—The use of a plant-wide emission

limit,

—The requirement that sinter plants

be enclosed and ventilated to a

baghouse or equivalent control device,

—The requirement that certain

process fugitive emission sources be

equipped with a hood and ventilated to

a baghouse or equivalent control device,

—Allowing 2 years to achieve

compliance, and

—The requirement for an approved

plan for the control of fugitive dust

emissions.

Topics and provisions of the proposed

rule which received adverse comments

are summarized below with the EPA’s

responses.

Comment. One commenter stated that

it is not possible to maintain a sinter

machine building ‘‘at a lower than

ambient pressure to ensure in-draft

through any doorway opening’’ at all

times. They argue that static pressure

measured at any one point in a building

is the sum of the pressures caused by

the combination of several effects

including mechanical or forced

ventilation, stack effects, wind

influences and local effects. A

ventilation system that is designed and

operated for a specific building can

effectively control the escape of most

fugitive emissions. However, the

variable influence of stack draft, wind,

and local effects will cause the actual

building static pressure to vary over

space and time, thereby making it

impossible to comply with a standard

that requires maintaining a building at

lower than ambient pressure at all

times.

The commenter suggested that the

EPA give operators the following three
30198 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

alternatives. First, require operators to

submit to the Administrator or

delegated authority a statement from a

professional engineer certifying that the

design of the ventilation system in the

sinter buildings is sufficient to attain indraft with all doorways in their

customary position during normal

operation. Each operator would be

required to design and operate its

ventilation system to meet a minimum

exhaust flow rate, and would have to

restrict the total surface area of

doorways open during normal operation

to some maximum.

Second, allow for more flexible

performance tests (i.e., use of

anemometers) to account for wind

effects. The commenter suggested that

the performance demonstrations be

limited to periods when the wind speed

is less than five miles per hour.

The third suggestion was to allow

operators flexibility in developing sitespecific methods to demonstrate

compliance with the in-draft

requirement. All site specific

alternatives would be subject to

approval of the Administrator or

delegated authority.

Response. The EPA has considered

the comment, and agrees to modify the

requirements for sinter building in-draft.

The EPA believes that with some

modification, the alternatives suggested

by the commenter are better than the

negative pressure requirements

contained in the proposal. As such, the

EPA is making the following changes to

the proposed rule.

Operators are required to perform an

initial compliance demonstration for the

sinter machine building in-draft

requirement. Operators are required to

demonstrate in-draft at all doorway

openings using an anemometer or

equivalent device. The demonstration is

to be conducted when wind speed is

less than two meters per second (five

miles per hour.)

Operators are given three options for

the continued monitoring of in-draft.

Under the first option, operators may

elect to perform daily checks for in-draft

at all doorway openings using an

anemometer or equivalent device. This

option is similar to the option given in

the proposed rule, however, the checks

for in-draft are limited to days when the

ambient wind speed is less than two

meters per second (five miles per hour.)

Under the second option, operators

are required to establish and maintain

the ventilation exhaust rate and damper

positions at settings that result in an indraft at each open doorway. Operators

are required to install and operate a flow

monitor device on the ventilation

system that would continuously record

the ventilation exhaust rate. Operators

are required to conduct an initial

demonstration of in-draft at all doorway

openings using an anemometer or

equivalent device while simultaneously

recording the ventilation system exhaust

rate and damper positions. Again, the

demonstration is not to be conducted

when wind speeds are greater than two

meters per second (five miles per hour.)

Operators are then required to maintain

the ventilation rate at or above the

average rate recorded during the in-draft

demonstration, and check and record

daily the damper positions to ensure

that they are maintained in the position

they were in when the in-draft

demonstration was performed.

As a third option, the EPA is adding

a reference to the section of the General

Provisions which describes the

procedures for requesting an alternative

monitoring method, 40 CFR 63.8(f). This

reference is being added to highlight the

availability of this option.

Comment. One commenter identified

an error in the proposed rule. Section

63.1546(b) states ‘‘Operators shall

determine compliance with the doorway

in-draft requirements for buildings in

63.1543(b) and 63.1544(c) * * *’’

However, building in-draft requirements

are contained in § 63.1543(c).

Response. This error is corrected in

the final rule.

Comment. One commenter stated that

they are required to test for particulate

matter and lead as part of their SIP

requirements. The commenter requests

that operators be given the flexibility to

use the ‘‘hybrid Method 5–12’’ to test for

particulate matter and lead

simultaneously.

Response. The rule specifies that EPA

Method 12 be used to measure lead

emission rates. There is no EPA Method

5–12. However, section 8.1 of EPA

Method 12 allows for the simultaneous

measurement of both lead and

particulate matter. As such, no change

is being made to address this comment.

Comment. The proposed rule requires

quarterly checks of bag tension on

certain types of baghouses. One

commenter stated that none of their

facilities are currently required to check

bag tension under existing SIPs. They

claim that measuring bag tension would

be a time-consuming process resulting

in extended periods of worker exposure

to high temperatures and potentially

lead. They recommend that the

requirement for bag tension testing be

eliminated, or at a minimum modified

to an annual visual check to make

certain bags are not kinked (kneed or

bent) or lying on their sides.

Response. The EPA agrees with the

commenter that measuring bag tension

is a time-consuming process that can

create increased risks of worker

exposures to lead. The EPA also agrees

that a visual check is sufficient to

determine adequate bag tension. As

such, the EPA is amending

§ 63.1547(c)(6) to require quarterly

visual inspections of bag tension to

make certain bags are not kinked or

lying on their sides.

