[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 110 (Thursday, June 9, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-13667]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: June 9, 1994]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-4892-6]
RIN 2060-AE04

 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 
(Secondary Lead Smelters)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

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

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes standards that would limit emissions of 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP's) from new and existing secondary lead 
smelters. The proposed standards partially implement section 112(d) of 
the Clean Air Act (the Act) as amended in November 1990, which requires 
the Administrator to regulate categories of major and area sources of 
HAP's listed in section 112(b) of the Act. The intent of the standards 
is to reduce HAP emissions from secondary lead smelters to the maximum 
degree achievable through the application of maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT). The EPA is also proposing to add secondary lead 
smelters that are area sources to the list of source categories that 
will be subject to MACT standards.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before August 8, 1994.
    Public Hearing. If a request to speak at a public hearing is 
received, the hearing will be held on July 11, 1994, beginning at 10 
a.m. Requests to speak at a public hearing must be received by the EPA 
by June 30, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if 
possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), 
Attention Docket No. A-92-43, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 
M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The Agency requests that a 
separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed below.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is requested, it will be held 
at the EPA Office of Administration auditorium in Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina. Persons interested in attending the hearing or 
wishing to present oral testimony should contact Mary Hinson, 
Industrial Studies Branch (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number 
(919) 541-5601.
    Background Information Document. The Background Information 
Document (BID) for the proposed standard may be obtained from the 
docket or from the US EPA Library (MD-35), Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2777. Please refer to 
``Secondary Lead Smelting--Background Information Document for Proposed 
Emissions Standards,'' EPA No. EPA-450/R-94-024.
    Docket. Docket No. A-92-43 contains supporting information used in 
developing the proposed standards. The docket is located at the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20460 in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may be 
inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 to 3 p.m., Monday through 
Friday. The proposed regulatory text and other materials related to 
this rule making are available for review in the docket or copies may 
be mailed on request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A 
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the 
proposed standards and technical aspects of secondary lead smelting 
emissions and control, contact Mr. George Streit at (919) 541-2364, 
Industrial Studies Branch, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711. For information concerning the area source listing of secondary 
lead smelters, contact Ms. Dianne Byrne at (919) 541-5342, Pollutant 
Assessment Branch, Emission Standards Division (MD-13) at the above 
address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The regulatory text of the proposed rule is 
not included in this Federal Register notice, but is available in 
Docket No. A-92-43 or by request from the Air Docket (see ADDRESSES). 
If necessary, a limited number of copies is available from the EPA 
contact persons designated earlier in this notice. This Notice with the 
proposed regulatory language is also available on the Technology 
Transfer Network (TTN), one of EPA's electronic bulletin boards. 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. If more 
information on TTN is needed, call the HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Initial List of Categories of Major and Area Sources
II. Background
    A. Regulatory History
    B. Description of Source Category
    C. Emissions and Factors Affecting Emissions
    D. Adverse Health Effects Finding for Area Sources
III. NESHAP Decision Process
    A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development
    B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP
    C. Determining the MACT Floor
IV. Summary of the Proposed Standards
    A. Sources to be Regulated
    B. Proposed Emission Limits for Process Sources
    C. Proposed Standards for Process Fugitive Sources
    D. Proposed Standards for Fugitive Dust Sources
    E. Compliance Dates
    F. Compliance Test Methods
    G. Enhanced Monitoring Requirements
    H. Notification Requirements
    I. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
V. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
    A. Facilities Affected by This NESHAP
    B. Air Quality Impacts
    C. Water Quality Impacts
    D. Solid Waste Impacts
    E. Energy Impacts
    F. Cost Impacts
    G. Economic Impacts
VI. 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. Selection of the Format for the Proposed Standards for New 
and Existing Sources
    E. Selection of Emission Limits and Equipment and Work Practice 
Standards
    F. Reconstruction Considerations
    G. Selection of Compliance Dates
    H. Selection of Emission Test Methods and Schedule
    I. Selection of Proposed Enhanced Monitoring Requirements
    J. Selection of Notification Requirements
    K. Selection of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
    L. Operating Permit Program
    M. Whether to Also Regulate Air Emissions Under RCRA
    N. Solicitation of Comments
VII. Administrative Requirements
    A. Public Hearing
    B. Docket
    C. Executive Order 12866
    D. Paperwork Reduction Act
    E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    F. Pollution Prevention Considerations
    G. Miscellaneous
VIII. Statutory Authority

I. 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) for categories of sources that emit HAP's.
    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). 
Secondary lead smelters is one of the 174 categories of sources listed. 
The category consists of smelters that recycle lead-bearing scrap 
materials, primarily lead-acid batteries, into lead metal. The listing 
was based on the Administrator's determination that secondary 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 two-thirds of operating secondary 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 and, therefore, are major 
sources.
    Section 112(c)(3) directs the Administrator to list each category 
of area sources that the Administrator finds presents a threat of 
adverse effects to human health or the environment warranting 
regulation. The EPA performed an assessment of the remaining one-third 
of the secondary lead smelters not qualifying as major sources to 
determine whether the listing of these area sources for regulation 
under section 112(c)(3) was justified. Based on a detailed assessment 
of emissions, population exposure, and known and suspected health 
effects, the Administrator proposes finding that the threat of adverse 
effects to human health from area sources in the secondary lead smelter 
category is sufficient to support regulation. Smelters designated as 
area sources would, under the proposed regulation, be subject to the 
same standards as smelters qualifying as major sources. The rationale 
for this area source listing is presented in more detail in section 
II.D of this preamble.
    The secondary lead smelters category was originally in the group of 
categories for which final regulations are scheduled for promulgation 
by November 15, 1994. Final regulations are now scheduled for 
promulgation by May 31, 1995 (58 FR 63952-63953) in accordance with a 
consent decree entered in Sierra Club v. Browner, Case Number 93-0124 
(and related cases) (D.D.C. 1993).

