19200 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules

involved, the date on which the device

was used, and the reason for the use.

12. Section 814.126 is amended by

revising the first sentence in paragraph

(a) and by revising paragraph (b) to read

as follows:

§ 814.126 Postapproval requirements and

reports.

(a) An HDE approved under this

subpart shall be subject to the

postapproval requirements and reports

set forth under subpart E of this part, as

applicable, with the exception of

§ 814.82(a)(7). * * *

(b) In addition to the reports

identified in paragraph (a) of this

section, the holder of an approved HDE

shall prepare and submit the following

complete, accurate, and timely reports:

(1) Annual report. An HDE applicant

is required to submit an annual report

on the anniversary date of marketing

approval. The annual report shall

include:

(i) An update of the information

required under § 814.102(a) in a

separately bound volume;

(ii) An update of the information

required under § 814.102(c)(2), (c)(3),

and (c)(5);

(iii) The number of devices that have

been shipped or sold since initial

marketing approval under this subpart

H and, if the number shipped or sold

exceeds 4,000, an explanation and

estimate of the number of devices used

per patient. If a single device is used on

multiple patients, the applicant shall

submit an estimate of the number of

patients treated or diagnosed using the

device together with an explanation of

the basis for the estimate;

(iv) Information describing the

applicant’s clinical experience with the

device since the HDE was initially

approved. This information shall

include safety information that is

known or reasonably should be known

to the applicant, medical device reports

made under part 803 of this chapter, any

data generated from the postmarketing

studies, and information (whether

published or unpublished) that is

known or reasonably expected to be

known by the applicant that may affect

an evaluation of the safety of the device

or that may affect the statement of

contraindications, warnings,

precautions, and adverse reactions in

the device’s labeling; and

(v) A summary of any changes made

to the device in accordance with

supplements submitted under § 814.108.

If information provided in annual

reports, or any other information in the

possession of FDA, gives the agency

reason to believe that a device raises

public health concerns or that the

criteria for exemption are no longer met,

the agency may require the HDE holder

to submit additional information to

demonstrate continued compliance with

the HDE requirements.

(2)Other. An HDE holder shall

maintain records of the names and

addresses of the facilities to which the

HUD has been shipped, correspondence

with reviewing IRB’s, as well as any

other information requested by a

reviewing IRB or FDA.

Dated: March 31, 1998.

William B. Schultz,

Deputy Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. 98–9638 Filed 4–16–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD–FRL–5996–7]

RIN 2060–AE97

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Primary

Lead Smelters

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rule; notice

of public hearing.

SUMMARY: This action proposes national

emission standards for hazardous air

pollutants (NESHAP) for new and

existing primary lead smelters pursuant

to section 112 of the Clean Air Act (Act)

as amended in November 1990. Primary

lead smelters have been identified by

the EPA as significant emitters of lead

compounds, and other metal hazardous

air pollutants (HAP) including arsenic,

antimony, and cadmium. Exposure to

lead compounds may result in adverse

effects on the blood, central nervous

system and kidneys. Chronic exposure

to arsenic is associated with skin,

bladder, liver and lung cancer and other

developmental and reproductive effects.

This proposed NESHAP provides

protection to the public by requiring all

primary lead smelters to meet emission

standards that reflect the application of

maximum achievable control

technology (MACT).

DATES: Comments. Comments on the

proposed rule must be received on or

before June 16, 1998.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the

EPA requesting to speak at a public

hearing by May 8, 1998, a public

hearing will be held on May 18, 1998,

beginning at 10:00 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Written

comments should be submitted (in

duplicate, if possible) to: Docket No. A–

97–33 at the following address: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

and Radiation Docket and Information

Center (6102), 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. The EPA

requests that a separate copy of the

comments also be sent to the contact

person listed below.

Electronic comments can be sent

directly to EPA’s Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center at: ‘‘Aand-R-Docket@epamail.epa.gov.’’

Electronic comments must be submitted

as an ASCII file avoiding the use of

special characters and any form of

encryption. Comments and data will

also be accepted on disks in

WordPerfect 5.1 file format or ASCII file

format. All comments and data in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket number (A–97–33). No

Confidential Business Information (CBI)

should be submitted through electronic

mail. Electronic comments on this

proposed rule may be filed online at

many Federal Depository Libraries.

Docket. Docket No. A–97–33 contains

supporting information used in

developing the proposed standards. The

docket is located at the U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460

in room M–1500, Waterside Mall

(ground floor), and may be inspected

from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 to

3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The

proposed regulatory text and other

materials related to this rulemaking are

available for review in the docket or

copies may be mailed on request from

the Air Docket by calling (202) 260–

7548. A reasonable fee may be charged

for copying docket materials.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the

EPA requesting a public hearing by the

required date (see DATES), the public

hearing will be held at the EPA Office

of Administration Auditorium, Research

Triangle Park, NC. Persons interested in

presenting oral testimony or inquiring

as to whether a hearing is to be held

should notify the contact person listed

below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information concerning the proposed

standards and technical aspects of

primary lead smelting emissions and

control, contact Mr. Kevin Cavender,

Environmental Protection Agency MD–

13, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,

telephone number (919) 541–2364,

facsimile number (919) 541–5600,

electronic mail address

‘‘cavender.kevin@epamail.epa.gov.’’.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19201

Regulated Entities

The regulated category and entities

affected by this action include Primary

Lead Smelting (SIC 3339). This action

will affect three existing primary lead

smelting facilities and any new primary

lead smelting facilities built in the

future.

Technology Transfer Network

The text of today’s notice will also be

available on the Technology Transfer

Network (TTN), one of EPA’s electronic

bulletin boards. The TTN provides

information and technology exchange in

various areas of air pollution control.

The service is free, except for the cost

of a phone call. Dial (919) 541–5742 for

up to a 14,400 BPS modem. The TTN

also is accessible through the Internet at

‘‘http://www.epa.gov/ttn’’. If more

information on the TTN is needed, call

the HELP line at (919) 541–5348. The

HELP desk is staffed from 11 a.m. to 5

p.m.; a voice menu system is available

at other times.

Outline

The information presented in this

preamble is organized as follows:

I. Statutory Authority

II. Initial List of Categories of Major and Area

Sources

III. Background

A. Description of Source Category

B. Emissions and Factors Affecting

Emissions

C. Regulatory History

IV. NESHAP Decision Process

A. Source of Authority for NESHAP

Development

B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP

C. Determining the MACT Floor

V. Summary of the Proposed Standards

A. Sources to be Regulated

B. Proposed Standards for Process and

Process Fugitive Sources

C. Proposed Standards for Fugitive Dust

Sources

D. Compliance Dates

E. Compliance Test Methods

F. Monitoring Requirements

G. Notification Requirements

H. Recordkeeping and Reporting

Requirements

VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and

Economic Impacts

VII. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed

Standards

A. Selection of Pollutants and Source

Category

B. Selection of Affected Sources

C. Selection of Basis and Level for the

Proposed Standards for New and

Existing Sources

D. Reconstruction Considerations

E. Selection of Compliance Dates

F. Selection of Emission Test Methods and

Schedule

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Solicitation of Comments

B. Public Hearing

C. Docket

D. Executive Order 12866

E. Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership Under Executive Order

12875

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

I. Clean Air Act

J. Pollution Prevention Considerations

I. Statutory Authority

The statutory authority for this

proposal is provided by sections 101,

112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air

Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, 7412,

7414, 7416, and 7601).

II. Initial List of Categories of Major

and Area Sources

Section 112 of the Act requires that

the EPA promulgate regulations

requiring the control of HAP emissions

from major and area sources. The

control of HAP’s is achieved through

promulgation of emission standards

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

practice standards under section 112(h).

An initial list of categories of major

and area sources of HAP’s selected for

regulation in accordance with section

112(c) of the Act was published in the

Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR

31576). Primary lead smelting is one of

the 174 categories of sources listed. The

category consists of smelters that

process lead bearing ore concentrates

into lead metal. The listing was based

on the Administrator’s determination

that primary lead smelters may

reasonably be anticipated to emit

several of the 189 listed HAP’s in

quantities sufficient to designate them

as major sources. Information

subsequently collected by the EPA as

part of this rulemaking confirms that all

three operating primary lead smelters

have the potential to emit greater than

9.1 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) [10 tons

per year (tpy)] of a single HAP or greater

than 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tpy) of a

combination of HAP’s (Docket ID No. II–

B–4). Therefore, all three primary lead

smelters are major sources.

III. Background

A. Description of Source Category

Primary lead smelters smelt lead

bearing ore concentrates producing lead

metal. The primary lead smelting source

category does not include secondary

lead smelters, lead remelters, or lead

refiners.

There are three operating primary

lead smelters in the United States. The

Doe Run Company owns and operates a

primary lead smelter in Herculaneum,

Missouri (Doe Run). The ASARCO Inc.

owns and operates two primary lead

smelters, one located in East Helena,

Montana (ASARCO–MT), and a second

located in Glover, Missouri (ASARCO–

MO). No new primary lead smelters

have been built in the last 10 years, and

one smelter has closed during that time.

No new primary smelters are

anticipated in the foreseeable future.

Lead sulfide (PbS) ore concentrates

are the main feed material to primary

lead smelters. The two smelters located

in Missouri obtain their concentrates

from local mines. The ore concentrates

coming from these mines have very high

lead contents (about 70%), and low

impurities. The ASARCO–Montana

smelter buys its concentrates on the

world market. These concentrates often

have higher impurity contents.

The primary lead smelting process

consists of: (1) Concentrate storage and

handling, (2) sintering of ore

concentrates, (3) sinter crushing and

handling, (4) smelting of sinter to lead

metal, (5) drossing, refining, and

alloying of lead metal, and (6) smelting

of drosses.

Lead concentrate, limestone, iron ore,

silica and coke are received by truck

and/or rail car where they are

transferred to storage bins or piles.

These materials and other in-process

materials (including recycled flue dust)

are weighed and mixed prior to charging

into the sinter machine.

A sinter machine is essentially a

continuous steel pallet conveyor belt.

Each pallet consists of perforated or

slotted plates. The purpose of sintering

is to reduce the sulfur content of the

lead sulfide concentrate by oxidizing it

to lead oxide and sulfur dioxide, while

simultaneously producing a hard porous

clinker material (‘‘sinter’’) suitable for

processing in the blast furnace. The

charge is ignited in two stages. In the

first stage, the charge is dumped onto

the pallets to a depth of approximately

1 inch. Gas burners are directed to the

upper surface of the charge. Air and

combustion gases are pulled through the

top of the charge and are removed from

the bottom. This is conducted over the

first several feet of the machine. After

this layer is completely ignited, a

second layer of sinter is placed on top

of the first to obtain a total depth of

roughly one foot. At the same time the

second layer is added, the airflow

through the bed is reversed, blowing up

through the bottom of the charge, and is

removed from the top of the machine.