Comment. One commenter stated that

the proposed requirement for bag leak

detection devices does not provide for

alternative/equivalent methods, such as

opacity monitors, which are already in

use at some facilities. As such, the

regulation would impose unnecessary

additional costs by not including other

compliance methods.

Response. The EPA is adding a

definition of bag leak detection system

in the final rule. This definition was

inadvertently left out of the proposal.

Based on the definition, a ‘‘bag leak

detection system means a system that is

capable of monitoring particulate matter

(dust) loadings in the exhaust of a

baghouse in order to detect bag failures.

A bag leak detection system includes,

but is not limited to, an instrument that

operates on triboelectric, light

scattering, transmittance or other effect

to monitor relative particulate matter

loadings.’’ This is the same definition

that appears in the final rule for

secondary lead smelters (40 CFR part

63, subpart X) and several other

currently proposed rules which include

bag leak detection requirements.

Based on the definition and the

requirements of § 63.1547(e)(1), an

opacity monitor can be used as a bag

leak detection system if the

manufacturer of the opacity monitor

certifies that it is capable of detecting

particulate matter emissions at

concentrations of 10 milligram per

actual cubic meter or less. However, due

to the poor correlation between opacity

and particulate matter at low grain

loadings, it is doubtful that any

conventional opacity monitors have the

sensitivity necessary to meet this

requirement. Bag leak detection systems

based on triboelectric or light scattering

effects are capable of detecting

particulate matter emissions well below

the level of visible emissions, and are

believed to be more reliable, accurate,

and cost effective than opacity monitors

for detecting broken bags in baghouses.

Comment. One commenter stated that

the condition of the fan has little, if any,

direct effect on baghouse performance.

They suggested that this requirement be

on an annual basis rather than a

quarterly basis.

Response. The EPA concurs that fan

condition may have little effect on
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 30199

baghouse performance. However, fan

condition can greatly affect hood

capture efficiency and consequently

fugitive emissions. The rule allows for

the use of vibration detectors to conduct

the inspection, which does not require

the operator to shutdown the fan or

remove it from service. As such, the

EPA believes that requiring quarterly

inspection of fan condition does not

place an undue burden on the industry.

No change to the final rule is being

made to address this comment.

Comment. One commenter stated that

the benefits associated with the suite of

monitoring requirements are unclear

and at best very low. They suggest that

the proposed bag leak detection system

requirements alone should be adequate

to ensure proper baghouse functioning.

Response. The EPA’s proposed

operating procedures requirements for

baghouses represent a two-pronged

approach to baghouse operation—

preventative maintenance and baghouse

failure monitoring, coupled with timely

corrective action. The inspection and

maintenance requirements in the

proposed rule are intended to ensure the

proper operation of the baghouse and to

reduce the number of baghouse upsets

through prevention. The bag leak

detection requirements are intended to

assist in early detection of baghouse

failures allowing for timely corrective

action.

The proposed inspection and

maintenance requirements represent a

minimal, yet practical, strategy for

ensuring proper baghouse operation.

The EPA believes that good inspection

and maintenance practices are critical to

achieving and maintaining the high

level of control that baghouses are

capable of. Furthermore, these

requirements do not result in significant

costs or burden.

Comment. One commenter stated that

the time limits for initiating corrective

action may be impossible to fulfill. With

regard to the bag leak detection alarm,

the preamble to the proposed rule states,

‘‘An alarm by itself does not indicate

noncompliance with the lead limit, but

would indicate an increase in emissions

and trigger an inspection of the

baghouse to determine the cause of the

alarm.’’ The preamble goes on to state,

‘‘The owner or operator would be

considered out of compliance upon

failure to initiate corrective actions

within 1 hour of the alarm.’’ They also

point out that the rule states in section

63.1547(f)(1) that ‘‘the procedures used

to determine the cause of the alarm

must be initiated within 30 minutes of

the alarm.’’ They comment that reading

these provisions together suggests that

facilities must always initiate

procedures to determine the cause of the

alarm within 30 minutes, and to identify

the needed repair or response and begin

corrective action within 1 hour.

Response. The 30-minute reference in

the preamble to the proposed rule is an

error. Both the preamble and the rule

were intended to refer to the same time

period, i.e., the period of time allowed

between the time an alarm occurs and

the time when procedures to determine

the cause of the alarm are initiated. The

rule requires facilities to initiate the

procedures outlined in their corrective

action plan within 1 hour of the alarm

and correct the problem as soon as

practicable.

Comment. One commenter stated that

compliance testing should be required

on a less than annual basis. Proposed

section 63.1543(d) requires facilities to

conduct compliance tests for lead

compounds on an annual basis. The

commenter suggests that the EPA

should permit a reduction in the

frequency of testing on a site-by-site

basis, based upon the results of annual

testing. For example, if 3 years of testing

shows the standard is consistently being

met, they suggest that a facility be able

to reduce the frequency of its testing.

Response. The EPA agrees that less

frequent testing should be allowed

when facilities are able to demonstrate

compliance consistently. As such, the

final rule allows operators up to 24

months between compliance tests if the

results of the three most recent

compliance tests demonstrate

compliance.

Comment. One commenter stated that

the recordkeeping requirements for the

bag leak detection system are

inconsistent with recordkeeping

requirements for fugitive dust and

baghouse inspection and maintenance.