II. Background

A. Regulatory History

    The EPA promulgated new source performance standards (NSPS) for 
secondary lead smelters on March 8, 1974 (40 CFR part 60, subpart L). 
The NSPS limit 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. Secondary lead smelters 
are also subject to state regulations enacted to prevent violations of 
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for lead. In 
addition, about one-half of smelters are subject to permit conditions 
developed under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration provisions 
of the Act.
    Secondary lead smelters must also obtain hazardous waste storage 
permits pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 
to store spent lead-acid batteries before smelting them (40 CFR 
266.80(b)). Air emissions from smelting activities, however, are not 
presently regulated under the hazardous waste rules (40 CFR 
266.100(c)).
    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). Secondary lead smelters were 
among the listed categories. On December 3, 1993, the EPA published a 
schedule for the promulgation of standards for the sources selected for 
regulation under section 112(c). According to this schedule, 
regulations for secondary lead smelters must be promulgated no later 
than May 31, 1995 (58 FR 63941). Today, the EPA is issuing a notice of 
proposed rulemaking for secondary lead smelters and is soliciting 
comments on the proposed rule.
    Air emissions from secondary lead smelters may also potentially be 
subject to regulation under the rules implementing RCRA. This is 
because the principal feed material to these devices, scrap lead-acid 
batteries, is a spent material being reclaimed, and hence is defined as 
a solid and (by virtue of the lead content) hazardous waste (40 CFR 
261.2 (a)(2)(i), (c)(3), and Ilco v. EPA, 996 F. 2d 1126 (11th Cir. 
1993)). In 1991, the EPA decided to defer RCRA standards for the air 
emissions from these devices, in large part because the forthcoming 
Clean Air Act MACT standards might make further RCRA controls 
unnecessary (56 FR 7142 (Feb. 21, 1991)) (40 CFR 266.100(c)). In 
proposing this rule, EPA believes that this rule also satisfies the 
goals and objectives of RCRA so that any further RCRA regulation of air 
emissions would be unnecessary. The EPA is specifically soliciting 
comments on this decision.

B. Description of Source Category

    Secondary lead smelters are recycling facilities that use blast, 
rotary, reverberatory, and/or electric furnaces to recover lead metal 
from lead-bearing scrap materials, primarily lead-acid batteries. The 
secondary lead smelters source category does not include remelters and 
refiners or primary lead smelters.
    There are 23 secondary lead smelters in the United States, although 
only 16 of them were operating as of December 1993. Smelters often 
close temporarily when the price of lead is low. A current trend in the 
industry is toward fewer but larger smelters, although overall industry 
capacity has been relatively constant.
    Lead-acid batteries represent about 90 percent of the lead-bearing 
raw materials at a typical secondary lead smelter. The majority of 
these batteries are automotive-type batteries and the remainder are 
industrial and uninterruptible power supply batteries. The other 10 
percent of lead-bearing materials are battery plant scrap, defective 
batteries, drosses from refining operations, and other scrap such as 
lead pipes and roof flashing.
    About 98 percent of all lead-acid batteries are recycled at 
secondary lead smelters. The remaining 2 percent are either stored 
indefinitely in residential basements and garages, disposed of as 
municipal solid waste, or dumped illegally. Secondary lead smelters, 
however, represent the only acceptable disposal option for used 
batteries, and these smelters also recover or treat the plastic case 
material and sulfuric acid from automotive-type batteries.
    The secondary lead smelting process consists of: (1) Breaking lead-
acid batteries and separating the lead-bearing materials from the other 
materials, including the plastic case material and acid electrolyte, 
(2) melting lead metal and reducing lead compounds to lead metal in the 
smelting furnace, and (3) refining and alloying the lead to customer 
specifications.
    Battery breaking is accomplished using hammermills to crush whole 
batteries. Saws are used at some blast furnace smelters to cut open 
batteries so that the lead grids from inside the battery can be removed 
intact as whole units. The empty cases are then sent to a hammermill 
for crushing. Following battery breaking, a sink/float separator is 
used to separate the lead-bearing materials from the polypropylene 
plastic from the battery cases, which is sold for recycling.
    The lead-bearing components are then sent directly to a materials 
storage and handling area or are chemically treated to remove the 
sulfur in the lead paste attached to the battery grids. The 
desulfurization step is performed to reduce sulfur emissions from the 
smelting furnace and to improve furnace efficiency.
    Lead-bearing materials are typically stored in bins or enclosures 
before being charged to the smelting furnaces. If the storage area is 
not totally enclosed, the storage piles and the roadways between them 
are usually kept wet to prevent the formation of dust that may cause 
fugitive emissions. Materials are handled within the smelter by front-
end loaders, enclosed screw conveyors, and belt- or pan-type conveyors.
    Broken battery components are charged to the smelting furnaces 
along with lead-bearing slag, dross, flue dust recycled from the air 
pollution control devices, fluxing agents (including iron, silica sand, 
and limestone or soda ash), and coke. Fluxing agents are added to blast 
and rotary furnaces to promote the conversion of lead compounds to lead 
metal. Coke is added to blast furnaces as a fuel and to rotary and 
reverberatory furnaces as a fluxing agent. A dryer may be used prior to 
charging a reverberatory furnace to remove moisture from the charge 
materials. A dryer is typically a large, rotating chamber heated to 
about 200  deg.C (400  deg.F) by a gas-fired burner. The exhaust from 
the dryer is drawn directly into the reverberatory furnace.
    Smelting is performed in reverberatory, blast, rotary, or electric 
smelting furnaces. Reverberatory and blast furnaces are the most common 
types of smelting furnaces. Reverberatory furnaces are always operated 
in conjunction with a blast furnace or an electric furnace. Blast and 
rotary furnaces may be operated independently of other furnace types. 
All smelting furnaces operate at a temperature of about 980 to 1,200 
deg.C (1,800 to 2,200  deg.F).
    Blast furnaces are vertical shaft furnaces that use coke as a fuel 
source. The combustion zone of the furnace is at the bottom of the 
vertical shaft, where combustion air is injected through tuyeres. The 
combustion gases then pass through a thick column of charge material 
before being vented to a control device. Exhaust temperatures are 
relatively cool, typically about 420 to 480  deg.C (800 to 900  deg.F).
    Rotary furnaces consist of a rotating, refractory-lined cylinder 
and are fired in the same way as reverberatory furnaces. Unlike other 
smelting furnaces, which are operated on a continuous basis, rotary 
furnaces are operated on a batch cycle consisting of charging, 
smelting, and tapping of lead and slag.
    Blast and rotary furnaces produce hard and semi-soft lead, 
respectively, by adding soda ash (Na2CO3) or limestone 
(CaCO3) to the charge materials as fluxing agents. These fluxing 
agents promote the reaction of lead sulfate (PbSO4) and carbon 
(from coke) to reduce the PbSO4 to elemental lead. The fluxing 
agents, however, also promote the reduction of oxides of alloying 
metals to their elemental forms. These metals are tapped from the 
furnace with the lead in the form of a hard or semi-soft lead alloy.
    Reverberatory furnaces are rectangular, refractory-lined furnaces 
that use natural gas- or propane-fired jets to heat the walls and roof 
of the furnace and the charge materials. Reverberatory furnaces are 
used to produce soft (nearly pure) or semi-soft lead by reducing lead 
compounds to metallic form, but at the same time oxidizing the alloying 
elements so that they are removed in the slag. Therefore, soda ash and 
limestone fluxing agents are added to reverberatory furnaces in much 
smaller quantities than to blast or rotary furnaces.
    Reverberatory furnace slag has a much higher lead content than 
blast or rotary furnace slag because of the lower reducing conditions 
of the furnace. This slag must be processed in a blast or electric 
furnace to recover the remaining lead fraction. For this reason, 
reverberatory furnaces are always operated in conjunction with a blast 
or electric furnace.
    There is only one electric furnace in use in the U. S. secondary 
lead industry. It is collocated with a reverberatory furnace at one of 
three smelters owned by the same company. The electric furnace is only 
used to process reverberatory furnace slag from the furnace with which 
it is collocated and slag shipped in from the company's other two 
smelters. The charge materials in the furnace are heated by passing an 
electric current through them. The electric furnace produces a hard 
lead similar to that from a blast furnace.
    Blast, rotary, and electric furnaces produce a final slag that 
cannot be recycled and that must be disposed of as a solid waste. This 
slag, however, may qualify as a hazardous waste and must be disposed of 
in an approved landfill.
    The lead tapped from smelting furnaces is refined and alloyed in 
open-top refining kettles that are heated from underneath by a gas-
fired burner. Impurities are removed from the molten lead as drosses 
that float on the surface of the lead. Drosses often have a high lead 
content and are therefore recycled to the smelting furnace. After 
refining, lead is pumped from the refining kettle into a machine for 
casting into ingots. These ingots are stored at the smelter before 
being shipped to a customer or transferred to a collocated battery 
manufacturing facility.
    Flue dust collected from baghouses at secondary lead smelters is 
recycled to the smelting furnaces for recovery of the lead content. At 
smelters that operate blast furnaces, an agglomerating furnace is used 
to heat and melt the flue dust so that it can be cast into molds before 
being recycled to the furnace. This is done to facilitate handling of 
the dust and to prevent the dust from clogging the blast furnace charge 
column.