This allows the oxygen and hot

combustion gases to ignite and burn the

remainder of the charge.

As sinter is discharged from the

machine, it falls into a series of crushers

and screens where it is reduced and
19202 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules

sized into two fractions, smaller than

and greater than 1.5 inches in diameter.

The greater than 1.5 inch fraction is

transferred to the blast furnace for

smelting. The smaller than

approximately 1.5 inch fraction is

further crushed to a size of less than 1⁄4

inch and is returned to the sinter

machine bedding area for reprocessing.

Smelting of the sinter takes place in

a blast furnace. The two ASARCO

facilities operate two blast furnaces,

while the Doe Run facility operates

three blast furnaces. At all three

facilities one blast furnace is typically

shutdown for service at any given time.

A blast furnace is a rectangular shaped

shaft furnace. Tuyeres through which

combustion air is admitted under

pressure are located near the bottom,

and are evenly spaced on either side of

the furnace. The combustion zone of the

furnace is at the same level as the

tuyeres, and the hot combustion gases

filter through the charge, preheat the

charge, and are discharged through the

top of the furnace.

The furnaces are charged periodically

through the top by a charge car as

frequently as needed to maintain a

constant bed height in the furnace. A

typical charge consists of 90 percent

sinter and 10 percent coke.

As the smelting reaction takes place,

molten metal and slag pool at the

bottom of the furnace, where it is

continuously tapped into a settling

chamber. In this chamber the slag is

tapped from the top, and the lead

bullion is tapped from the bottom.

Bullion is transferred to drossing kettles.

Slag is tapped into a chamber where

water is injected and the slag is

granulated. The granulated slag is then

either sent to storage for charge to the

sinter machine, or is sent to a ‘‘slag

pile’’ for disposal.

The bullion is allowed to cool in the

drossing kettles. While cooling, copper

dross floats to the surface and is

periodically skimmed. Once the dross is

removed, the bullion is transferred to

other kettles for further refining and

alloying. Once the desired product is

obtained, the lead is cast into various

size molds, ranging in size from 65

pounds to 2000 pounds.

The dross obtained from the drossing

kettles may be sent off-site for

processing, or may be processed on-site

in a small reverberatory furnace. The

reverberatory furnace, referred to as a

dross furnace, uses direct heat supplied

by a natural gas burner to further reduce

and separate the dross into lead bullion,

copper matte, and copper speiss which

contains arsenic. The lead bullion is

added back to the dross kettles, while

the matte and speiss are sent off-site to

a copper smelter for copper recovery.

B. Emissions and Factors Affecting

Emissions

Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are

emitted from primary lead smelters as:

(1) Process emissions, (2) process

fugitive emissions, and (3) fugitive dust

emissions. Table 1 summarizes the

estimated HAP emissions from each of

the primary lead smelters (Docket ID

No. II–B–4). These estimates represent

potential to emit estimates based on

current Federally enforceable emission

limits and air pollution controls.

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL

TO EMIT HAP EMISSION ESTIMATES

FROM PRIMARY LEAD SMELTERS

(TPY)

Company

Lead

compounds

Total

metal

HAP

Total

organic

HAP

ASARCO—MO .. 60 80 6

ASARCO—MT ... 70 90 5

Doe Run—MO ... 90 110 10

1. Process Emissions

Process emissions include emissions

associated with the exhaust gases from

sinter machines and blast and dross

furnaces. Metal HAP emissions from

process sources are produced through

the volatilization of the metals

contained in the feed materials by the

elevated smelting temperatures and by

the entrainment of metal-containing PM

in the furnace exhaust. Both sinter

machines and blast furnaces emit

substantial quantities of metal HAP.

Dross furnaces, being considerably

smaller, emit lesser amounts. About 80

percent of metal HAP emissions are lead

compounds, with lesser amounts of

antimony, arsenic, and other metal

compounds.

Organic HAP emissions from blast

furnaces result from incomplete

combustion of organic-containing

materials (coke) in the furnace charge.

None of the existing primary lead blast

furnaces are equipped with organic

emissions controls (e.g., afterburners).

Emissions testing was performed by the

EPA on the uncontrolled blast furnace

exhaust at the Doe Run—MO smelter to

determine the magnitude of organic

HAP emissions from primary lead blast

furnaces (Docket ID No. II–A–1). The

emissions data obtained indicate low

(part per billion) levels of several

organic HAP compounds. The five

compounds with the highest measured

emission rates were benzene (62 ppb,

0.29 lb/hr), methylene chloride (50 ppb,

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

lb/hr), carbon disulfide (33 ppb, 0.15 lb/

hr), and formaldehyde (87 ppb, 0.15 lb/

hr). Combined, the measured organic

HAP emissions total 2.3 lb/hr, which is

equivalent to an annual emission rate

approaching 10 tons per year. The EPA

believes these levels of organic HAP

emissions are not significant enough to

warrant regulation.

Furthermore, the organic HAP

concentrations measured at primary

lead smelters are far below what the

EPA has historically considered

achievable with add-on controls (e.g.,

thermal oxidizers). The EPA generally

considers thermal oxidizers capable of

achieving a 98 percent emission

reduction or an outlet concentration of

20 ppm, which ever is greater (Docket

ID No. II–B–6). As stated above, organic

HAP concentrations at primary lead

smelters are on the order of 50 to 60

ppb, or three orders of magnitude less

than what the EPA has considered

achievable with thermal oxidizers.

Therefore, the EPA believes that it is

technically infeasible to reduce organic

HAP emissions from primary lead blast

furnaces through the use of add-on

controls.

2. Process Fugitive Emissions

Process fugitive emissions result from

sinter machine and furnace charging,

sinter crushing and sizing, furnace

tapping, drossing, refining, and casting.

Process fugitive emissions contain metal

HAP’s. The majority of process fugitive

sources at primary lead smelters are

currently hooded and ventilated to

control devices. Ventilated enclosures

are also used to further reduce process

fugitive emissions at some sources.

3. Fugitive Dust Emissions

Fugitive dust emissions result from

the entrainment of dust due to material

handling, vehicle traffic, and wind

erosion from storage piles. Fugitive dust

emissions contain metal HAP’s. The

quantity of fugitive dust emissions is

dependent on the size of the facility and

the fugitive dust controls and practices

in place. These emissions can not be

measured directly, and can only be

roughly estimated using emission

factors and facility-specific data or

through indirect monitoring methods.

Fugitive dust sources are typically

controlled by reducing the potential for

entrainment through measures such as

wetting, pavement cleaning, use of

chemical stabilizers, and protection

from wind.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19203

C. Regulatory History

1. New Source Performance Standards

The EPA promulgated new source

performance standards (NSPS) for

primary lead smelters on January 15,

1976 (40 CFR part 60, subpart R). The

NSPS limits emissions of particulate

matter (PM) from blast and

reverberatory furnaces (including rotary

furnaces) to a concentration of 50

milligrams per dry standard cubic meter

(mg/dscm) [0.022 grains per dry

standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)] and

emissions from refining kettles (pot

furnaces) to 10 percent opacity.

However, none of the primary lead

smelters have undergone any major

construction or reconstruction since the

rule became effective, and are, for the

most part, not subject to the NSPS

requirements.

2. State Implementation Plans for Lead

On October 5, 1978, the EPA

promulgated National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for lead at

a level of 1.5 micrograms of lead per

cubic meter of air averaged over a

calendar quarter. The NAAQS defines

levels of air quality that are determined

by EPA to be necessary, with an

adequate margin of safety, to protect the

public health (42 U.S.C. 7409). The

areas around all three primary lead

smelters were and continue to be

designated as nonattainment areas for

lead. Since the early 1980’s, all three

primary lead smelters and states have

been involved in an ongoing effort to

develop Federally enforceable control

strategies to be incorporated into State

Implementation Plans (SIP) in order to

bring the areas into attainment with the

lead NAAQS. The following paragraphs

detail the history of the SIP

development for the three primary

smelters.

ASARCO–MT. Ambient air quality

monitoring data collected during the

period of 1977–1981 by the state of

Montana indicated that there were

recorded violations of the NAAQS for

lead in the East Helena area. On

September 29, 1983, the State of

Montana submitted a plan for the

control of lead emissions from the

ASARCO–MT facility as part of the

Montana State Implementation Plan for

lead. The EPA published a final

approval of the SIP on July 9, 1984 (49

FR 27944).

As of December 31, 1986, all of the

control strategies in the 1983 lead SIP

were implemented. Ambient monitoring

data for the fourth quarter of 1988

indicated that the lead NAAQS was not

met. On November 6, 1991, the EPA

designated the East Helena area as a

nonattainment area for lead (56 FR

56694), effective January 6, 1992. As a

result of this designation, Montana was

required to submit a revised lead SIP

that meets the requirements of the

NAAQS. The State of Montana

submitted a new SIP proposal to the

EPA on August 16, 1996 (Docket ID No.

II–I–2). This submittal is still under

review by the EPA.

ASARCO–MO. The original Glover

lead SIP was approved by EPA in 1981.

On November 6, 1991, the EPA

designated the Liberty and Arcadia

Townships which surround the

ASARCO–MO facility as nonattainment

for lead. This designation became

effective on January 6, 1992. On August

14, 1996, the State of Missouri

submitted a revised SIP (Docket ID No.

II–I–1). The EPA promulgated final

approval of the submittal on March 5,

1997 (62 FR 9970).

Doe Run–MO. On June 3, 1986, the

EPA issued a call for a revision to the

Missouri SIP in response to violations of

the NAAQS for lead near the Doe Run

primary lead smelter in Herculaneum,

Missouri. The state of Missouri

submitted a SIP revision on September

6, 1990, with additional materials

submitted on May 8, 1991. Before the

EPA acted on the state’s submission, the

EPA promulgated a nonattainment

designation for the area in the vicinity

of Doe Run. The designation was

published on November 6, 1991 (56 FR

56694), and became effective on January

6, 1992. As a result of the nonattainment

designation, the Part D requirements of

the act became applicable to the

Missouri SIP revision for Doe Run. The

EPA granted limited approval for

Missouri’s 1990 SIP revision on March

6, 1992 (57 FR 8076). The EPA

explained that the basis for the limited

approval was that the state would be

required to submit a supplemental SIP

revision meeting the applicable Part D

requirements. On July 2, 1993, The state

of Missouri submitted a lead attainment

plan for the Doe Run–MO facility

meeting the Part D requirements. In

response to the EPA’s comments, the

state submitted revisions to the SIP on

June 30, 1994, and November 23, 1994

(Docket ID No. II–I–3). The EPA found

that these SIP components satisfy the

Part D requirements of the Act. The EPA

promulgated final approval of the

submittals on May 5, 1995 (52 FR

22274).