Proposed section 63.1549(b)(3) and (4),

which refers to control of fugitive dust

emissions and baghouse inspection and

maintenance procedures, requires

recordkeeping if it is part of the

practices described in the respective

SOP manual. The commenter also stated

that the recordkeeping requirements

proposed in section 63.1549(b)(2) for the

bag leak detection system are not

contingent on such requirements being

part of the SOP manual, and are thus

inconsistent with section 63.1549(b)(3)

and (4).

Response. The rule requires facilities

to develop site specific SOP manuals for

baghouse inspection and maintenance

procedures. Since these SOP manuals

are site-specific, the EPA has left it up

to the operator to work with the

Administrator or delegated authority to

develop appropriate site specific

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements. However, the EPA has

specified recordkeeping and reporting

requirements for bag leak detector

system alarms since these records are

necessary to demonstrate compliance

with the operating standards for bag

leak detection (section 63.1543(f) and

(g)). No change is being made to the rule

to address this comment.

Comment. One commenter stated that

a minimum differential pressure should

be specified and continuously

monitored to ensure the baghouse or

equivalent control device is maintained

at a pressure that is lower than ambient

pressure.

Response. The rule requires daily

monitoring of the pressure drop across

each baghouse cell. The EPA agrees that

a minimum pressure drop should be

identified and monitored against.

However, several factors affect the

pressure drop across a baghouse cell

including filter material, cell geometry,

cleaning cycles, and air-to-cloth ratio.

As such, the minimum pressure drop

across the cell is baghouse specific, if

not cell specific. Furthermore, there is

little or no correlation between

baghouse pressure drop and emissions.

Therefore, it would be inappropriate for

the rule to identify a minimum pressure

drop. However, the EPA has amended

the rule to require operators to monitor

the pressure drop across each cell to

ensure that it is within the normal

operating range for that cell. Operators

will be required to identify the normal

operating range for each baghouse cell

in the baghouse operation and

maintenance SOP.

Comment. One commenter stated that

the lead production rate should be

calculated on data from the previous 12

months of operation. The commenter

adds that the requirement does not

consider plant shutdown, when lead

production is zero; hence, artificially

low emissions could result from the

recommended calculation.

Response. Based on the proposed

rule, lead production is calculated based

on production data for the 12 months

prior to conducting the test, including

periods when the facility is shut down.

The EPA believes that this is in

agreement with this statement.

As noted, plant shutdowns would

result in lower lead production.

However, the result of lower lead

production would be to increase the

calculated, production-based, lead

compound emission rate, not reduce it

as suggested by the commenter. In fact,

if a facility were to experience a

prolonged shutdown, it may be

impossible to meet the emission limit

based on the proposed calculation.
30200 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

Upon further review, the EPA has

decided to amend the procedure for

calculation of the production-based,

lead compound emission rate to account

for periods when the facility is shut

down. As amended, the productionbased, lead compound emission rate

will be calculated by multiplying the

sum of lead emission rates (determined

through stack testing, in units of grams

per hour) from the nine listed sources

by the plant operating hours (in units of

hours/year) and dividing by the lead

production rate (in units of megagrams

per year). Plant operating hours are

defined as the period of time in hours

that either a sinter machine or blast

furnace is in operation.

Comment. One commenter suggested

that the bag leak detection system

alarms should be set at 75 percent or 80

percent of the previous 12-month

average. Alternatively the commenter

suggests that the system be equipped

with two alarms: a high level set at 75

percent to 80 percent of scale, and a

high-high alarm that sounds when the

maximum value is reached. The

commenter also commented that a

requirement for time averaging of the

emissions should be added. The

commenter suggested the use of 1-

minute time averages for monitoring the

particulate emissions.

Response. The EPA has developed

guidance on the use of bag leak

detectors based on information provided

by bag leak detection system vendors,

industry representatives with bag leak

detection experience, and an EPAsponsored field study. The EPA believes

that this guidance provides the most

appropriate methods for selecting,

installing, initializing, and operating bag

leak detection systems. No changes to

the rule are being made to address this

comment.

Comment. One commenter stated that

the differential pressure across

baghouses equipped with high

efficiency particulate arrestor (HEPA)

filters should be monitored once per

operating shift and at least 8 hours apart

or every 24 hours ± 4 hours. The

commenter states that monitoring once

a day allows operators to take readings

at 0100 hours one day, and at 2300

hours the next day, allowing up to 46

hours to pass between readings.

Response. An exemption to the bag

leak detection system requirements is

provided in the rule if a baghouse is

equipped with a secondary HEPA filter.

The exemption is not given if the HEPA

filter is the only filter in the system.

Under this configuration, the primary

filter collects the bulk of the

particulates, while the secondary HEPA

filter acts as a finishing filter. Based on

discussions with personnel at a

secondary lead smelter using secondary

HEPA filters, HEPA filters last several

months when used as a secondary filter.

As such, the EPA believes that daily

checks of the differential pressure across

the HEPA filter is adequate. No changes

to the rule are being made to address

this comment.

Comment. One commenter stated that

the rule should specify the building

ventilation requirements in a definitive

way, e.g., by requiring an exhaust

system capable of a given number of air

changes per hour.

Response. While air changes per hour

may be an important consideration in

addressing indoor air quality and

worker exposure, it has little meaning

when assessing the capture effectiveness

of a building. The EPA believes that the

requirement that the sinter machine

building be ventilated at a rate that

ensures in-draft through all open doors

provides the best assurance that

emissions escaping the building are

minimized. No changes to the rule are

being made to address this comment.