C. Emissions and Factors Affecting Emissions

    Hazardous air pollutants are emitted from secondary lead smelters 
as: (1) Process emissions contained in the primary exhaust of smelting 
furnaces, (2) process fugitive emissions associated with charging and 
tapping of smelting furnaces and lead refining kettles, and (3) 
fugitive dust emissions from wind or mechanically induced entrainment 
of dust from stockpiles and plant yards and roadways.
1. Process Emissions
    Smelting furnaces are sources of all three classes of HAP's: metal, 
organic, and acid gas [chlorine (Cl2) and hydrochloric acid 
(Hcl)]. The mix and relative quantities of potential emissions are 
highly dependent on furnace type and use. Metal HAP emissions from 
process sources are produced through the volatilization of the metals 
contained in the feed materials by the elevated smelting temperatures 
or by the entrainment of metal-containing PM in the furnace exhaust. 
All smelting furnace types emit substantial quantities of metal 
compounds, ranging from 40 to 100 Mg/yr (uncontrolled). About 70 
percent of metal HAP emissions are lead compounds, with lesser amounts 
of antimony, arsenic, and other metal compounds. Controlled emissions, 
however, are typically less than 1 Mg/yr.
    Organic HAP emissions from smelting furnaces result from incomplete 
combustion of organic-containing materials (coke, plastic separators, 
and hard rubber battery case material) in the furnace charge, as well 
as coke and other fuels used for combustion. The emissions potential 
for organic HAP's is highly variable. Blast furnaces typically emit 
larger amounts of organic HAP's than other furnace types. A typical 
uncontrolled blast furnace can emit over 100 Mg/yr of a mixture of 
about 30 organic HAP's. The most predominant HAP's are benzene, carbon 
disulfide, 1-3-butadiene, methyl chloride, and styrene. Also found in 
blast furnace emissions are trace amounts of dioxins/furans. Emissions 
of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD), which is a HAP, 
are about 0.07 grams per year from a typical blast furnace. Emissions 
of total dioxins/furans, expressed as 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalents 
are about 0.3 grams per year.
    Reverberatory and rotary furnaces have comparatively low organic 
HAP emissions. Uncontrolled emissions from a typical furnace are less 
than 4 Mg/yr of a mixture of about 25 or 30 organic HAP's. The most 
predominant are benzene, 1-3-butadiene, formaldehyde, and styrene. 
Reverberatory and rotary furnaces are operated at much higher flue gas 
temperatures [about 980 to 1,200  deg.C (1,800 to 2,200  deg.F)] and 
turbulence and achieve more complete combustion than blast furnaces. As 
a result, reverberatory and rotary furnaces tend to have much lower 
organic HAP emissions. Emissions of dioxins/furans from these furnaces 
are near or below detection limits.
    The one electric furnace now in operation processes only slag 
(which contains little, if any, organic material) and uses no coke or 
other fossil fuel. Therefore, organic HAP emissions are presumed to be 
very low. This presumption is confirmed by CO emissions of only 1.1 
kilograms per hour (kg/hr) [2.5 pounds per hour (lb/hr)] and a CO 
concentration of 26 parts per million by volume (ppmv), according to 
the results of a test conducted by the smelter operator (Docket A-92-
43, Item No. II-B-8).
    For reverberatory/blast furnace configurations, a substantially 
lower level of organic HAP emissions is possible than for blast 
furnaces alone. Commingling (blending) the blast furnace exhaust 
(temperature about 500  deg.C) and the much hotter reverberatory 
furnace exhaust (about 1,000  deg.C) contributes significantly to the 
destruction of the organic HAP compounds in the blast furnace exhaust. 
Organic HAP emissions from such a commingled configuration are also 
about 4 Mg/yr.
    All smelting furnaces that process broken batteries are potential 
sources of Hcl and Cl2 emissions. Many used lead-acid batteries 
contain polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic separators between the battery 
grids, although the use of PVC plastic as a separator material has been 
discontinued by most battery manufacturers. These separators are 
typically not removed from the lead-bearing parts of the battery during 
the battery breaking and separation process. When the PVC plastic is 
burned in the smelting furnace, the chlorides are released as HCl, 
Cl2, and chlorinated hydrocarbons.
    In blast furnaces and rotary furnaces, soda ash or limestone are 
used as fluxing agents to increase the reduction of lead compounds to 
elemental lead. These fluxing agents also combine with the chlorine in 
the charge materials to form sodium chloride (NaCl) and calcium 
chloride (CaCl2) salts, which are removed with the slag. As a 
result, these furnaces have low HCl and Cl2 emissions, typically 
less than 1 Mg/yr total.
    In reverberatory furnaces, however, much less fluxing agent is 
added to the charge material than in blast or rotary furnaces in order 
to produce a soft lead product. Less of the chlorine is removed in the 
slag and, therefore, reverberatory furnaces have higher HCl and 
Cl2 emissions than blast or rotary furnaces, about 100 Mg/yr of 
HCl and 4 Mg/yr of Cl2.
    The one electric furnace in use is not a source of HCl or Cl2 
emissions because it processes only slag from a reverberatory furnace 
to which fluxing agents are added. Any chlorine present in the slag 
should be in the form of CaCl2 or NaCl and cannot be emitted as 
HCl or Cl2.
2. Process Fugitive Emissions
    Process fugitive emissions result from furnace charging, lead and 
slag tapping, lead refining and casting, dust agglomerating, and 
battery breaking. Process fugitive emissions contain metal HAP's and, 
in some cases, organic HAP's. Total uncontrolled metal HAP emissions 
from all process fugitive sources at a typical smelter range from 10 to 
80 Mg/yr, depending on smelter capacity. Metal HAP emissions are 
independent of furnace configuration. Controlled metal HAP process 
fugitive emissions are typically less than 1 Mg/yr.
    Depending on charging method, hood design, and ventilation rate, 
organic HAP's may be found in the process fugitive emission stream from 
blast furnace charging. An improper balance between the ventilation 
rate of the hood over the furnace charging chute and the primary 
exhaust gas off-take can result in process emissions being drawn into 
the process fugitive control system. The escaping organic HAP emissions 
may be as high as 50 Mg/yr, based on measurements made at one facility 
at which this problem was detected. Organic HAP emissions from a 
properly balanced system should be less than 0.5 Mg/yr.
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 only 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 
cannot be measured and can only be roughly estimated using emission 
factors and facility-specific data. Estimates of fugitive dust 
emissions from all smelters range from 1 to 19 Mg/yr.