3. National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants

On July 16, 1992, the EPA published

an initial list of categories of major and

area sources selected for regulation in

accordance with section 112(c) of the

Act (57 FR 31476). Primary lead

smelters were among the listed

categories. Today, the EPA is issuing a

notice of proposed rulemaking for

primary lead smelters and is soliciting

comments on the proposed rule.

IV. NESHAP Decision Process

A. Source of Authority for NESHAP

Development

Section 112 specifically directs the

EPA to develop a list of all categories of

all major and such area sources as

appropriate emitting one or more of the

189 HAP listed in section 112(b)

(section 112(c)). Section 112 of the Act

replaces the previous system of

pollutant-by-pollutant health-based

regulation that proved ineffective at

controlling the high volumes and

concentrations of HAP in air emissions.

The provision directs that this

deficiency be redressed by imposing

technology-based controls on sources

emitting HAP, and that these

technology-based standards may later be

reduced further to address residual risk

that may remain even after imposition

of technology-based controls. A major

source is any source that emits, or has

the potential to emit considering

Federally enforceable controls, 10 tons

per year or more of any one HAP or 25

tons per year or more of any

combination of HAP. The EPA

published an initial list of source

categories on July 16, 1992 (57 FR

31576), and may amend the list at any

time.

B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP

The NESHAP are to be developed to

control HAP emissions from both new

and existing sources according to the

statutory directives set out in section

112, as amended. The statute requires

the standard to reflect the maximum

degree of reduction of HAP emissions

that is achievable taking into

consideration the cost of achieving the

emission reduction, any non-air quality

health and environmental impacts, and

energy requirements.

Emission reductions may be

accomplished through application of

measures, processes, methods, systems,

or techniques, including, but not limited

to: (1) Reducing the volume of, or

eliminating emissions of, such

pollutants through process changes,

substitution of materials, or other

modifications, (2) enclosing systems or

processes to eliminate emissions, (3)

collecting, capturing, or treating such

pollutants when released from a

process, stack, storage, or fugitive

emissions point, (4) design, equipment,

work practice, or operational standards
19204 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules

(including requirements for operator

training or certification) as provided in

subsection (h) of section 112, or (5) a

combination of the above (section

112(d)(2)).

To develop a NESHAP, the EPA

collects information about the industry,

including information on emission

source characteristics, control

technologies, data from HAP emissions

tests at well-controlled facilities, and

information on the costs and other

energy and environmental impacts of

emission control techniques. The EPA

uses this information to analyze

possible regulatory approaches.

Although NESHAP are normally

structured in terms of numerical

emission limits, alternative approaches

are sometimes necessary. In some cases,

for example, physically measuring

emissions from a source may be

impossible, or at least impractical,

because of technological and economic

limitations. Section 112(h) authorizes

the Administrator to promulgate a

design, equipment, work practice, or

operational standard, or a combination

thereof, in those cases where it is not

feasible to prescribe or enforce an

emissions standard.

If sources in the source category are

major sources, then a MACT standard is

required for those major sources. The

regulation of the area sources in a

source category is discretionary. If there

is a finding of a threat of adverse effects

on human health or the environment,

then the source category can be added

to the list of area sources to be

regulated.

C. Determining the MACT Floor

After the EPA has identified the

specific source categories or

subcategories of major sources to

regulate under section 112, it must set

MACT standards for each category or

subcategory. Section 112 limits the

EPA’s discretion by establishing a

minimum baseline or ‘‘floor’’ for

standards. For new sources, the

standards for a source category or

subcategory cannot be less stringent

than the emission control that is

achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source, as determined

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

The standards for existing sources can

be less stringent than standards for new

sources, but they cannot be less

stringent and may be more stringent

than the average emission limitation

achieved by the best-performing 12

percent of existing sources (excluding

certain sources) for categories and

subcategories with 30 or more sources,

or the best-performing 5 sources for

categories or subcategories with fewer

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

After the floor has been determined

for a new or existing source in a source

category or subcategory, the

Administrator must set MACT standards

that are no less stringent than the floor.

Such standards must then be met by all

sources within the category or

subcategory.

Section 112(d)(2) specifies that the

EPA shall establish standards that

require the maximum degree of

reduction in emissions of hazardous air

pollutants

* * * that the Administrator, taking into

consideration the cost of achieving such

emission reduction, and any non-air quality

health and environmental impacts and

energy requirements, determines is

achievable * * *.

In establishing standards, the

Administrator may distinguish among

classes, types, and sizes of sources

within a category or subcategory

(section 112(d)(1)). For example, the

Administrator could establish two

classes of sources within a category or

subcategory based on size and establish

a different emissions standard for each

class, provided both standards are at

least as stringent as the MACT floor for

that class of sources.

The next step in establishing MACT

standards is the investigation of

regulatory alternatives. With MACT

standards, only alternatives at least as

stringent as the floor may be selected.

Information about the industry is

analyzed to develop model plant

populations for projecting national

impacts, including HAP emission

reduction levels, costs, energy, and

secondary impacts. Several regulatory

alternative levels (which may be

different levels of emissions control or

different levels of applicability or both)

are then evaluated to select the

regulatory alternative that best reflects

the appropriate MACT level.

The selected alternative may be more

stringent than the MACT floor, but the

control level selected must be

technically achievable. In selecting a

regulatory alternative that represents

MACT, the EPA considers the

achievable emission reductions of HAP

(and possibly other pollutants that are

co-controlled), cost, and economic

impacts, energy impacts, and other

environmental impacts. The objective is

to achieve the maximum degree of

emissions reduction without

unreasonable economic or other impacts

(section 112(d)(2)). The regulatory

alternatives selected for new and

existing sources may be different

because of different MACT floors, and

separate regulatory decisions may be

made for new and existing sources.

The selected regulatory alternative is

then translated into a proposed

regulation. The regulation implementing

the MACT decision typically includes

sections on applicability, standards, test

methods and compliance

demonstration, monitoring, reporting,

and recordkeeping. The preamble to the

proposed regulation provides an

explanation of the rationale for the

decision. The public is invited to

comment on the proposed regulation

during the public comment period.

Based on an evaluation of these

comments, the EPA reaches a final

decision and promulgates the standard.

V. Summary of the Proposed Standards

A. Sources to be Regulated

Standards are being proposed to limit

metal HAP emissions from: (1) Process

sources, (2) process fugitive sources,

and (3) fugitive dust sources at primary

lead smelters. Process source emissions

are discharged as the main exhaust of a

sinter machine or smelting furnace

through a chimney, flue, or ductwork.

Process sources that would be regulated

include sinter machines, blast furnaces,

and dross furnaces.

Process fugitive emission sources that

would be regulated include sinter

machine charging and discharging,

sinter crushing and sizing, blast furnace

tapping, and dross furnace charging and

tapping.

Fugitive dust sources that would be

regulated include plant yards and

roadways subject to wind and vehicle

traffic, process areas, and materials

handling and storage areas.

B. Proposed Standards for Process and

Process Fugitive Sources

A ‘‘plant wide’’ emission limit is

being proposed for lead compounds

from process and process fugitive

emission sources. The lead compound

emission limit is being proposed as a

surrogate for all metal HAP’s and will

apply to both existing and new sources.

The aggregated lead emissions from the

following process and process fugitive

sources would be limited to 500 mg/Mg

of lead produced (1.0 lb/ton of lead

produced):

(1) Sinter machine;

(2) Blast furnace;

(3) Dross furnace;

(4) Dross furnace charging location;

(5) Blast and dross furnace tapping

locations;

(6) Sinter machine charging location;

(7) Sinter machine discharge end;

(8) Sinter crushing and sizing

equipment; and
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19205

(9) Sinter machine area.

In addition to the emission limit,

work practice standards are proposed

for the above listed fugitive sources

(items 4 through 9). The proposed rule

requires that the charging, tapping, and

sinter handling sources identified above

(items 4 through 8) be equipped with a

hood ventilated to a control device. The

hood design and ventilation rate shall

be consistent with the American

Conference of Governmental Industrial

Hygienists (ACGIH) recommended

practices. In addition, the proposed rule

requires that the sinter machine and

sinter crushing and sizing equipment be

located in a building ventilated to a

baghouse or equivalent device at a rate

that maintains the building at a lower

than ambient pressure, ensuring in-draft

through any doorway opening.

C. Proposed Standards for Fugitive Dust

Sources

The proposed standards for fugitive

dust sources are in the form of work

practice and operating standards. The

EPA is proposing work practice and

operating standards based on the

determination in accordance with § 112

(h)(2)(A) that the HAPs controlled by

those standards cannot be emitted

through a conveyance designed and

constructed to emit or capture those

HAP. Again, the standards apply to

fugitive dust sources at both new and

existing smelters. Each primary lead

smelter would be required to develop a

Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)

manual for fugitive dust sources that

details procedures to limit fugitive dust

emissions. Each smelter’s SOP manual

would be reviewed and subject to

approval by the Administrator. Existing

manuals developed as part of a facilities

SIP control strategy may be used to meet

this requirement if the existing manuals

address the identified fugitive dust

sources.

D. Compliance Dates

Compliance with the standards would

be achieved within 24 months of

promulgation for existing primary lead

smelters, and upon startup for new and

reconstructed smelters.

E. Compliance Test Methods

Testing of lead compound emissions

from process and process fugitive

emission control devices would be

conducted according to EPA reference

method 12 (40 CFR part 60, appendix

A). Sampling locations for all

compliance tests would be determined

by EPA reference method 1. Stack gas

velocity and volumetric flow rate would

be determined by EPA reference method

2. Gas analysis would be conducted

according to EPA reference method 3 for

CO2, oxygen, excess air, and molecular

weight on a dry basis. The previous 12

calender months worth of production

data will be used to calculate lead

production based on the mass produced,

and the lead content of lead products,

copper speiss, and copper matte.

F. Monitoring Requirements

Each owner or operator subject to the

proposed NESHAP would be required to

develop and operate according to a SOP

manual for operation and maintenance

of the control devices used to comply

with the emission limits. Each smelter’s

SOP manual would be reviewed and

subject to approval by the

Administrator. The minimum SOP

requirements identified in the proposed

rule would serve as the criteria by

which the Administrator would decide

whether to approve a smelter’s SOP.

As proposed, the owner or operator

must install a bag leak detection system

for each fabric filter used on a process

or process fugitive source. The bag leak

detection system would be equipped

with an audible alarm that

automatically sounds when an increase

in particulate emissions above a

predetermined level is detected. The

proposed rule requires that the monitor

be capable of detecting PM emissions at

concentrations of 10 milligrams per

actual cubic meter (0.004 grains per

actual cubic foot) and provide an output

of relative PM emissions. Such a device

would serve as an indicator of the

performance of the fabric filter and

would provide an indication of when

maintenance of the fabric filter is

needed. An alarm by itself does not

indicate noncompliance with the lead

limit, but would indicate an increase in

PM emissions and trigger an inspection

of the fabric filter to determine the cause

of the alarm. The owner or operator

would initiate corrective actions

according to the procedures in their

operation, maintenance, and monitoring

plan. The owner or operator would be

considered out of compliance upon

failure to initiate corrective actions

within 1 hour of the alarm.