Comment. One commenter stated that

for total enclosures there should be a

monitoring device on the exhaust fan

(e.g., motor current) to verify

continuously that the ventilation system

is in operation, and added that failure

of the ventilation system should be

recorded and included in the reporting

requirements.

Response. As discussed above, the

EPA has amended the rule to require

that operators either (1) install,

calibrate, and operate a flow monitor to

continuously measure and record total

exhaust rate out of the enclosure; or (2)

perform daily checks for in-draft, with

a vane anemometer or equivalent

device, at each doorway normally open.

Failure of the ventilation system

would be considered a malfunction of

the air pollution control equipment. The

rule requires that operators develop a

start-up, shut-down, and malfunction

plan for all air pollution control

equipment. In addition, the rule

requires operators to record the

occurrence and duration of each

malfunction of the source or air

pollution control equipment. No

additional changes are being made to

address this comment.

Comment. One commenter stated that

there should be some specified limits on

the number of allowable violations

(alarms) during a given time period.

Response. On February 12, 1999 (64

FR 7149), the EPA proposed an

operating limit that would require

operators of primary lead smelters to

operate and maintain their baghouses

such that the bag leak detection system

did not alarm more than five percent of

the time over a 6-month period. The

EPA also added the requirement that

operators continuously record the

output of the bag leak detection system.

The EPA added these requirements to

help ensure that baghouses are properly

operated and maintained, and that

enforcement officials will have adequate

data to assess compliance with the bag

leak detection system requirements.

B. Comments on February 1999

Supplemental Proposal

Comment. One commenter stated that

the term ‘‘initiate corrective actions’’ as

used in section 63.1547(e)(9) was

somewhat ambiguous, and requested

that the EPA clarify what constitutes the

initiation of corrective action.

Furthermore, they noted that, as

required in section 63.1547(f), the first

steps in the corrective action process is

to acknowledge the alarm and

determine its cause. It was suggested

that the term ‘‘initiate corrective action’’

be changed to ‘‘initiate procedures to

acknowledge the alarm and determine

its cause, as specified in the corrective

actions plan.’’

Response. The EPA is concerned that

the term ‘‘initiate corrective action’’

could be misinterpreted to mean the

beginning of a physical repair. As

pointed out by the commenter, the first

step in the corrective action process is

to acknowledge (or record) the alarm

and to begin procedures for determining

the cause of the alarm. As such, the EPA

is changing the proposed rule language

to capture more accurately what is

intended. The new language requires

facilities to ‘‘record the date and time of

the alarm and initiate procedures to

determine the cause of a bag leak

detection system alarm’’ within 1 hour.

Comment. The commenters stated

that they believe the addition of section

63.1547(e)(9) makes the provision in

section 63.1547(f)(1) redundant. They

suggest that section 63.1547(f)(1) be

removed.

Response. The EPA does not believe

that the requirements of section

63.1547(e)(9) and section 63.1547(f)(1)

are redundant. The purpose of the

operating limit in section 63.1547(e)(9)

is to require operators to operate and

maintain an affected baghouse such that

upset events are limited to a level that

the EPA considers acceptable both in

terms of number of occurrences and

duration. The intent of the requirement

that operators record and initiate

procedures to determine the cause of the

alarm within 1 hour (section

63.1547(f)(1)) is to ensure that operators

acknowledge and respond to each alarm

in a timely manner.
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 30201

Please note that the requirements

contained in section 63.1547(e)(9) of the

supplemental proposal have been

revised in the final rule. The

requirement to maintain and operate

each baghouse such that the alarm on a

bag leak detection system does not

sound for more than five percent of the

total operating time in a 6-month

reporting period has been moved to

section 63.1543(f) in the final rule. The

methodology to be used in calculating

the percent of the total operating time

that the alarm sounds has been clarified

and moved to section 63.1547(g) in the

final rule. In addition, the requirements

contained in section 63.1547(f)(1) of the

original proposal have been moved to

section 63.1543(g) in the final rule.

Comment. One commenter stated that

it appears that the EPA is proposing to

penalize operators for a rapid response

to initiate corrective actions by setting 1

hour as a minimum time counted for

each alarm while using the actual time

for periods which exceed 1 hour. The

commenter proposes that the EPA

simplify the requirement such that the

alarm time should be counted as the

actual amount of time taken by the

owner or operator to initiate corrective

actions for all cases.

Response. As discussed above, the

intent of the operating limit on bag leak

detection system alarm time is to limit

not only the duration, but also the

number of alarm-causing events. By

rounding the amount of alarm time

counted up to 1 hour for any alarm

where the operator responds within 1

hour, the total number of potential

alarm-causing events is limited to

roughly 220 alarms in a 6-month

reporting period. Counting fractions of

an hour per event could allow for an

unlimited number of events. For

example, at 10 minutes per event, the

total number of alarm-causing events

could be as high as 1,300 in a 6-month

reporting period.

Comment. One commenter suggested

that the operating limit on bag leak

detection system alarm time be

reviewed and considered for application

to other MACT standards using common

add-on emissions control technologies

(i.e., baghouses).

Response. The EPA intends to

incorporate the operating limit on bag

leak detection system alarm time in the

rules that EPA is currently developing

and any future rules where baghouses

are used to control HAP emissions. In

addition, the EPA is considering

amending existing NESHAP where

baghouses are used to control HAP

emissions to include the operating limit

on bag leak detection system alarm time.