D. Adverse Health Effects Finding for Area Sources

    As stated previously, the EPA today is proposing to add secondary 
lead smelters that are area sources to the list of source categories 
that will be subject to emission standards. In order to list categories 
of area sources, the EPA must find a threat of adverse health or 
environmental effects warranting regulation under section 112.
    Section 112(a) contains no accompanying definition of adverse 
health effect. The area source provisions of section 112(k) directing 
regulation of area sources in urban areas, however, are closely linked 
to section 112(c) and state that health effects considered under this 
program shall include, but not be limited to, carcinogenicity, 
mutagenicity, teratogenicity, neurotoxicity, reproductive dysfunction, 
and other acute and chronic effects [section 112(k)(2)]. The term 
``adverse environmental effect'' is defined in section 112(a) as ``any 
significant and widespread adverse effect, which may reasonably be 
anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, or other natural resources, 
including adverse impacts on populations of endangered or threatened 
species or significant degradation of environmental quality over broad 
areas.''
    In the finding for secondary lead area sources, quantitative 
assessments of risk are an important consideration in assessing 
significant threats of adverse health effects. Quantitative risk 
assessment, in this context, means the estimation of a mathematical 
probability of an individual or population being subject to some 
adverse health effect, such as cancer. The EPA has historically 
developed assessments of potential cancer risks, both to maximally 
exposed individuals and populations, as part of its regulatory actions 
under the previous version of section 112. Population risks are 
expressed in terms of the total number of cancer cases (i.e., cancer 
incidence) that could be expected to occur in a given time within a 
prescribed area, considering the exposure of the population within the 
area to modeled ambient concentrations of toxic air pollutants. In this 
finding, nationwide cancer incidence is expressed in cases per year. In 
contrast, a maximum individual ``lifetime'' risk is expressed as the 
risk of contracting cancer associated with the highest individual's 
exposure to the modeled, maximum, long-term concentration of the listed 
HAP's for an assumed life-span of 70 years. Typically, both these 
cancer risk estimates are based on upper-bound estimates of cancer 
potency and exposure. The EPA also considers, where possible, the 
probability of non-cancer effects.
    The finding proposed in today's notice is based only on health 
effects from inhalation exposures. The EPA did not consider other 
adverse environmental effects. Future findings for other source 
categories may be based on environmental effects as well as human 
health effects as the appropriate information becomes available.
    Section 112(c) does not offer a ``bright line'' test for the EPA to 
use in making an area source finding. Instead, considering the language 
cited above, the EPA believes it has discretion to consider a range of 
health effect endpoints and exposure criteria in making a finding of a 
threat of adverse effects. In the finding, the EPA considers factors 
such as the number of sources in a category, the quantity of emissions, 
the toxicity of the HAP's, the potential for individual and population 
exposures and risks, the geographical distribution of the sources, and 
the reasonableness of control measures. Thus, both qualitative and 
quantitative factors are considered in making a finding.
    The EPA recognizes uncertainties in current estimates of risk based 
on modeled concentrations and the use of several upper-bound risk 
assumptions. The EPA acknowledges that current cancer risk estimates do 
not reflect the true risk, but often represent a conservative risk 
level that may be an upper bound that is unlikely to be exceeded. The 
EPA intends to improve its risk estimation procedures in accordance 
with internal guidance and through the risk assessment studies required 
under sections 112(f), 112(o), and 303 of title III of the Act.
    Today's finding is based on six smelters that the EPA believes fit 
the definition of an area source plus one other that is borderline 
between major and area. The smelters are located in six states and 
approximately 17.6 million people reside within 50 kilometers (about 30 
miles) of the seven facilities. These people are considered by the EPA 
to be exposed to HAP emissions from the smelters.
    Secondary lead smelters emit a large number of pollutants. Of 
these, EPA has performed scientific assessments that provide estimates 
of the associated health risks of fourteen. Ten of the compounds have 
unit risk estimates (URE or cancer potency estimates), three 
(ethylbenzene, n-hexane, and toluene) have inhalation reference 
concentrations (RfC), and one has a NAAQS (lead). In this finding, 
elemental lead is being used as a surrogate for all lead compounds. The 
reason for this is discussed below.
    The health effects caused by increased blood lead levels are the 
same, regardless of the lead compounds causing the exposure. However, 
there are considerable differences in the bioavailability between lead 
compounds. Unfortunately, there is little available literature on this 
subject (Docket No. A-92-43, Item Nos. II-I-18 and II-I-29). The 
literature that is available, however, does indicate that lead oxide, 
which accounts for a substantial portion of the lead compounds emitted 
from secondary lead smelters, is bioavailable. This indicates that 
using lead as a surrogate for estimating health effects from the lead 
compounds from this source category should be appropriate.
    Lead is also a B2 carcinogen. However, a cancer risk factor has not 
been developed for lead, so cancer rates associated with its exposure 
can not be estimated.
    Four of the ten potential carcinogens with quantitative assessments 
are known human carcinogens and have URE's based on epidemiological 
data. These are arsenic, benzene, and some chromium and nickel 
compounds. The other potentially carcinogenic compounds have URE's 
based on animal studies and are classified as either probable or 
possible human carcinogens. These include acetaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, 
cadmium, formaldehyde, naphthalene, and 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
    A URE is HAP-specific and equals the risk of cancer per unit of 
lifetime pollutant exposure. It represents the probability of 
developing cancer in a hypothetical individual, continuously exposed 
throughout his/her life to 1 microgram per cubic meter (g/
m\3\) of the potential carcinogen in the air. An RfC is also HAP-
specific and is an estimate of the daily exposure to the human 
population, including sensitive subpopulations, that is likely to be 
without deleterious effects during a lifetime. The uncertainty of the 
estimate can span an order of magnitude or more.
    The estimated annual cancer incidence for the seven sources modeled 
is low, approximately 0.1 incidence of cancer per year. However, the 
EPA estimates that the upper-bound maximum individual lifetime cancer 
risk associated with any one of the smelters ranges from 4 in 10,000 to 
1 in 1,000. Furthermore, about 500 persons living in proximity to these 
smelters are estimated to be subject to lifetime individual risks 
possibly in excess of 1 in 10,000; over 40,000 are possibly subject to 
lifetime individual risks above 1 in 100,000; and about 560,000 are 
possibly subject to individual lifetime risks above 1 in 1 million. The 
risks calculated are due to a mixture of pollutants, with arsenic and 