G. Notification Requirements

The owner or operator of a primary

lead smelter would be required to

submit the notifications described in

section 63.9 of the General Provisions to

part 63, (40 CFR part 63, subpart A).

These would include the initial

notification, notifications of

performance tests, and the notification

of compliance status. In addition, each

owner or operator would be required to

submit the baghouse operation and

maintenance SOP manual and the

fugitive dust control SOP manual along

with a notification to the Administrator

requesting review and approval of the

smelter’s SOP manuals.

H. Recordkeeping and Reporting

Requirements

The owner or operator of a primary

lead smelter would be required to

comply with the recordkeeping and

reporting requirements described in

section 63.10 of the General Provisions

to part 63, (40 CFR part 63, subpart A).

In addition, the owner or operator of a

primary lead smelter would be required

to retain for 5 years records of: (1)

production data of the weight and lead

content of lead products, copper matte,

and copper speiss, (2) an identification

of the date and time of all bag leak

detection system alarms, their cause,

and an explanation of the corrective

actions taken, (3) records demonstrating

implementation of the baghouse SOP,

and (4) records demonstrating

implementation of the fugitive dust

controls contained in the smelter’s SOP

manual.

In addition to the information

required by the General Provisions to

part 63, (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), the

owner or operator of a primary lead

smelter would be required to submit

semi-annual reports containing (1)

records of all alarms from the bag leak

detection system including a

description of the procedures taken

following each bag leak detection

system alarm, (2) a summary of the

records maintained as part of the

practices described in the baghouse

SOP, and (3) a summary of the fugitive

dust control measures performed during

the required reporting period.

VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy,

and Economic Impacts

There are only three existing primary

lead smelters that would be subject to

the proposed standards, and no new

facilities are anticipated in the next 5

years. The proposed levels of control are

based on existing SIP emission limits for

lead. No additional emission controls

would be required to comply with the

proposed standards. Therefore, no

quantifiable emission reduction or other

environmental impacts are anticipated

to result from this rulemaking. However,

it is anticipated that improved baghouse

operation and maintenance procedures

coupled with continuous bag leak

detection may result in unquantifiable

reductions in emissions of lead

compounds and other metal HAP.

Similarly, cost and economic impacts

are expected to be minimal. The only

costs associated with the proposed

standards are those required to perform
19206 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules

compliance assurance activities such as

performance testing, monitoring,

reporting, and recordkeeping. These

costs are minimal, and will not result in

any significant economic impact.

VII. Rationale for Selecting the

Proposed Standards

This section describes the rationale

for the decisions made by the

Administrator in selecting the proposed

standards.

A. Selection of Pollutants and Source

Category

Primary lead smelters emit several of

the 189 HAP’s listed in section 112(b) of

the Act. Metal HAP’s emitted include

primarily compounds of lead, antimony,

and arsenic, with lesser quantities of

compounds of chromium, nickel,

manganese, mercury, and cadmium.

Organic HAP’s are emitted at

insignificant levels by primary lead

smelters. Criteria pollutants emitted

include lead, PM, SO2, NoX, CO, and

hydrocarbons.

All three primary lead smelters in the

United States are major sources of

HAP’s, based on potential-to-emit

estimates that take into account air

pollution control measures currently in

place at each smelter. Although no new

primary lead smelters are anticipated,

any new primary lead smelter would

certainly be a major source of metal

HAP emissions. As such, area sources

are not addressed by this proposed

standard.

The emission, equipment, and work

practice standards being proposed today

are based on existing SIP requirements

that substantially limit emissions of

metal HAP’s from primary lead

smelters. The lead emission limit being

proposed is a surrogate for individual

metal HAP compounds. Strong

correlations exist between lead

emissions and other metal HAP

emissions. In addition, the technologies

identified for the control of metal HAP’s

are the same as those used to control

lead emissions. Therefore, emissions

standards requiring good control of lead

will also achieve good control of the

other metal HAP’s emitted from primary

lead smelters. Further, establishing

emission limits for each of the

numerous metal HAP compounds

emitted from primary lead smelters is

considered impractical because

measuring each compound would be too

costly and would pose unreasonable

compliance and monitoring costs while

achieving little, if any, emission

reduction above the surrogate pollutant

approach.

B. Selection of Affected Sources

Nearly all activities at a primary lead

smelter have the potential to emit metal

HAP. In selecting the affected sources

for this subpart, the EPA attempted to

identify all operations that have the

potential to emit appreciable quantities

of HAP. As a result, the proposed

standards apply to three types of

emission sources at primary lead

smelters: (1) Process sources, (2) process

fugitive sources, and (3) fugitive dust

sources.

Process source emissions are

discharged as the main exhaust of a

sinter machine or smelting furnace

through a chimney, flue, or ductwork.

Process sources that would be regulated

include sinter machines, blast furnaces,

and dross furnaces. Process sources

have the potential to emit significant

amounts of metal HAP.

Process fugitive emission sources that

would be regulated include sinter

machine charging and discharging,

sinter crushing and sizing, blast furnace

tapping, and dross furnace charging and

tapping. Process fugitive sources are

also a significant source of metal HAP.

Fugitive dust sources that would be

regulated include plant yards and

roadways subject to wind and vehicle

traffic, process areas, and materials

handling and storage areas. Fugitive

dust sources emit appreciable quantities

of metal HAP.

C. Selection of Basis and Level for the

Proposed Standards for New and

Existing Sources

Each of the three primary lead

smelters are subject to federally

enforceable SIP emission limitations

and work practice requirements for the

control of lead. In developing a SIP, the

State and facility work together to

develop an emission inventory which

includes process, process fugitive, and

fugitive dust sources. Once the emission

inventory is developed, dispersion

modeling is performed to identify the

emission sources contributing to

NAAQS violations. Emission control

options are identified and evaluated for

each of the sources contributing to the

NAAQS violation. The combination of

controls, including contingency

measures, found to be technically

feasible and that bring the modeled air

concentrations below the NAAQS are

selected for the ‘‘Control Strategy’’. The

facilities and the State agree to a

Consent Order which legally binds them

to implement the Control Strategy. The

Consent Order also sets forth the

administrative requirements for the

implementation of the control measures.

The state then submits a revision to the

existing SIP to the EPA for approval.

As part of this rulemaking, the EPA

has reviewed the proposed SIP

requirements and Control Strategies for

each of the three facilities, and has

determined that the SIP emission limits

and work practice requirements

represent MACT for this industry. As

such, the EPA’s goal in this rulemaking

is to develop MACT limitations

compatible with the SIP requirements.

The following paragraphs provide the

rationale and supporting information for

selection of MACT for the primary lead

smelting source category.

1. Selection of MACT for Process and

Process Fugitive Sources

Metal HAP emissions from all of the

major process and process fugitive

sources are well controlled at the three

primary lead smelters and all three

facilities have SIP lead emission limits

for the process and main process

fugitive emission sources (Tables 2–4).

Baghouses are used to control emissions

from all existing blast furnace exhausts.

ASARCO–MO uses a baghouse to

control emissions from their sinter

machine exhausts, while the other two

facilities send the sinter machine strong

gasses to an acid plant for SO2 control,

and the weak gasses to a baghouse. Due

to the extensive cooling and precleaning

associated with an acid plant, it is

believed that an acid plant provides a

higher level of control of metal HAP

emissions as compared to baghouses

alone.

TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF SIP EMISSION LIMITS FOR ASARCO—MO

Emission point Sources included

Lead emission limits

(lb/day)

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

Sinter Machine Charging

Sinter Machine Discharge

Sinter Crushing

184.2
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19207

TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF SIP EMISSION LIMITS FOR ASARCO—MO—Continued

Emission point Sources included

Lead emission limits

(lb/day)

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

Blast Furnace Tapping

125.4

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

Sinter Sizing

82.3

TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF SIP EMISSION LIMITS FOR ASARCO—MT

Emission point Sources included

Lead emission limits

(lb/day)

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

Blast Furnace Charge Location

Blast Furnace Tap Location

89.1

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

Dross Furnace Charge Location

Dross Furnace Tap Location

Lead Granulator

Kettle Covers

Sinter Storage

Blast Furnace Charge Car

Pneumatic Flue Dust Handling

83.8

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

Sinter Machine Charge Location

Sinter Machine Discharge

Sinter Crushing and Sizing

Pneumatic Flue Dust Handling

Flue Dust Storage

43.6

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

Crushing Mill #1 Baghouse Stack .............. Sinter Machine Area Ventilation ................................................................................... 1.35

Crushing Mill #2 Baghouse Stack .............. Sinter Machine Area Ventilation ................................................................................... 1.35

CSHB Baghouse Stack .............................. Concentrate Storage/Handling ......................................................................................

Pneumatic Flue Dust Handling

Sinter Crushing and Sizing

98.1

TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF SIP EMISSION LIMITS FOR DOE RUN

Emission point Sources included

Lead emission limits

(lb/day)

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

Blast Furnace Tap Location

Sinter Machine

Sinter Crushing

446.6

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

Sinter Cooling

21.8

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

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

Sinter Machine Area

2.2

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

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

Dross Furnace Talling

Dross Kettle Ventilation

36.2

All of the process fugitive sources

identified at primary lead smelters are

hooded, and ventilated to a baghouse

with the exception of blast furnace

charging and drossing and refining

kettles. At the ASARCO—MT facility,

the drossing and refining kettles are

located in a totally enclosed building

ventilated to a baghouse, and the blast

furnace charging location is hooded and

ventilated to a baghouse. At the other

two facilities, the blast furnace charging

location and the drossing and refining

kettles are located in partially enclosed

buildings which are not ventilated to a

baghouse. The sinter machine and sinter

crushing and sizing equipment at all

three smelters are housed in buildings

which are ventilated to an air pollution

control device.

Several approaches were identified

and evaluated for determining MACT

for process and process fugitive sources

at primary lead smelters. One common

regulatory approach is to establish

emission limits for each individual

source (sinter machine, blast furnace,

etc.). For the primary lead smelting

category, this approach has several

disadvantages. Due to the manner in
19208 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules

which many of the process and process

fugitive sources are ‘‘commingled’’ into

a single stack, emission from individual

sources can not be isolated. As a result,

it would not be possible to monitor

compliance with emission limits for

individual sources. In addition, this

approach would result in emission

limits inconsistent with the existing SIP,

where emission limits are set for stacks

rather than for individual emission

sources.