Comment. One commenter stated that

by limiting the cumulative time that a

source may operate before initiating

corrective action, rather than before

completing corrective action, the

proposed changes would provide an

incentive for the operator to indefinitely

delay completion of corrective action.

Response. The commenter is

mistaken. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) of the

General Provisions requires that

malfunctions be corrected as soon as

practicable after their occurrence. As

such, an operator cannot delay

completion of corrective action without

being in violation of the General

Provisions. However, the EPA has

changed section 63.1543(g) of the final

rule to require that ‘‘The cause of the

alarm shall be corrected as soon as

practicable.’’ No other changes are being

made to the rule to address this

comment.

Comment. One commenter stated that

the MACT technology should be

reanalyzed to account for the particulate

HAP control which is achievable during

a one-time performance test conducted

on a newly constructed or reconstructed

baghouse. The commenter continues to

state that while some operators might

choose to maintain and promptly repair

their air pollution control devices, the

rules could not be enforced to require

this level of control.

Response. The EPA believes that the

commenter has misinterpreted the rule.

The commenter infers that the lead

emission limits should be based on the

level of control that a brand new

baghouse can achieve since only a onetime test is required. However, the rule

requires annual compliance testing, not

a one-time compliance test.

Furthermore, the rule contains federally

enforceable requirements for the

operation and maintenance of each

affected baghouse. No change is being

made to the rule to address this

comment.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. 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 process. 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.)

B. 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.

C. Executive Order 12875

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute and that creates a

mandate upon a State, local or tribal

government, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by those governments, or

EPA consults with those governments. If

EPA complies by consulting, Executive

Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to

the Office of Management and Budget a

description of the extent of EPA’s prior

consultation with representatives of

affected State, local and tribal

governments, the nature of their

concerns, copies of any written

communications from the governments,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of State, local and tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of
30202 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

regulatory proposals containing

significant unfunded mandates.’’

Today’s rule does not create a mandate

on State, local or tribal governments.

The rule does not impose any

enforceable duties on these entities.

None of these entities own or operate an

affected source. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 1(a) of

Executive Order 12875 do not apply to

this rule.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’ Today’s rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. No tribal governments

own or operate an affected source.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this action.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 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 costbenefit 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 costeffective, 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 1 year. The

maximum total annual cost of this rule

for any year has been estimated to be

less than $250,000. 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.

F. Regulatory Flexibility 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.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this rule will be

submitted for approval to the Office of

Management and Budget under the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq. An Information Collection

Request (ICR) document has been

prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1856.02) and

a copy may be obtained from Sandy

Farmer by mail at OPPE Regulatory

Information Division; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2137); 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC

20460, by email at

farmer.sandy@epamail.epa.gov, or by

calling (202) 260–2740. A copy may also

be downloaded off the internet at http:/

/www.epa.gov/icr. The information

requirements are not effective until

OMB approves them.

The 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 operators subject to

national emission standards. These

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements are specifically authorized

by section 114 of the Act (42 U.S.C.

§ 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 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 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 2,002 labor hours per year at a total

annual cost of $114,900. This estimate

includes a one-time performance test

and report (with repeat tests where

needed); one-time purchase and
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 30203

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 $107,500, with

operation and maintenance costs of

$5,500/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 purposes 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 be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search 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 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.

H. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. § 801 et seq., as added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. The EPA will

submit a report containing this rule and

other required information to the U.S.

Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller

General of the United States prior to

publication of the rule in the Federal

Register. A major rule cannot take effect

until 60 days after it is published in the

Federal Register. This action is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

§ 804(2).

I. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. No. 104–

113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note),

directs all Federal agencies to use

voluntary consensus standards instead

of government-unique standards in their

regulatory activities unless to do so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., material specifications,

test method, sampling and analytical

procedures, business practices, etc.) that

are developed or adopted by one or

more voluntary consensus standards

bodies. Examples of organizations

generally regarded as voluntary

consensus standards bodies include the

American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM), the National Fire

Protection Association (NFPA), and the

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).

The NTTAA requires Federal agencies

like EPA to provide Congress, through

OMB, with explanations when an

agency decides not to use available and

applicable voluntary consensus

standards.

During this rulemaking the Agency

searched for voluntary consensus

standards that might be applicable. The

search has identified no applicable

voluntary standards. Accordingly, the

NTTAA requirement to use applicable

voluntary consensus standards does not

apply to this rule.

As part of a larger effort, the EPA is

undertaking a project to cross-reference

existing voluntary consensus standards

on testing, sampling, and analysis, with

current and future EPA test methods.

When completed, this project will assist

the EPA in identifying potentiallyapplicable voluntary consensus

standards which can then be evaluated

for equivalency and applicability in

determining compliance with future

regulations.

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 in this final rule 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.

K. Protection of Children From

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risk Under Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:

(1) is determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

The EPA interprets Executive Order

(E.O.) 13045 as applying only to those

regulatory actions that are based on

health or safety risks, such that the

analysis required under section 5–501 of

the E.O. has the potential to influence

the regulation. This rule is not subject

to E.O. 13045 because it does not

establish an environmental standard

intended to mitigate health or safety

risks. Furthermore, this rule has been

determined not to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under E.O.

12866.

L. Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act,

judicial review of a NESHAP is

available only by filing a petition for

review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the District of Columbia Circuit within

60 days of today’s publication of this

final rule. Under section 307(b)(2) of the

Act, the requirements that are the

subject of today’s action may not be

challenged later in civil or criminal

proceedings brought by the EPA to

enforce these requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Primary

lead smelters.
30204 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

Dated: May 13, 1999.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

For reasons set out in the preamble,

40 CFR part 63 is 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 Smelting

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 Smelting

§ 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: § 63.1 (Applicability),

§ 63.2 (Definitions), § 63.3 (Units and

abbreviations), § 63.4 (Prohibited

activities and circumvention), § 63.5

(Construction and reconstruction),

§ 63.7 (Performance testing

requirements), § 63.8 (Monitoring

requirements), § 63.12 (State authority

and delegations), § 63.13 (Addresses of

State air pollution control agencies and

EPA Regional Offices), § 63.14

(Incorporations by reference), and

§ 63.15 (Availability of information

confidentiality). The following sections

of part 63 apply to the extent specified

in this subpart and Table 1: § 63.6

(Compliance with standards and

maintenance requirements), § 63.9

(Notification requirements), and § 63.10

(Recordkeeping and reporting

requirements). Section § 63.11 (Control

device requirements) does not apply to

this subpart.

§ 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:

Bag leak detection system means a

system that is capable of continuously

monitoring relative particulate matter

(dust) loadings in the exhaust of a

baghouse in order to detect bag leaks

and other upset conditions. A bag leak

detection system includes, but is not

limited to, an instrument that operates

on triboelectric, light scattering, light

transmittance, or other effect to

continuously monitor relative

particulate matter loadings.

Blast furnace means any reduction

furnace to which sinter is charged and

which forms separate layers of molten

slag and lead bullion.

Building means a roofed and walled

structure with limited openings to allow

access and egress for people and

vehicles.

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.

Malfunction means any sudden,

infrequent, and not reasonably

preventable failure of air pollution

control equipment, process equipment,

or a process to operate in a normal or

usual manner. Failures that are caused

in part by poor maintenance or careless

operation are not malfunctions.

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.

Operating time means the period of

time in hours that an affected source is

in operation beginning at a startup and

ending at the next shutdown.

Plant operating time means the period

of time in hours that either a sinter

machine or blast furnace is in operation.

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

pyrometallurgical 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.

Shutdown means the cessation of

operation of an affected source for any

purpose.

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.
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 30205

Startup means the setting in operation

of an affected source for any purpose.

Tapping location means the opening

thru which lead and slag are removed

from the furnace.

§ 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 a positive

in-draft through any doorway opening.

(d) Except as provided in paragraph

(e) of this section, 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 any

previous compliance test).

(e) If the three most recent compliance

tests demonstrate compliance with the

emission limit specified in paragraph (a)

of this section, the owner or operator of

a primary lead smelter shall be allowed

up to 24 calendar months from the last

compliance test to conduct the next

compliance test for lead compounds.

(f) The owner or operator of a primary

lead smelter shall maintain and operate

each baghouse used to control emissions

from the sources listed in paragraphs

(a)(1) through (a)(9) of this section such

that the alarm on a bag leak detection

system required under § 63.1547(c)(9)

does not sound for more than five

percent of the total operating time in a

6-month reporting period.

(g) The owner or operator of a primary

lead smelter shall record the date and

time of a bag leak detection system

alarm and initiate procedures to

determine the cause of the alarm

according to the corrective action plan

required under § 63.1547(c)(9) within 1

hour of the alarm. The cause of the

alarm shall be corrected as soon as

practicable.

§ 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(s);

(3) Sinter machine area(s);

(4) Furnace area(s); and

(5) Refining and casting area(s).

(b) Not withstanding paragraph (c) of

this section, the standard operating

procedures manual shall be submitted

to the Administrator or delegated

authority for review and approval.

(c) Existing manuals that describe the

measures in place to control fugitive

dust 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.

§ 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 May 4, 2001.

(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 June 4, 1999 or upon

startup of operations, whichever is later.

§ 63.1546 Test methods.

(a) The following procedure shall be

used to determine compliance with the

emissions standard for lead compounds

under § 63.1543(a):

(1) The lead compound emission rate,

in units of grams of lead per hour, for

each source listed in § 63.1543(a)(1)

through § 63.1543(a)(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 calendar months

according to the procedures detailed in

paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(v) of

this section:

(i) Total lead products production

multiplied by the fractional lead content

shall be determined in units of

megragrams.

(ii) Total copper matte production

multiplied by the fractional lead content

shall be determined in units of

megragrams.

(iii) Total copper speiss production

multiplied by the fractional lead content

shall be determined in units of

megragrams.

(iv) Total lead production shall be

determined by summing the values

obtained in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through

(a)(2)(iii) of this section.

(v) The lead production rate, in units

of megragrams per hours, shall be

calculated based on the total lead

production, as determined in

accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(iv) of

this section, divided by the total plant

operating time, in hours, for the

previous 12 months.

(3) The sum of lead compound

emission rates for the sources in

§ 63.1543(a)((1) through (a)(9), as

determined in accordance with

paragraph (a)(1) of this section, shall be

divided by the lead production rate, as

determined in accordance with

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
30206 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

emissions standard for lead compounds

under § 63.1543(a).