1,3-butadiene posing the highest risks.
    In addition to cancer risk, the EPA has examined the public health 
risks associated with elevated blood lead levels. Little controversy 
exists that high blood lead levels are associated with adverse health 
effects, but there is also substantial concern regarding health effects 
associated with lower blood lead levels as well: (1) Alterations in the 
heme synthetic pathway may affect multiple organ system and 
physiological functions, (2) children's IQ's may be lowered, (3) 
impaired auditory function in children may affect language acquisition 
and learning, and (4) animal experiments and human data have shown that 
lead accumulates and is retained in the brain and other soft tissues 
and can be remobilized from bone stores, resulting in a continuing risk 
of lead toxicity even if exposure to lead is stopped.
    Children may be particularly at risk as atmospheric lead deposits 
on soils, crops, and street and playground surfaces. Soil lead, which 
serves as a continuous source of outdoor and indoor (household) dusts 
as well as a direct exposure route for young children, is relatively 
insoluble and immobile and can continue to accumulate indefinitely.
    Approximately 250 people are expected to be exposed to lead 
concentrations that are above the current lead NAAQS of 1.5 g/
m\3\, calendar quarter average. Because the level of the lead NAAQS has 
not been revised since it was established in 1978, the EPA also 
determined potential exposure levels below the NAAQS. At 1.0 
g/m\3\, the number of people potentially exposed is about 300, 
rising to 1500 at 0.5 g/m\3\.
    As stated above, the EPA did not evaluate environmental risks or 
health risks associated with non-inhalation exposures because of a lack 
of site-specific data and, in some cases, effects data. There is some 
potential for increased risks due to exposure from metal compounds and 
dioxins through routes of exposure such as ingestion of contaminated 
soil, ingestion of food and water, and dermal contact. In addition, the 
health effects from non-inhalation routes of exposure are not well 
known for many air pollutants, and data on environmental effects are 
even more scarce.
    The EPA is proposing to regulate secondary lead smelters as area 
sources, subject to consideration of public comment, because emissions 
associated with these sources may present a threat of adverse health 
effects. The upper-bound, maximum lifetime individual risks resulting 
from exposure to arsenic and 1,3-butadiene are of particular concern. 
The EPA, therefore, requests comments on the proposal to regulate these 
sources as area sources and the appropriate criteria to be used in 
making these decisions. In particular, the EPA requests comment on 
whether the number of sources, the quantity of emissions, the toxicity 
of the HAP's, the potential for individual and population exposures and 
risks, the geographical distribution of the sources, and the 
reasonableness of control measures justify a decision to regulate area 
sources within this category.
    The EPA notes that the exposures, the cancer incidence, and the 
maximum individual risk associated with these area sources are all 
below levels that have prompted the Administrator to designate other 
categories of area sources for regulation. However, the relatively low 
costs associated with regulation and the small number of area sources 
in this category appear to warrant such regulation. The EPA requests 
comment on whether regulation of these areas sources is warranted.

III. 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's 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's in air 
emissions. The provision directs that this deficiency be redressed by 
imposing technology-based controls on sources emitting HAP's, 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 10 tons of any one HAP or 25 tons of any 
combination of HAP's. The EPA published an initial list of source 
categories on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31,586), and may amend the list at 
any time. (The EPA is proposing to add secondary lead smelters to the 
list of area sources as part of this rulemaking, for example.)

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 nonair 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 
(including requirements for operator training or certification) as 
provided in subsection (h), 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. Based on the area source finding described in 
section II.D of this preamble, the EPA proposes to regulate secondary 
lead smelters as area sources.

C. Determining the MACT Floor

    After the EPA has identified the specific source categories or 
subcategories of major sources to regulate under section 112, it must 
set MACT standards for each category or subcategory. Section 112 limits 
the EPA's discretion by establishing a minimum baseline or ``floor'' 
for standards. For new sources, the standards for a source category or 
subcategory cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is 
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source, as 
determined by the Administrator (section 112(d)(3)).
    The standards for existing sources can be less stringent than 
standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent 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)). There are fewer than 30 secondary lead smelters, so the 
standards for existing sources will be based on the best-performing 
five sources.
    In developing the proposal, the EPA has interpreted the term 
``average'' to be equivalent to ``median'' and the MACT floor has been 
selected to represent the median of the five best-controlled sources. 
The median of the five best-controlled sources was selected as the MACT 
floor on the basis of control technology because insufficient emissions 
data were available for determining an average emission limitation. An 
emission source testing program was then conducted in order to 
determine an appropriate limitation based on the MACT floor technology.
    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.
    In addition, the Act provides the Administrator further flexibility 
to regulate area sources. Area sources can be regulated by MACT. 
However, section 112(d)(5) allows the Administrator to promulgate 
standards for area sources that provide for the use of ``generally 
available control technologies (GACT) or management practices.'' Area 
source standards promulgated under this authority (GACT standards) 
would not be subject to the MACT floors described above. Moreover, for 
source categories subject to standards promulgated under section 
112(d)(5), the EPA is not required to conduct a residual risk analysis 
under section 112(f).
    At the end of the data gathering and analysis, the EPA must decide 
whether it is more appropriate to follow the MACT or the GACT approach 
for regulating an area source category. (As stated previously, MACT is 
required for major sources.) If all or some portion of the sources emit 
less than 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tpy) of any one HAP or less than 22.7 Mg/yr (25 
tpy) of total HAP's, then it may be appropriate to define subcategories 
within the source category and apply a combination MACT/GACT approach: 
MACT for major sources and GACT for area sources in a source category. 
In the case of this proposed rulemaking for secondary lead smelters, 
the EPA has decided to regulate both major and area sources by applying 
MACT. The EPA knows of no technological or economic reasons why 
secondary lead smelters that are area sources cannot achieve the same 
level of control as those that are major 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's (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.