The EPA proposes to establish MACT

for process and process fugitive sources

at primary lead smelters based on a

‘‘plant wide’’ approach (Docket ID No.

II–B–5). Using this approach, the

emissions from all of the process and

process fugitive sources are aggregated,

and then divided by the facility’s lead

production rate to provide a production

based lead emission rate in units of

grams of lead emitted per megagram of

lead produced. The plant wide emission

limit approach has several advantages. It

is very compatible with the existing

SIPs, and it provides facilities with

more flexibility in complying with the

MACT standard. Furthermore, the plant

wide production based emission limit

helps promote pollution prevention

within the facilities by giving each

facility the ability to meet the emission

limit through any combination of source

reduction and control technology

options. Table 5 summarizes the

calculations used to derive the

production based MACT floor.

TABLE 5.—SUMMARY OF PLANT WIDE LEAD EMISSION RATES

Company Lead SIP emission limit

[Mg/day(lb/day)]

Lead production

capacity

[Mg/day(ton/day)]

Plant wide emission rate

[g/Mg(lb/ton)]

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

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

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

The median value was selected to

represent the MACT floor—500 grams

lead per megagram of lead produced

(1.0 pounds of lead per ton of lead

produced).

In addition to the lead emission limit,

the EPA is proposing equipment

standards for several process fugitive

sources at primary lead smelters

including dross furnace charging and

tapping locations, blast furnace tapping

locations, sinter machine charge and

discharge points, and sinter crushing

and sizing equipment. The proposed

standard would require that each of

these sources be hooded and ventilated

to a baghouse or equivalent control

device. The hood design and ventilation

rate shall be consistent with ACGIH

recommended practices. In addition, the

rule will require that sinter machines

and sinter crushing and sizing

equipment be located in a building

which is ventilated to a baghouse or

equivalent control device at a rate that

would maintain the building at a lower

than ambient pressure. Based on

observations at operating primary lead

smelters (Docket ID No.’s II–B–1, II–B–

2, and II–B–3), the EPA believes that the

capture and ventilation systems

currently installed and operated at

primary lead smelters are consistent

with the proposed requirements. These

controls consequently establish the

MACT floor. Therefore, the EPA is

proposing to incorporate these

specifications into the proposed MACT

for new and existing process fugitive

sources.

2. Selection of MACT for Fugitive Dust

Sources

The EPA is proposing that each

smelter develop and submit to the

Administrator for approval an SOP

manual that would describe the controls

and work practices that would be

implemented to control fugitive dust

emissions. The EPA is proposing to

require the implementation of work

practices based on its determination in

accordance with § 112(h)(2)(A) that the

HAPs controlled by those practices

cannot be emitted through a conveyance

designed and constructed to emit those

HAPs. The use of a site-specific SOP

manual is being proposed, rather than a

list of required work practices, because

there are several equivalent control

options available for fugitive dust. The

flexibility of the SOP approach is

needed because the best control option

for a particular smelter would be

determined by the physical layout of the

smelter and the control measures that

are already in place. These two factors

vary greatly among smelters.

All three facilities currently operate

according to SOP manuals, required as

part of their SIP control strategy, that

address the control of fugitive dust from

these sources. Existing manuals

developed as part of a facilities SIP

control strategy may be used to meet

this requirement provided the existing

manuals address the fugitive dust

sources identified in this proposed rule.

D. Reconstruction Considerations

Section 112(a) of the Act defines a

new source as a stationary source, the

construction or reconstruction of which

is commenced after the proposal date of

a relevant regulation. An existing source

is defined as any stationary source other

than a new source.

Reconstructed sources are considered

to be new sources. Reconstruction

means the replacement of components

of an existing source to such an extent

that: (1) The fixed capital cost of the

new components exceeds 50 percent of

the fixed capital cost that would be

required to construct a comparable new

source, and (2) it is technologically and

economically feasible for the

reconstructed source to meet all relevant

promulgated standards for new sources.

Some changes can be made at primary

lead smelters that may be deemed

reconstructions under section 63.5 of

the General Provisions. However, the

proposed standards for primary lead

smelters are the same for both existing

and new sources. As a result, the

designation of a change as a

‘‘reconstruction’’ has limited practical

significance.

E. Selection of Compliance Dates

The proposed regulation would

require owners or operators of existing

primary lead smelters to achieve

compliance with the proposed

standards within 24 months of

promulgation. This schedule would

allow the affected sources the time

necessary to modify existing processes

and control equipment; design,

fabricate, and install new control

equipment as needed; develop and

implement the SOP for equipment and

work practice standards; and complete

installation of all required continuous

monitoring systems. The EPA believes

that a 2-year period is realistic and

practical to accomplish these required

tasks. The proposed standard is also
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19209

consistent with compliance deadlines

allowed by section 112(i) of the Act,

which allows existing sources up to 3

years to achieve compliance.

Owners or operators of new or

reconstructed primary lead smelters

would be required to achieve

compliance upon startup or

promulgation of this NESHAP

(whichever is later) and must perform

compliance testing within 6 months of

startup or promulgation, pursuant to

sections 63.6 and 63.7 of the General

Provisions.

F. Selection of Emission Test Methods

and Schedule

Testing requirements are being

proposed for lead emissions and total

enclosure pressure.

1. Lead Emissions

Lead emissions would be measured

using EPA reference method 12. EPA

reference method 1 would be used to

determine the number and locations of

sampling points, method 2 would be

used to determine stack gas velocity and

volumetric flow rate, method 3 would

be used for flue gas analysis, and

method 4 would be used to determine

the volume percent moisture content in

the stack gas.

Each test would consist of three runs

conducted under representative

operating conditions. The average of the

three runs would be used to determine

compliance.

The lead emission rates from the

affected sources would be summed, and

the sum divided by the average daily

lead production rate for the previous 12

calender months. The lead production

rate would be calculated based on the

sum of the lead contained in the lead

products, copper matte, and copper

speiss produced.

The proposed standard would require

initial and annual tests of lead

emissions from the identified process

and process fugitive sources.

2. Total Enclosure Pressure

Compliance with the ventilation

requirements for total enclosures would

be determined using a hand-held

anemometer capable of demonstrating

that air flow is into the building at all

openings. Alternatively, a differential

pressure gauge installed on the leeward

wall of the enclosure can be used to

demonstrate that the building is

maintained at a negative pressure as

compared to the outside of the building

of no less than 0.02 mm Hg when all

doors are in the position they are in

during normal operation.

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Solicitation of Comments

The EPA seeks full public

participation in arriving at its final

decisions, and strongly encourages

comments on all aspects of this proposal

from all interested parties. Full

supporting data and detailed analyses

should be submitted with comments to

allow the EPA to make maximum use of

the comments. All comments should be

directed to the Air and Radiation Docket

and Information Center, Docket No. A–

97–33 (see ADDRESSES). Comments on

this notice must be submitted on or

before the date specified in DATES.

Commenters wishing to submit

proprietary information for

consideration should clearly distinguish

such information from other comments,

and clearly label it ‘‘Confidential

Business Information’’ (CBI).

Submissions containing such

proprietary information should be sent

directly to the following address, and

not to the public docket, to ensure that

proprietary information is not

inadvertently placed in the docket:

Attention: Kevin Cavender, c/o Ms.

Melva Toomer, U.S. EPA Confidential

Business Information Manager, OAQPS

(MD–13); Research Triangle Park, NC

27711. Information covered by such a

claim of confidentiality will be

disclosed by the EPA only to the extent

allowed and by the procedures set forth

in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of

confidentiality accompanies the

submission when it is received by the

EPA, the submission may be made

available to the public without further

notice to the commenter.

B. Public Hearing

If a request to speak at a public

hearing is received, a public hearing on

the proposed standards will be held in

accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the

Act. Persons wishing to present oral

testimony or to inquire as to whether a

hearing is to be held should contact EPA

(see ADDRESSES). To provide an

opportunity for all who may wish to

speak, oral presentations will be limited

to 15 minutes each.

Any member of the public may file a

written statement on or before June 16,

1998. Written statements should be

addressed to the Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center (see

ADDRESSES) and refer to Docket No. A–

97–33. A verbatim transcript of the

hearing and written statements will be

placed in the docket and be available for

public inspection and copying, or

mailed upon request, at the Air and

Radiation Docket and Information

Center.

C. Docket

The docket is an organized and

complete file of all the information

considered by the EPA in the

development of this rulemaking. The

docket is a dynamic file because

material is added throughout the

rulemaking development. The docketing

system is intended to allow members of

the public and industries involved to

readily identify and locate documents

so that they can effectively participate

in the rulemaking process. Along with

the proposed and promulgated

standards and their preambles, the

contents of the docket will serve as the

record in the case of judicial review.

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

D. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must

determine whether the regulatory action

is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) and the requirements of

the Executive Order. The Executive

Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ as one that is likely to result in

a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

state, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs, or the rights and

obligation of recipients thereof; or

(4) raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, it has been determined

that this rule is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ because none of the

listed criteria apply to this action.

Consequently, this action was not

submitted to OMB for review under

Executive Order 12866.

E. Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership Under Executive Order

12875

In compliance with Executive Order

12875, the EPA has involved State

regulatory experts in the development of

this proposed rule. No tribal

governments are believed to be affected

by this proposed rule. Although not

directly impacted by the rule, State
19210 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules

governments will be required to

implement the rule by incorporating the

rule into permits and enforcing the rule

upon delegation. They will collect

permit fees that will be used to offset

the resources burden of implementing

the rule. Comments have been solicited

from state partners and have been

carefully considered in the rule

development process. In addition, all

states are encouraged to comment on

this proposed rule during the public

comment period, and the EPA intends

to fully consider these comments in the

development of the final rule.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L. 104–

4, establishes requirements for Federal

agencies to assess the effects of their

regulatory actions on State, local, and

tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

the EPA generally must prepare a

written statement, including a 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 one year. Thus,

today’s rule is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of

the UMRA. In addition, the EPA has

determined that this rule contains no

regulatory requirements that might

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments because it contains no

requirements that apply to such

governments or impose obligations

upon them. Therefore, today’s rule is

not subject to the requirements of

section 203 of the UMRA.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act

As amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

(SBREFA), the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (RFA) generally requires an agency

to conduct a regulatory flexibility

analysis of any rule subject to notice

and comment rulemaking requirements,

as well as take other actions intended to

minimize the rule’s potential impact on

small entities, unless the agency

certifies that the rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small government jurisdictions.

The EPA has determined that none of

the existing primary lead smelters are

small entities, and has concluded that

this proposed rule would not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Therefore, I certify that this action will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this proposed rule have

been submitted for approval to the OMB

under the requirements of the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq. An information collection

request (ICR) document has been

prepared by EPA, and a copy may be

obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE

Regulatory Information Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2137), 401 M Street SW., Washington,

DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260–2740.