(b) Owner and operators shall perform

an initial compliance test to

demonstrate compliance with the sinter

building in-draft requirements of

§ 63.1543(c) at each doorway opening in

accordance with paragraphs (b)(1)

through (b)(4) of this section.

(1) Use a propeller anemometer or

equivalent device.

(2) Determine doorway in-draft by

placing the anemometer in the plane of

the doorway opening near its center.

(3) Determine doorway in-draft for

each doorway that is open during

normal operation with all remaining

doorways in their customary position

during normal operation.

(4) Do not determine doorway in-draft

when ambient wind speed exceeds 2

meters per second.

§ 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 the 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

§§ 63.1543 and 63.1544, including those

used to control emissions from general

ventilation systems.

(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 to ensure

pressure drop is within the normal

operating range identified in the

standard operating procedures manual.

(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 visual check of bag

tension on reverse air and shaker-type

baghouses to ensure that bags are not

kinked (kneed or bent) or laying on their

sides. Such checks are not required for

shaker-type baghouses using selftensioning (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 paragraph

(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 and

requirements of (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, and the

owner or operator shall continuously

record the output from the bag leak

detection system.

(3) The bag leak detection system

must be equipped with an alarm system

that will sound when an increase in

relative particulate loading is detected

over a preset level, and the alarm must

be located such that it can be heard by

the appropriate plant personnel.

(4) Each bag leak detection system

that works based on the triboelectric

effect shall be installed, calibrated, and

maintained in a manner consistent with

guidance provided in the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

guidance document ‘‘Fabric Filter Bag

Leak Detection Guidance’’ (EPA–454/R–

98–015). Other bag leak detection

systems shall be installed, calibrated,

and maintained in a manner consistent

with the manufacturer’s written

specifications and recommendations.

(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 a responsible

official certifies that the baghouse has

been inspected and found to be 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, procedures to be used to

determine the cause of an alarm, as well

as actions to be taken to minimize

emissions, which may include, but are

not limited to, the following.

(1) Inspecting the baghouse for air

leaks, torn or broken bags or filter

media, or any other condition that may

cause an increase in emissions.

(2) Sealing off defective bags or filter

media.

(3) Replacing defective bags or filter

media, or otherwise repairing the

control device.

(4) Sealing off a defective baghouse

compartment.

(5) Cleaning the bag leak detection

system probe, or otherwise repairing the

bag leak detection system.

(6) Shutting down the process

producing the particulate emissions.

(g) The percentage of total operating

time the alarm on the bag leak detection

system sounds in a 6-month reporting

period shall be calculated in order to

determine compliance with the five

percent operating limit in § 63.1543(f).

The percentage of time the alarm on the

bag leak detection system sounds shall

be determined according to paragraphs

(g)(1) through (g)(5) of this section.

(1) Alarms that occur due solely to a

malfunction of the bag leak detection

system shall not be included in the

calculation.

(2) Alarms that occur during startup,

shutdown, or malfunction shall not be

included in the calculation if the
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 30207

condition is described in the startup,

shutdown, and malfunction plan and

the owner or operator follows all the

procedures in the plan defined for this

condition.

(3) For each alarm where the owner or

operator initiates procedures to

determine the cause of an alarm within

1 hour of the alarm, 1 hour of alarm

time shall be counted.

(4) For each alarm where the owner or

operator does not initiate procedures to

determine the cause of the alarm within

1 hour of the alarm, alarm time will be

counted as the actual amount of time

taken by the owner or operator to

initiate procedures to determine the

cause of the alarm.

(5) The percentage of time the alarm

on the bag leak detection system sounds

shall be calculated as the ratio of the

sum of alarm times to the total operating

time multiplied by 100.

(h) Baghouses equipped with HEPA

filters as a secondary filter used to

control process or process fugitive

sources subject to the lead emission

standards in § 63.1543 are exempt from

the requirement in § 63.1543(c)(9) 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, the

following:

(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.

(i) Owners and operators shall

monitor sinter machine building in-draft

to demonstrate continued compliance

with the operating standard specified in

§ 63.1543(c) in accordance with either

paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this

section.

(1) Owners and operators shall check

and record on a daily basis doorway indraft at each doorway in accordance

with the methodology specified in

§ 63.1546(b).

(2) Owners and operators shall

establish and maintain baseline

ventilation parameters which result in a

positive in-draft according to paragraphs

(i)(2)(i) through (i)(2)(iv) of this section.

(i) Owners and operators shall install,

calibrate, maintain, and operate a

monitoring device that continuously

records the actual volumetric flow rate

through each separately ducted hood; or

install, calibrate, maintain, and operate

a monitoring device that continuously

records the volumetric flow rate at the

control device inlet of each exhaust

system ventilating the building. The

flow rate monitoring device(s) can be

installed in any location in the exhaust

duct such that reproducible flow rate

monitoring will result. The flow rate

monitoring device(s) shall have an

accuracy of plus or minus 10 percent

over its normal operating range and

shall be calibrated according to

manufacturer’s instructions.

(ii) During the initial demonstration of

sinter building in-draft, and at any time

the owner or operator wishes to reestablish the baseline ventilation

parameters, the owner or operator shall

continuously record the volumetric flow

rate through each separately ducted

hood, or continuously record the

volumetric flow rate at the control

device inlet of each exhaust system

ventilating the building and record

exhaust system damper positions. The

owner or operator shall determine the

average volumetric flow rate(s)

corresponding to the period of time the

in-draft compliance determinations are

being conducted.