IV. Summary of the Proposed Standards

A. Sources To Be Regulated

    Standards are being proposed to limit HAP emissions from: (1) 
Process sources, (2) process fugitive sources, and (3) fugitive dust 
sources at secondary lead smelters.
    Process source emissions are discharged as the main exhaust of a 
smelting furnace through a chimney, flue, or ductwork. For the purpose 
of establishing numerical limits for process source emissions, smelting 
furnaces have been grouped into the following source types: (1) 
Collocated reverberatory and blast furnaces (reverberatory/blast), (2) 
reverberatory or rotary furnaces not collocated with a blast furnace, 
(3) blast furnaces not collocated with a reverberatory furnace, and (4) 
electric furnaces.
    Process fugitive emission sources that would be regulated are 
smelting furnace charging, smelting furnace lead and slag tapping, flue 
dust agglomerating furnace operation, and refining kettles.
    Fugitive dust emission sources that would be regulated are plant 
yards and roadways subject to wind and vehicle traffic, materials 
handling and storage areas, battery breaking areas, and smelting and 
refining areas.

B. Proposed Emission Limits for Process Sources

    Emission limits are being proposed for lead compounds, total 
hydrocarbons (THC), and HCl and Cl2 emissions and opacity from 
reverberatory, blast, reverberatory/blast furnace combination, rotary, 
and electric furnaces. Limits are being proposed for lead compounds and 
THC as surrogates for metal HAP's and organic HAP's, respectively.
    Lead compound emissions from all smelting furnace configurations 
(both new and existing) would be limited to a concentration of 2.0 mg/
dscm (0.00087 gr/dscf). Total hydrocarbon emissions from both new and 
existing reverberatory/blast furnace configurations would be limited to 
20 ppmv [expressed as propane at 4 percent carbon dioxide (CO2) to 
correct for dilution]. Total hydrocarbon emissions from existing blast 
furnaces would be limited to 360 ppmv (as propane) at 4 percent 
CO2. Total hydrocarbon emissions from new blast furnaces would be 
limited to 70 ppmv (as propane) at 4 percent CO2. There is no 
proposed standard for THC emissions from reverberatory, rotary, or 
electric furnaces.
    Total HCl and Cl2 emissions from both new and existing 
reverberatory/blast, blast, reverberatory, and rotary smelting furnace 
configurations would be limited to 15 mg/dscm (0.0065 gr/dscf) at 4 
percent CO2 to correct for dilution. There is no proposed standard 
for HCl or Cl2 emissions from new and existing electric smelting 
furnaces.
    The proposed numerical emission limits for process sources are 
summarized in table 1.

       Table 1.--Summary of Proposed Standards for Process Sources      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Total 
                                              Lead     THCa,b    HCl and
          Furnace configuration            compounds   (ppmv)   Cl2a(mg/
                                           (mg/dscm)              dscm) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reverberatory/blast......................          2        20        15
Blast:                                                                  
  Existing...............................          2       360        15
  New....................................          2        70        15
Reverberatory and rotary.................          2      None        15
Electric.................................          2      None      None
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aTHC and HCl/Cl2 emissions limits are at 4 percent CO2 to correct for   
  dilution.                                                             
bConcentrations (ppmv) for THC are as propane.                          

C. Proposed Standards for Process Fugitive Sources

    The proposed standards for process fugitive sources are in the form 
of equipment and operating standards. The standards apply to both new 
and existing sources. All secondary lead smelters would be required to 
control process fugitive emission sources with capture hoods equivalent 
in design and performance to those specified in the Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration's ``Cooperative Assessment Program Manual for 
the Secondary Lead Industry'' (Docket No. A-92-43, Item No. II-I-16).
    The standards would require the following process fugitive sources 
to be partially enclosed with a hood and ventilated: smelting furnace 
and dryer charging hoppers and chutes, lead and slag tapping 
operations, refining kettles, dryer transition pieces, and flue dust 
agglomerating furnaces. All hoods, except those on refining kettles, 
would be required to be designed and operated to achieve a face 
velocity of at least 110 meters per minute (m/min) [350 feet per minute 
(fpm)] at all openings. Refining kettle hoods would be required to be 
designed and operated to achieve a face velocity of at least 75 m/min 
(250 fpm) and a volumetric flow rate of at least 60 actual cubic meters 
per minute per square meter [200 actual cubic feet per minute per 
square foot (acfm/ft2)] of kettle surface area. All hoods would be 
required to be ventilated to a control device with an outlet lead 
compound concentration not to exceed 2.0 mg/dscm (0.00087 gr/dscf).

D. Proposed Standards for Fugitive Dust Sources

    The proposed standards for fugitive dust sources are in the form of 
work practice and operating standards. Again, the standards apply to 
both new and existing fugitive dust sources. Each secondary lead 
smelter would be required to develop a Standard Operating Procedures 
(SOP) manual that details procedures to limit fugitive dust emissions. 
Each smelter's SOP manual would be reviewed and subject to approval by 
the Administrator.
    The SOP manual would describe how each smelter would implement the 
types of work practices and operating standards which EPA has 
determined represent MACT controls for fugitive dust emissions. These 
controls are specified in the proposed regulation and include cleaning 
of paved areas through vacuuming or power-washing, use of water or 
chemical dust suppression in materials storage and handling areas, use 
of partial or total enclosures to prevent wind erosion of storage 
piles, and use of measures to prevent crossdrafts from upsetting 
process fugitive control hoods. The SOP manual would also indicate the 
frequencies with which pavement cleaning and dust suppression are to be 
performed, and which areas are partially and totally enclosed and which 
are paved. The MACT controls specified in the proposed regulation would 
serve as the criteria by which the Administrator would decide whether 
or not to approve a smelter's SOP.