The proposed information

requirements are based on notification,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements in the NESHAP general

provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A),

which are mandatory for all owners or

operators subject to national emission

standards. These recordkeeping and

reporting requirements are specifically

authorized by section 114 of the Act (42

U.S.C. § 7414). All information

submitted to the EPA pursuant to the

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements for which a claim of

confidentiality is made is safeguarded

according to Agency policies set forth in

40 CFR part 2, subpart B.

The proposed rule would require

maintenance inspections of the control

devices but would not require any

notifications or reports beyond those

required by the general provisions. The

proposed recordkeeping requirements

require only the specific information

needed to determine compliance.

The annual monitoring, reporting, and

recordkeeping burden for this collection

(averaged over the first 3 years after the

effective date of the rule) is estimated to

be 1,000 labor hours per year at a total

annual cost of $64,000. This estimate

includes a one-time performance test

and report (with repeat tests where

needed); one-time purchase and

installation of bag leak detection

systems; one-time submission of a

startup, shutdown, and malfunction

plan with semiannual reports for any

event when the procedures in the plan

were not followed; semiannual excess

emission reports; maintenance

inspections; notifications; and

recordkeeping. Total capital/startup

costs associated with the monitoring

requirements over the 3-year period of

the ICR are estimated at $93,000, with

operation and maintenance costs of

$4,500/yr.

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose,

or provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purpose of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information; processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to

respond to a request for the collection

of information; search existing data

sources; complete and review the

collection of information; and transmit

or otherwise disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a request for the collection

of information unless it displays a

currently valid OMB control number.

The OMB control numbers for EPA’s

regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9

and 48 CFR chapter 15.

Comments are requested on the EPA’s

need for this information, the accuracy
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19211

of the provided burden estimates, any

suggested methods for minimizing

respondent burden, including through

the use of automated collection

techniques. Send comments on the ICR

to the Director, OPPE Regulatory

Information Division; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2137), 401 M Street SW., Washington,

DC 20460; and to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget, 725

17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,

marked ‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for

EPA.’’ Include the ICR number in any

correspondence. Because OMB is

required to make a decision concerning

the ICR between 30 and 60 days after

April 17, 1998, comment to OMB is best

assured of having its full effect if OMB

receives it by May 18, 1998. The final

rule will respond to any OMB or public

comments on the information collection

requirements contained in this proposal.

I. Clean Air Act

In accordance with section 117 of the

Act, publication of this proposal was

preceded by consultation with

appropriate advisory committees,

independent experts, and Federal

departments and agencies. This

regulation will be reviewed 8 years from

the date of promulgation. This review

will include an assessment of such

factors as evaluation of the residual

health risks, any overlap with other

programs, the existence of alternative

methods, enforceability, improvements

in emission control technology and

health data, and the recordkeeping and

reporting requirements.

J. Pollution Prevention Considerations

The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990

(42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., Pub. L. 101–

508, November 5, 1990) establishes the

national policy of the United States for

pollution prevention. This act declares

that: (1) Pollution should be prevented

or reduced whenever feasible; (2)

pollution that cannot be prevented or

reduced should be recycled or reused in

an environmentally-safe manner

wherever feasible; (3) pollution that

cannot be recycled or reused should be

treated; and (4) disposal or release into

the atmosphere should be chosen only

if none of the other options is available.

The plant wide emission limit

approach proposed by the EPA

promotes the use of pollution

prevention alternatives by giving

facilities full credit for source reduction

in determining compliance with the

emission limit. Furthermore, the focus

of the fugitive dust requirements is on

work practice and operating standards

that reduce emission potential, rather

than capture and treatment options.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Primary

lead smelters.

Dated: April 9, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For reasons set out in the preamble,

it is proposed that 40 CFR part 63 be

amended as follows:

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE

CATEGORIES

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Part 63 is amended by adding

subpart TTT, to read as follows:

Subpart TTT—National Emission Standards

for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Primary

Lead Smelters.

Sec.

63.1541 Applicability.

63.1542 Definitions.

63.1543 Standards for process and process

fugitive sources.

63.1544 Standards for fugitive dust sources.

63.1545 Compliance dates.

63.1546 Test methods.

63.1547 Monitoring requirements.

63.1548 Notification requirements.

63.1549 Recordkeeping and reporting

requirements.

63.1550 Delegation of Authority.

Subpart TTT—National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Primary Lead Smelters

§ 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), § 63.12 (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 and

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), § 63.8

(Monitoring requirements), § 63.9

(Notification requirements), and § 63.10

(Recordkeeping and reporting

requirements). Sections § 63.11 (Control

device requirements) does not apply to

this subpart.

TABLE 1.—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART TTT

Reference Applies to

subpart TTT Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

3), (h)(5–6), (i), and (j).

Yes ............

63.9 ........................................... (g) ............................................. No .............. No CMS required by rule.
19212 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1.—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART TTT—Continued

Reference Applies to

subpart TTT Comment

63.9 ........................................... (f) and (h)(4) ............................ No .............. No opacity or visible emission limits in rule.

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

63.11 ......................................... .................................................. No .............. Flares will not be used to comply with the emission limits.

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

§ 63.1542 Definitions.

Terms used in this subpart are

defined in the Act, in subpart A of this

part, or in this section as follows:

Blast furnace means any reduction

furnace to which sinter is charged and

which forms separate layers of molten

slag and lead bullion.

Charging location means the physical

opening through which raw materials

are introduced into a sinter machine,

blast furnace, or dross furnace.

Dross furnace means any smelting

furnace to which drosses are charged

and which chemically and physically

separates lead from other impurities.

Drossing and refining kettle means an

open-top vessel that is constructed of

cast iron or steel and is indirectly

heated from below and contains molten

lead for the purpose of drossing,

refining, or alloying lead. Included are

pot furnaces, receiving kettles, and

holding kettles.

Fugitive dust source means a

stationary source of hazardous air

pollutant emissions at a primary lead

smelter resulting from the handling,

storage, transfer, or other management

of lead-bearing materials where the

source is not associated with a specific

process, process vent, or stack. Fugitive

dust sources include roadways, storage

piles, materials handling transfer points,

and materials transport areas.

Furnace area means any area of a

primary lead smelter in which a blast

furnace or dross furnace is located.

Materials storage and handling area

means any area of a primary lead

smelter in which lead-bearing materials

(including ore concentrate, sinter,

granulated lead, dross, slag, and flue

dust) are stored or handled between

process steps, including areas in which

materials are stored in piles, bins, or

tubs, and areas in which material is

prepared for charging to a sinter

machine or smelting furnace.

Plant roadway means any area of a

primary lead smelter that is subject to

vehicle traffic, including traffic by fork

lifts, front-end loaders, or vehicles

carrying ore concentrates or cast lead

ingots. Excluded from this definition are

employee and visitor parking areas,

provided they are not subject to traffic

by vehicles carrying lead-bearing

materials.

Primary lead smelter means any

facility engaged in the production of

lead metal from lead sulfide ore

concentrates through the use of

pyrometallurigal techniques.

Process fugitive source means a

source of hazardous air pollutant

emissions at a primary lead smelter that

is associated with lead smelting or

refining but is not the primary exhaust

stream and is not a fugitive dust source.

Process fugitive sources include sinter

machine charging locations, sinter

machine discharge locations, sinter

crushing and sizing equipment, furnace

charging locations, furnace taps,

drossing kettles, and refining kettles.

Refining and casting area means any

area of a primary lead smelter in which

drossing or refining operations occur, or

casting operations occur.

Sinter machine means any device in

which a lead sulfide ore concentrate

charge is heated in the presence of air

to eliminate sulfur contained in the

charge and to agglomerate the charge

into a hard porous mass called sinter.

Sinter machine area means any area

of a primary lead smelter where a sinter

machine, or sinter crushing and sizing

equipment is located.

Sinter machine discharge end means

the physical opening at the end of a

sinter machine where the sinter exits

the sinter machine.

Tapping location means the opening

thru which lead and slag are removed

from the furnace.

Total enclosure means a roofed and

walled building with limited openings

to allow access and egress for people

and vehicles.

§ 63.1543 Standards for process and

process fugitive sources.

(a) No owner or operator of any

existing, new, or reconstructed primary

lead smelter shall discharge or cause to

be discharged into the atmosphere lead

compounds in excess of 500 grams of

lead per megagram of lead metal

produced (1.0 pounds of lead per ton of

lead metal produced) from the

aggregation of emissions discharged

from the air pollution control devices

used to control emissions from the

sources listed in paragraphs (a)(1)

through (a)(9) of this section.

(1) Sinter machine;

(2) Blast furnace;

(3) Dross furnace;

(4) Dross furnace charging location;

(5) Blast furnace and dross furnace

tapping location;

(6) Sinter machine charging location;

(7) Sinter machine discharge end;

(8) Sinter crushing and sizing

equipment; and

(9) Sinter machine area.

(b) The process fugitive sources listed

in paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(8) of this

section shall be equipped with a hood

and shall be ventilated to a baghouse or

equivalent control device. The hood

design and ventilation rate shall be

consistent with American Conference of

Governmental Industrial Hygienists

recommended practices.

(c) The sinter machine area shall be

enclosed in a building that is ventilated

to a baghouse or equivalent control

device at a rate that maintains the

building at a lower than ambient

pressure to ensure in-draft through any

doorway opening.

(d) Following the initial test to

demonstrate compliance with paragraph

(a) of this section, the owner or operator

of a primary lead smelter shall conduct

a compliance test for lead compounds

on an annual basis (no later than 12

calendar months following the previous

compliance test).

§ 63.1544 Standards for fugitive dust

sources.

(a) Each owner or operator of a

primary lead smelter shall prepare, and

at all times operate according to, a

standard operating procedures manual

that describes in detail the measures

that will be put in place to control

fugitive dust emissions from the sources

listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5)

of this section:

(1) Plant roadways;

(2) Material storage and handling area;

(3) Sinter machine area;

(4) Furnace area; and

(5) Refining and casting area.

(b) The standard operating procedures

manual shall be submitted to the

Administrator or delegated authority for

review and approval.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19213

(c) Existing manuals that describe the

measures in place to control fugitive

emission sources required as part of a

State Implementation Plan for lead shall

satisfy the requirements of paragraph (a)

of this section provided they address the

sources listed in paragraphs (a)(1)

through (a)(5) of this section.

§ 63.1545 Compliance dates.

(a) Each owner or operator of an

existing primary lead smelter shall

achieve compliance with the

requirements of this subpart no later

than [date 24 months after publication

of the final rule].