(iii) The owner or operator shall

maintain the volumetric flow rate(s) at

or above the value(s) established during

the most recent in-draft determination at

all times the sinter machine is in

operation. Volumetric flow rate(s) shall

be calculated as a 15-minute average.

(iv) If the volumetric flow rate is

monitored at the control device inlet,

the owner or operator shall check and

record damper positions daily to ensure

they are in the positions they were in

during the most recent in-draft

determination.

(3) An owner or operator may request

an alternative monitoring method by

following the procedures and

requirements in § 63.8(f) of the General

Provisions.

§ 63.1548 Notification requirements.

(a) The owner or operator of a primary

lead smelter shall comply with all of the

notification requirements of § 63.9 of

subpart A, General Provisions.

(b) The owner or operator of a primary

lead smelter shall submit the fugitive

dust control standard operating

procedures manual required under

§ 63.1544(a) and the standard operating

procedures manual for baghouses

required under § 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 November 6, 2000. 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

September 2, 1999.

§ 63.1549 Recordkeeping and reporting

requirements.

(a) The owner or operator of a primary

lead smelter shall comply with all of the

recordkeeping requirements of § 63.10

of subpart A, General Provisions.

(b) 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)(8)

of this section.

(1) Production records of the weight

and lead content of lead products,

copper matte, and copper speiss.

(2) Records of the bag leak detection

system output.

(3) An identification of the date and

time of all bag leak detection system

alarms, the time that procedures to

determine the cause of the alarm were

initiated, the cause of the alarm, an

explanation of the actions taken, and the

date and time the cause of the alarm was

corrected.

(4) Any recordkeeping required as

part of the practices described in the

standard operating procedures manual

required under § 63.1544(a) for the

control of fugitive dust emissions.

(5) Any recorkeeping required as part

of the practices described in the

standard operating procedures manual

for baghouses required under

§ 63.1547(a).

(6) If an owner or operator chooses to

demonstrate continuous compliance

with the sinter building in-draft

requirement under § 63.1543(c) by

employing the method allowed in

§ 63.1546(i)(1), the records of the daily

doorway in-draft checks, an

identification of the periods when there

was not a positive in-draft, and an

explanation of the corrective actions

taken.

(7) If an owner or operator chooses to

demonstrate continuous compliance

with the sinter building in-draft

requirement under § 63.1543(c) by

employing the method allowed in

§ 63.1546(i)(2), the records of the output

from the continuous volumetric flow

monitor(s), an identification of the

periods when the 15-minute volumetric
30208 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

flow rate dropped below the minimum

established during the most recent indraft determination, and an explanation

of the corrective actions taken.

(8) If an owner or operator chooses to

demonstrate continuous compliance

with the sinter building in-draft

requirement under § 63.1543(c) by

employing the method allowed in

§ 63.1546(i)(2), and volumetric flow rate

is monitored at the baghouse inlet,

records of the daily checks of damper

positions, an identification of the days

that the damper positions were not in

the positions established during the

most recent in-draft determination, and

an explanation of the corrective actions

taken.

(c) Records for the most recent 2 years

of operation must be maintained on site.

Records for the previous 3 years may be

maintained off site.

(d) The owner or operator of a

primary lead smelter shall comply with

all of the reporting requirements of

§ 63.10 of subpart A, General Provisions.

(e) In addition to the information

required under § 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)(7) 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 § 63.1547(e).

(2) The reports shall include a

description of the actions taken

following each bag leak detection

system alarm pursuant to § 63.1547(f).

(3) The reports shall include a

calculation of the percentage of time the

alarm on the bag leak detection system

sounded during the reporting period

pursuant to § 63.1547(g).

(4) If an owner or operator chooses to

demonstrate continuous compliance

with the sinter building in-draft

requirement under § 63.1543(c) by

employing the method allowed in

§ 63.1546(i)(1), the reports shall contain

an identification of the periods when

there was not a positive in-draft, and an

explanation of the corrective actions

taken.

(5) If an owner or operator chooses to

demonstrate continuous compliance

with the sinter building in-draft

requirement under § 63.1543(c) by

employing the method allowed in

§ 63.1546(i)(2), the reports shall contain

an identification of the periods when

the 15-minute volumetric flow rate(s)

dropped below the minimum

established during the most recent indraft determination, and an explanation

of the corrective actions taken.

(6) If an owner or operator chooses to

demonstrate continuous compliance

with the sinter building in-draft

requirement under § 63.1543(c) by

employing the method allowed in

§ 63.1546(i)(2), and volumetric flow rate

is monitored at the baghouse inlet, the

reports shall contain an identification of

the days that the damper positions were

not in the positions established during

the most recent in-draft determination,

and an explanation of the corrective

actions taken.

(7) 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

§ 63.1547(a), including an explanation

of the periods when the procedures

were not followed and the corrective

actions taken.

(8) 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 § 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 §§ 63.1544(a) and

§ 63.1547(a).

§ 63.1550 Delegation of authority

(a) In delegating implementation and

enforcement authority to a State under

section 112(1) 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.

TABLE 1 OF SUBPART TTT—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), (f), (g), (i) and (j) .................................. Yes

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

§ 63.7 ....................................................................................... Yes

§ 63.8 ....................................................................................... Yes

§ 63.9 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h)(1) through (3), (h)(5) and

(6), (i) and (j).

Yes

§ 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 through 63.15 .............................................................. Yes

[FR Doc. 99–12757 Filed 6–3–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M