E. Compliance Dates

    Compliance with the standards would be achieved within 24 months of 
promulgation for existing secondary lead smelters, and upon startup for 
new and reconstructed smelters.

F. 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). Testing of THC 
emissions from process sources for reverberatory/blast and blast 
furnace configurations would be conducted according to EPA reference 
method 25A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A), and the results reported as a 
concentration in ppmv, as propane, corrected to 4 percent CO2 for 
dilution. Testing of HCl and Cl2 emissions would be conducted 
according to EPA reference method 26A (59 FR 19306-19323), and the 
results reported as HCl equivalents, in mg/dscm, corrected to 4 percent 
CO2 for dilution. An average of three runs would be used to 
determine compliance for lead compounds, THC, and total HCl and 
Cl2.
    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 Single Point 
Integrated Sampling and Analytical Procedure of EPA reference method 3B 
would be used to measure the CO2 content of the stack gas during 
the THC and HCl/Cl2 compliance tests for correcting to 4 percent 
CO2.

G. Enhanced Monitoring Requirements

    Continuous opacity monitors (COM's) would be used on all process 
control stacks to monitor compliance with the lead compound emission 
limit. Opacity (based on a 6-minute average) greater than the maximum 
opacity recorded during the initial lead compliance test (plus 2 
percent opacity to allow for normal instrument drift) would be a 
violation of the standard. Process fugitive and building ventilation 
baghouse performance would be monitored through inspections of the 
baghouses. Pressure drop and water flow rate would be monitored for PM 
scrubbers used to control process fugitive sources.
    Compliance with the THC standard would require either continuous 
monitoring of incineration or afterburner temperature or continuous THC 
monitoring for reverberatory/blast and blast furnace configurations. 
The temperature would be maintained above a minimum established during 
the initial THC compliance test. Operating at a lower temperature 
(based on a 3-hour average) would constitute a violation of the 
emissions standard. Alternatively, a facility could monitor THC 
concentration directly with a THC continuous emissions monitor (CEM) if 
desired.
    Compliance with the HCl/Cl2 standard would require monitoring 
of either: (1) The addition of soda ash and limestone to furnace charge 
materials, (2) scrubber parameters (media pH and injection rate), (3) 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) concentration, or (4) HCl concentration. The 
quantity of soda ash and limestone, the scrubber parameters, or the 
SO2 concentration would be maintained within allowable ranges 
established during the initial HCl/Cl2 compliance test. Failure to 
maintain these variables within the allowable ranges would constitute a 
violation of the standard. An operator wishing to establish new 
allowable ranges would have to demonstrate that compliance with the 
HCl/Cl2 standard is still achieved. Alternatively, the operator 
could monitor HCl concentration using an HCl CEM.
    All COM's would be required to comply with Performance 
Specification 1 in appendix B of 40 CFR part 60. If an owner or 
operator chose to monitor SO2, the SO2 CEM would be required 
to comply with Performance Specification 2 in appendix B of 40 CFR part 
60. All CEM's would be required to comply with the Quality Assurance 
Procedures found in appendix F of 40 CFR part 60.

H. Notification Requirements

    The owner or operator of a secondary lead smelter would be required 
to submit the notifications described in the General Provisions to part 
63, (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). These would include the initial 
notification, notifications of performance tests and continuous 
monitoring system (including COM and CEM) performance evaluations, and 
the notification of compliance status. In addition, each owner or 
operator would be required to submit the SOP manual and a notification 
to the Administrator requesting review and approval of the smelter's 
fugitive dust control SOP manual.

I. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

    The owner or operator of a secondary lead smelter would be required 
to retain for 5 years records of: (1) The results of initial and 
subsequent compliance tests, (2) the recorded values for the parameters 
that must be monitored to demonstrate continuous compliance, and (3) 
records demonstrating implementation of the fugitive dust controls 
contained in the smelter's SOP manual.
    The owner or operator would be required to submit the quarterly 
excess emissions and continuous monitoring performance reports, 
including the results of annual and other compliance tests, as 
prescribed in the General Provisions.

V. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

A. Facilities Affected by This NESHAP

    The proposed standards would apply to all secondary lead smelters 
in the United States, regardless of whether they are classified as a 
major source or an area source under section 112(c). The EPA estimates 
that 18 smelters would have to upgrade controls to reduce emissions. 
All 23 existing smelters would be required to perform monitoring and 
meet the requirements for recordkeeping and reporting. It is not 
anticipated that any new smelters will be built over the next 5 years 
because of the depressed price of lead and the excess capacity in the 
industry.

B. Air Quality Impacts

    Under the proposed standards, organic HAP emissions would be 
reduced by approximately 1,200 Mg/yr (1,300 tpy). This represents an 
approximately 70-percent reduction from estimated baseline emissions. 
Metal HAP emissions would be reduced by 53 Mg/yr (58 tpy) through the 
reduction of process fugitive emissions [29 Mg/yr (32 tpy)] and 
fugitive dust emissions [24 Mg/yr (26 tpy)]. This represents a 20-
percent reduction from baseline metal HAP emissions. There would be no 
reductions in metal HAP emissions from process sources. Hydrochloric 
acid and Cl2 emissions would be reduced 720 Mg/yr (790 tpy). This 
represents a 98-percent reduction from baseline emissions.
    In addition to HAP reductions, criteria pollutant emissions would 
also be reduced. Emissions of SO2 would be reduced by 7,400 Mg/yr 
(8,100 tpy) if wet scrubbers were installed to control HCl/Cl2 
emissions. Emissions of CO would be reduced by approximately 83,000 Mg/
yr (91,000 tpy) and THC emissions (including 1,200 Mg/yr of organic 
HAP's) would be reduced by approximately 6,400 Mg/yr (7,000 tpy). 
Controlling metal HAP emissions would also reduce PM emissions 
(including 53 Mg/yr of metal HAP's) by 140 Mg/yr (150 tpy).