(b) Each owner or operator of a

primary lead smelter that commences

construction or reconstruction after

April 17, 1998 shall achieve compliance

with the requirements of this subpart by

[Insert date of publication of final rule]

or upon startup of operations,

whichever is later.

§ 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 (9) shall be determined

according to the following test methods

in appendix A of part 60 of this chapter:

(i) Method 1 shall be used to select

the sampling port location and the

number of traverse points.

(ii) Method 2 shall be used to measure

volumetric flow rate.

(iii) Method 3 shall be used for gas

analysis.

(iv) Method 4 shall be used to

determine moisture content of the stack

gas.

(v) Method 12 shall be used to

measure the lead emission rate of the

stack gas. The minimum sample volume

shall be 0.85 dry standard cubic meters

(30 dry standard cubic feet) and the

minimum sampling time shall be 60

minutes for each run. Three runs shall

be performed and the average of the

three runs shall be used to determine

compliance.

(2) The lead production rate, in units

of megagrams per hour, shall be

determined based on production data

for the previous 12 calender months

according to the procedure detailed in

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

section:

(i) Total lead products production

multiplied by the fractional lead content

shall be determined in units of

megagrams.

(ii) Total copper matte production

multiplied by the fractional lead content

shall be determined in units of

megagrams.

(iii) Total copper speiss production

multiplied by the fractional lead content

shall be determined in units of

megagrams.

(iv) Total lead production shall be

determined by summing the values

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

(iii) of this section.

(v) The lead production rate, in units

of megagrams per hour, shall be

calculated based on the total lead

production obtained in paragraph

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

hours.

(3) The sum of lead compound

emission rates for the sources in

§ 63.1543(a)(1) through (9) obtained in

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

divided by the lead production rate

obtained in paragraph (a)(2)(v) of this

section to obtain a production based

lead compound emission rate in units of

grams of lead per megagram of lead

metal produced. The production based

lead compound emission rate shall be

used to determine compliance with the

emissions standard for lead compounds

under § 63.1543(a).

(b) Owners and operators shall

determine compliance with the doorway

in-draft requirement for buildings in

§ 63.1543(b) and § 63.1544(c) using the

procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2)

of this section.

(1)(i) Owners and operators shall use

a propeller anemometer or equivalent

device.

(ii) Doorway in-draft shall be

determined by placing the anemometer

in the plane of the doorway opening

near its center.

(iii) Doorway in-draft shall be

demonstrated for each doorway that is

open during normal operation with all

remaining doorways in their customary

position during normal operation.

(2)(i) Owners and operators shall

install a differential pressure gage on the

leeward wall of the building to measure

the pressure difference between the

inside and outside of the building.

(ii) The pressure gage shall be

certified by the manufacturer to be

capable of measuring pressure

differential in the range of 0.02 to 0.2

mm Hg.

(iii) Both the inside and outside taps

shall be shielded to reduce the effects of

wind.

(iv) Owners and operators shall

demonstrate the inside of the building is

maintained at a negative pressure as

compared to the outside of the building

of no less than 0.02 mm Hg when all

doors are in the position they are in

during normal operation.

§ 63.1547 Monitoring requirements.

(a) Owners and operators of primary

lead smelters shall prepare, and at all

times operate according to, a standard

operating procedures manual that

describes in detail procedures for

inspection, maintenance, and bag leak

detection and corrective action for all

baghouses that are used to control

process, process fugitive, or fugitive

dust emissions from any source subject

to the lead emission standards in

§§ 63.1543 and 63.1544 including those

used to control emissions from building

ventilation.

(b) The standard operating procedures

manual for baghouses required by

paragraph (a) of this section shall be

submitted to the Administrator or

delegated authority for review and

approval.

(c) The procedures specified in the

standard operating procedures manual

for inspections and routine maintenance

shall, at a minimum, include the

requirements of paragraphs (c)(1)

through (c)(9) of this section.

(1) Daily monitoring of pressure drop

across each baghouse cell.

(2) Weekly confirmation that dust is

being removed from hoppers through

visual inspection, or equivalent means

of ensuring the proper functioning of

removal mechanisms.

(3) Daily check of compressed air

supply for pulse-jet baghouses.

(4) An appropriate methodology for

monitoring cleaning cycles to ensure

proper operation.

(5) Monthly check of bag cleaning

mechanisms for proper functioning

through visual inspection or equivalent

means.

(6) Quarterly check of bag tension on

reverse air and shaker-type baghouses.

Such checks are not required for shakertype baghouses using self-tensioning

(spring loaded) devices.

(7) Quarterly confirmation of the

physical integrity of the baghouse

through visual inspection of the

baghouse interior for air leaks.

(8) Quarterly inspection of fans for

wear, material buildup, and corrosion

through visual inspection, vibration

detectors, or equivalent means.

(9) Except as provided in paragraphs

(g) and (h) of this section, continuous

operation of a bag leak detection system.

(d) The procedures specified in the

standard operating procedures manual

for maintenance shall, at a minimum,

include a preventative maintenance

schedule that is consistent with the

baghouse manufacturer’s instructions

for routine and long-term maintenance.

(e) The bag leak detection system

required by paragraph (c)(9) of this

section, shall meet the specifications
19214 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules

and requirements of paragraphs (e)(1)

through (e)(8) of this section.

(1) The bag leak detection system

must be certified by the manufacturer to

be capable of detecting particulate

matter emissions at concentrations of 10

milligram per actual cubic meter (0.0044

grains per actual cubic foot) or less.

(2) The bag leak detection system

sensor must provide output of relative

particulate matter loadings.

(3) The bag leak detection system

must be equipped with an alarm system

that will alarm when an increase in

relative particulate loadings is detected

over a preset level.

(4) The bag leak detection system

shall be installed and operated in a

manner consistent with available

written guidance from the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency or, in

the absence of such written guidance,

the manufacturer’s written

specifications and recommendations for

installation, operation, and adjustment

of the system.

(5) The initial adjustment of the

system shall, at a minimum, consist of

establishing the baseline output by

adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the

averaging period of the device, and

establishing the alarm set points and the

alarm delay time.

(6) Following initial adjustment, the

owner or operator shall not adjust the

sensitivity or range, averaging period,

alarm set points, or alarm delay time,

except as detailed in the approved SOP

required under paragraph (a) of this

section. In no event shall the sensitivity

be increased by more than 100 percent

or decreased more than 50 percent over

a 365 day period unless such

adjustment follows a complete baghouse

inspection which demonstrates the

baghouse is in good operating condition.

(7) For negative pressure, induced air

baghouses, and positive pressure

baghouses that are discharged to the

atmosphere through a stack, the bag leak

detector must be installed downstream

of the baghouse and upstream of any

wet acid gas scrubber.

(8) Where multiple detectors are

required, the system’s instrumentation

and alarm may be shared among

detectors.

(f) The standard operating procedures

manual required by paragraph (a) of this

section shall include a corrective action

plan that specifies the procedures to be

followed in the event of a bag leak

detection system alarm. The corrective

action plan shall include, at a

minimum, the procedures used to

determine and record the time and

cause of the alarm as well as the

corrective actions taken to correct the

control device malfunction or minimize

emissions as specified in paragraphs

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

(1) The procedures used to determine

the cause of the alarm must be initiated

within 30 minutes of the alarm.

(2) The cause of the alarm must be

alleviated by taking the necessary

corrective action(s) which may include,

but not be limited to, paragraphs (f)(2)(i)

through (f)(2)(vi) of this section.

(i) Inspecting the baghouse for air

leaks, torn or broken filter elements, or

any other malfunction that may cause

an increase in emissions.

(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter

media.

(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter

media, or otherwise repairing the

control device.

(iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse

compartment.

(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection

system probe, or otherwise repairing the

bag leak detection system.

(vi) Shutting down the process

producing the particulate emissions.

(g) Baghouses equipped with HEPA

filters as a secondary filter used to

control process or process fugitive

sources subject to the lead emission

standards in § 63.1543 are exempt from

the requirement in paragraph (c)(9) of

this section to be equipped with a bag

leak detector. The owner or operator of

an affected source that uses a HEPA

filter shall monitor and record the

pressure drop across the HEPA filter

system daily. If the pressure drop is

outside the limit(s) specified by the

filter manufacturer, the owner or

operator must take appropriate

corrective measures, which may

include, but not be limited to, those set

forth in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4)

of this section.

(1) Inspecting the filter and filter

housing for air leaks and torn or broken

filters.

(2) Replacing defective filter media, or

otherwise repairing the control device.

(3) Sealing off a defective control

device by routing air to other control

devices.

(4) Shutting down the process

producing the particulate emissions.

(h) Baghouses that are used

exclusively for the control of fugitive

dust emissions from any source subject

to the lead emissions standard in

§ 63.1544 are exempt from the

requirement in paragraph (c)(9) of this

section to be equipped with a bag leak

detector.

§ 63.1548 Notification requirements.

(a) Initial notifications. As required by

§ 63.9(b) of subpart A, the owner or

operator shall submit the following

written notifications to the

Administrator:

(1) The owner or operator of an area

source that subsequently becomes

subject to the requirements of the

standard shall provide notification to

the applicable permitting authority as

required by § 63.9(b)(1) of subpart A.

(2) As required by § 63.9(b)(2) of

subpart A, the owner or operator of an

affected source that has an initial

startup before [the effective date of the

final rule] shall notify the Administrator

that the source is subject to the

requirements of the standard. The

notification shall be submitted not later

than 120 calendar days after [the

effective date of the final rule] (or

within 120 calendar days after the

source becomes subject to this standard)

and shall contain the information

specified in § 63.9(b)(2)(i) through

(b)(2)(v) of subpart A.

(3) As required by § 63.9(b)(3) of

subpart A, the owner or operator of a

new or reconstructed affected source, or

a source that has been reconstructed

such that it is an affected source, that

has an initial startup after [the effective

date of the final rule] and for which an

application for approval of construction

or reconstruction is not required under

§ 63.5(d) of subpart A, shall notify the

Administrator in writing that the source

is subject to the standards no later than

120 days after initial startup. The

notification shall contain the

information specified in § 63.9(b)(2)(i)

through (b)(2)(v) of subpart A, delivered

or postmarked with the notification

required in § 63.9(b)(5) of subpart A.

(4) As required by § 63.9(b)(4) of

subpart A, the owner or operator of a

new or reconstructed major affected

source that has an initial startup after

[the effective date of the final rule] and

for which an application for approval of

construction or reconstruction is

required under § 63.5(d) of subpart A

shall provide the information specified

in § 63.9(b)(4)(i) through (b)(4)(v) of

subpart A.

(5) As required by § 63.9(b)(5) of

subpart A, the owner or operator who,

after [the effective date of the final rule],

intends to construct a new affected

source or reconstruct an affected source

subject to this standard, or reconstruct

a source such that it becomes an

affected source subject to this standard,

shall notify the Administrator, in

writing, of the intended construction or

reconstruction.

(b) Request for extension of

compliance. As provided by § 63.9(c) of

subpart A, if the owner or operator of an

affected source cannot comply with this

standard by the applicable compliance

date for that source, or if the owner or

operator has installed BACT or

technology to meet LAER consistent
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19215

with § 63.6(i)(5) of subpart A, they may

submit to the Administrator (or the State

with an approved permit program) a

request for an extension of the

applicable compliance date as specified

in § 63.6(i)(4) through (i)(6) of subpart

A.

(c) Notification that source is subject

to special compliance requirements. As

required by § 63.9(d) of subpart A, an

owner or operator of a new source that

is subject to special compliance

requirements as specified in § 63.6(b)(3)

and (b)(4) of subpart A shall notify the

Administrator of his/her compliance

obligations not later than the

notification dates established in

§ 63.9(b) of subpart A for new sources

that are not subject to the special

provisions.

(d) Notification of performance test.

As required by § 63.9(e) of subpart A,

the owner or operator of an affected

source shall notify the Administrator in

writing of his or her intention to

conduct a performance test at least 60

calendar days before the performance

test is scheduled to begin to allow the

Administrator to review and approve

the site-specific test plan required under

§ 63.7(c) of subpart A, if requested by

the Administrator, and to have an

observer present during the test.

(e) Notification of compliance status.

The owner or operator of an affected

source shall submit a notification of

compliance status as required by

§ 63.9(h) of subpart A when the source

becomes subject to this subpart.

(f) Additional notification

requirements. The owner or operator of

a primary lead smelter shall submit the

fugitive dust control standard operating

procedures manual required under

§ 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 [Insert date 18 months

after publication of final rule]. The

owner or operator of a primary lead

smelter that commences construction or

reconstruction after April 17, 1998, shall

submit this notification no later than

180 days before startup of the

constructed or reconstructed primary

lead smelter, but no sooner than [Insert

date 90 days after publication of final

rule].

§ 63.1549 Recordkeeping and reporting

requirements.

(a) General recordkeeping

requirements. As required by

§ 63.10(b)(2) of subpart A, the owner or

operator shall maintain the following

records for five years from the date of

each record:

(1) The occurrence and duration of

each startup, shutdown, or malfunction

of process equipment;

(2) The occurrence and duration of

each malfunction of the source or air

pollution control equipment;

(3) All maintenance performed on the

air pollution control equipment;

(4) Actions taken during periods of

startup, shutdown, and malfunction

(including corrective actions to restore

malfunctioning process and air

pollution control equipment to its

normal or usual manner of operation)

when such actions are different from the

procedures specified in the startup,

shutdown, and malfunction plan;

(5) All information necessary to

demonstrate conformance with the

startup, shutdown, and malfunction

plan when all actions taken during

periods of startup, shutdown, and

malfunction (including corrective

actions) are consistent with the

procedures specified in such plan. This

information can be recorded in a

checklist or similar form [see

§ 63.10(b)(2)(v) of subpart A.];

(6) All required measurements needed

to demonstrate compliance with the

standard and to support data that the

source is required to report, including,

but not limited to, performance test

measurements (including initial and any

subsequent performance tests) and

measurements as may be necessary to

determine the conditions of the initial

test or subsequent tests;

(7) All results of initial or subsequent

performance tests;

(8) If the owner or operator has been

granted a waiver from recordkeeping or

reporting requirements under § 63.10(f)

of subpart A, any information

demonstrating whether a source is

meeting the requirements for a waiver of

recordkeeping or reporting

requirements;

(9) If the owner or operator has been

granted a waiver from the initial

performance test under § 63.7(h) of

subpart A, a copy of the full request and

the Administrator’s approval or

disapproval;

(10) All documentation supporting

initial notifications and notifications of

compliance status required by § 63.9 of

subpart A; and

(11) Records of any applicability

determination, including supporting

analyses.

(b) Subpart TTT records. In addition

to the general records required by

paragraph (a) of this section, each owner

or operator of a primary lead smelter

shall maintain for a period of 5 years,

records of the information listed in

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this

section.

(1) Production records of the weight

and lead content of lead products,

copper matte, and copper speiss.

(2) An identification of the date and

time of all bag leak detection system

alarms, their cause, and an explanation

of the corrective actions taken.

(3) Any recordkeeping required as

part of the practices described in the

standard operating procedures manual

required under § 63.1544(a) for the

control of fugitive dust emissions.

(4) Any recordkeeping required as

part of the practices described in the

standard operating procedures manual

for baghouses required under

§ 63.1547(a).

(c) General records and subpart TTT

records for the most recent two years of

operation must be maintained on site.

Records for the previous three years

may be maintained off site.

(d) General reporting requirements.

As required by subpart A, the owner or

operator shall submit the following

reports to the Administrator or

delegated authority:

(1) As required by § 63.10(d)(2) of this

part, the owner or operator of an

affected source shall report the results of

the initial and any subsequent

performance tests.

(2) The owner or operator of an

affected source who is required to

submit progress reports under § 63.6(i)

of subpart A shall submit such reports

to the Administrator (or the State with

an approved permit program) by the

dates specified in the written extension

of compliance.

(3) Section 63.6(e) of subpart A

requires the owner or operator of an

affected source to operate and maintain

each affected emission source and

associated air pollution control

equipment in a manner consistent with

good air pollution control practices for

minimizing emissions (at least to the

level required by the standard) at all

times, including during any period of

startup, shutdown, or malfunction.

Malfunctions must be corrected as soon

as practicable after their occurrence in

accordance with the startup, shutdown,

and malfunction plan.

(i) As required by § 63.6(e)(3) of

subpart A, the owner or operator shall

develop and implement a written

startup, shutdown, and malfunction

plan that provides a detailed description

of the procedures for operating the

emission source or control system

during a period of startup, shutdown, or

malfunction and a program of corrective

action for malfunctioning process and
19216 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998 / Proposed Rules

air pollution control equipment. The

plan shall be submitted to the

Administrator for review and approval

no later than the compliance date given

in § 63.1545 of this subpart.

(ii) As required by § 63.10(d)(5)(i) of

subpart A, if actions taken by an owner

or operator during a startup, shutdown,

or malfunction of an affected source

(including actions taken to correct a

malfunction) are consistent with the

procedures specified in the startup,

shutdown, and malfunction plan, the

owner or operator shall state such

information in a semiannual report. The

report, to be certified by the owner or

operator or other responsible official,

shall be submitted semiannually and

delivered or postmarked by the 30th day

following the end of each calendar half;

and

(iii) Any time an action taken by an

owner or operator during a startup,

shutdown, or malfunction (including

actions taken to correct a malfunction)

is not consistent with the procedures in

the startup, shutdown, and malfunction

plan, the owner or operator shall

comply with all requirements of

§ 63.10(d)(5)(ii) of subpart A.

(e) Subpart TTT Reports. In addition

to the information required under

§ 63.10 of the General Provisions, the

owner or operator shall provide semiannual reports containing the

information specified in paragraphs

(e)(1) through (e)(4) of this section to the

Administrator or designated authority.

(1) The reports shall include records

of all alarms from the bag leak detection

system specified in § 63.1547(e).

(2) The reports shall include a

description of the procedures taken

following each bag leak detection

system alarm pursuant to § 63.1547(f)(1)

and (2).

(3) The reports shall contain a

summary of the records maintained as

part of the practices described in the

standard operating procedures manual

for baghouses required under

§ 63.1547(a), including an explanation

of the periods when the procedures

were not followed and the corrective

actions taken.

(4) The reports shall contain a

summary of the fugitive dust control

measures performed during the required

reporting period, including an

explanation of any periods when the

procedures outlined in the standard

operating procedures manual required

by § 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(d) of the Act, the authorities

contained in paragraph (b) of this

section shall be retained by the

administrator and not transferred to a

state.

(b) Authorities which will not be

delegated to States: no restrictions.

[FR Doc. 98–10011 Filed 4–16–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 68

[FRL–5997–2]

RIN 2050–AE46

Accidental Release Prevention

Requirements: Risk Management

Programs Under Clean Air Act Section

112(r)(7); Amendments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: On June 20, 1996, EPA

published risk management program

regulations, mandated under the

accidental release prevention provisions

of the Clean Air Act (CAA). These

regulations require owners and

operators of stationary sources subject to

the regulations to submit risk

management plans (RMPs) by June 21,

1999, to a central location specified by

EPA. EPA is proposing amendments to

these rules to reflect the government’s

adoption of a new industrial

classification system, to add some data

elements to the RMP, to establish

explicit procedures for protecting

confidential information, and to clarify

certain items. These changes will bring

the rule up to date with the new

industrial classification system, provide

information in the RMP that will make

the data more useful, and clarify

procedures and requirements. The

proposed amendments in this rule

address the submission of RMP

information to EPA; the amendments do

not address the means by which the

public could access RMP information.

DATES: Comments are due on June 1,

1998. Anyone requesting a public

hearing must contact EPA no later than

May 4, 1998. If a hearing is held, EPA

will publish the date, time and location

in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

mailed to the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Attn: Docket A–98–

08, Room 1500, 401 M St. SW,

Washington, DC 20460. E-mail

comments should be sent to: A-AND-RDOCKET@epamail.epa.gov; if comments

are filed as an attachment to an e-mail,

the attachment must be in WordPerfect

6.1 or an ASCII file. Paper comments

should be submitted in triplicate;

comments may be submitted on disk in

WordPerfect 6.1 or an ASCII file.

Persons interested in presenting oral

testimony or inquiring as to whether a

hearing is to be held should notify the

person listed in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sicy

Jacob, Chemical Engineer, Chemical

Emergency Preparedness and

Prevention Office, Environmental

Protection Agency (5101), 401 M Street

SW, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260–

7249, or the Emergency Planning and

Community Right-to-Know Hotline at 1–

800–424–9346 (in the Washington, DC

metropolitan area, (703) 412–9810).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this

action are those stationary sources that

have more than a threshold quantity of

a regulated substance in a process.

Regulated categories and entities

include:

Category Examples of regulated

entities

Chemical Manufacturers.Basic chemical manufacturing, petrochemicals, resins, agricultural chemicals, pharmaceuticals, paints,

cleaning compounds.

Petroleum .............. Refineries.

Other Manufacturing.Paper, electronics,

semiconductors, fabricated metals, industrial machinery, food

processing.

Agriculture .............. Agricultural retailers.

Public Sources ....... Drinking water and

wastewater treatment

systems.

Utilities ................... Electric and gas utilities.

Other ...................... Propane retailers and

users, cold storage,

warehousing and

wholesalers.

Federal Sources .... Military and energy installations.

This table is not meant to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this action. The table lists

the types of entities that EPA is aware