C. Water Quality Impacts

    Direct water quality impacts from the proposed standards will vary 
depending on which control option smelters choose in order to comply 
with the proposed HCl/Cl2 emission limits. There would be no 
wastewater impact if all smelters chose to eliminate HCl/Cl2 
emissions through the addition of fluxing agents to the furnace feed 
material and the removal of chlorides through slagging, which is the 
least-cost option.
    If wet scrubbers are installed to control HCl/Cl2 emissions, 
about 27 million gallons of wastewater from scrubber blowdown would be 
generated. This wastewater would require neutralization and settling 
before being discharged to a publicly owned treatment works. 
Evaporation of water from these scrubbers would be about 430 million 
gallons per year. The evaporated water would require no treatment. 
Because EPA does not believe smelters would adopt wet scrubbers as a 
means of compliance, it is not soliciting comment as to whether the 
existing effluent limitation guidelines for the secondary lead industry 
should be amended to account for this source of wastewater.
    Use of water for wet suppression and pavement cleaning to control 
fugitive dust emissions could increase the amount of water runoff that 
must be treated on site. This incremental increase in runoff would 
represent less than 1 percent of the volume of water currently treated 
at secondary lead smelters.
    Several of the facilities which would be affected by this rule are 
located in States adjacent to the Great Lakes. Because these facilities 
would reduce their emissions of metals and organic HAP's, the indirect 
water quality impacts of this rule are expected to be positive, albeit 
difficult to quantify.

D. Solid Waste Impacts

    The addition of fluxing agents to smelting furnaces to eliminate 
HCl/Cl2 emissions through slagging would result in a slight 
increase in the amount of slag that must be disposed of as solid waste. 
This increase would represent only about 5 percent of the slag 
currently generated by each of the six smelters that would be impacted.
    If a smelter chose to install a scrubber to control HCl and 
Cl2, a solid waste stream that would require disposal could be 
generated if the smelter also elected to control SO2 emissions. 
Scrubbers installed to control only HCl and Cl2 do not produce 
solid waste. If two smelters that do not currently perform paste 
desulfurization installed scrubbers to control SO2 emissions in 
addition to HCl/Cl2 emissions, these scrubbers would generate as 
much as 21,000 Mg/yr of solid waste as scrubber sludge.
    Because secondary lead smelters typically process hazardous waste 
that exhibits the toxicity characteristics for lead (40 CFR 261.24), 
all of the residue generated from these facilities would have to 
satisfy the standards for treatment prescribed in 40 CFR part 268 for 
D008 (lead-bearing hazardous waste) before any residue can be land-
disposed. (Chemical Waste Management v. EPA, 976 F. 2d 2 (D.C. Cir. 
1992).
    Flue dust and sludge generated at secondary lead smelters are 
listed as hazardous waste KO69 under 40 CFR 261.32, Hazardous Wastes 
from Specific Sources. Flue dust collected by baghouses is recycled on 
site to the smelting furnace at all smelters and is not disposed of as 
a solid waste. Furthermore, the EPA has issued a limited administrative 
stay so that the KO69 listing does not apply to sludges generated from 
acid gas scrubber systems located at secondary lead smelters (56 FR 
19951, May 1, 1991).

E. Energy Impacts

    No significant increases in electricity consumption are expected as 
a result of the proposed standards. Natural gas consumption is expected 
to increase at six of the smelters with blast furnace configurations as 
a result of installing afterburners or increasing afterburner 
temperatures. The total increase in natural gas consumption at these 
smelters is expected to be about 3.7 million cubic meters (130 million 
cubic feet) per year.

F. Cost Impacts

    The estimated nationwide capital and annualized costs of the 
proposed standards would be $2,700,000 and $2,600,000, respectively. 
These costs were estimated for all 23 smelters, including those that 
are currently shut down, and include costs for monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting.
    The estimated capital costs of reducing organic HAP emissions under 
the proposed standards would be $1,100,000. Estimated annualized costs 
would be $620,000. Ten smelters would be impacted. For the blast-
furnace-only configuration, costs incurred would be for the 
installation and operation of new afterburners at four smelters and 
increased natural gas consumption at two smelters. For the collocated 
reverberatory/blast furnace configuration, costs incurred would be for 
the retrofit of additional ductwork to achieve gas stream blending at 
four smelters.
    The estimated capital and annualized costs of reducing metal HAP 
emissions would be $240,000 and $110,000, respectively. These costs 
would be distributed over an estimated 14 smelters. The capital costs 
would be for 1 smelter to upgrade its process fugitive emission 
controls, and for that smelter and 13 others to upgrade their fugitive 
dust emission controls. Upgrades would be in the form of improved 
housekeeping, including the purchase of vacuum sweepers by four 
smelters. Because all smelters currently operate at the level of the 
proposed standard for metal HAP's, no anticipated reductions or costs 
are associated with the control of metal HAP's from process sources.
    No capital costs to reduce HCl/Cl2 emissions would be incurred 
under the proposed standards if all smelters chose to control HCl/
Cl2 emissions through fluxing. The estimated annualized cost would 
be $160,000, distributed over six smelters, for the purchase of 
additional fluxing agents. If a smelter chose to install a scrubber to 
control HCl/Cl2 emissions, the approximate capital cost would be 
$1,700,000 and the annualized cost would be $850,000 for a 
reverberatory furnace with a production capacity of 50,000 Mg/yr.
    Enhanced monitoring and recordkeeping and reporting costs would be 
incurred by all 23 smelters. These costs are estimated to be $73,000 
per smelter per year and the total national cost is estimated to be 
$1,700,000 per year. The only capital costs would be for COM's, for 
which the total national cost is estimated to be $1,400,000. The 
recordkeeping and monitoring cost estimate includes the costs for the 
emission tests needed to demonstrate compliance. Only the tests for 
lead emissions from process fugitive sources and building ventilation 
systems are annual tests, so testing costs would be lower after the 
initial compliance demonstration.

G. Economic Impacts

    The Economic Impact Analysis evaluated: (1) The ability of 
facilities to absorb annual control costs and obtain financing for 
capital control costs, and (2) the market response to the regulation--
specifically, impacts on industry-wide output, employment, and revenue. 
The analysis was performed on all 23 facilities in the industry, 
including facilities that have shut down operations indefinitely but 
have not closed permanently.
    Because lead is an internationally traded commodity whose price is 
determined by international market factors, secondary lead producers 
have little influence on price. Therefore, the economic analysis 
assumed that no price increase would occur and control costs would have 
to be absorbed by affected facilities. Based on discussions with 
industry experts, EPA formulated guidelines for estimating when a 
facility would be significantly impacted. A facility would be 
significantly impacted if either: (1) Total annualized control costs 
result in more than a 1-percent increase over baseline cost of 
production, or (2) capital control costs exceed 5 percent of baseline 
total assets (company-wide) and post-regulation total liabilities 
exceed two-thirds of baseline total assets if the capital control costs 
are financed with debt.
    The analysis indicates that up to 11 facilities would be 
significantly impacted, depending on the level of the standards and the 
amount of continuous monitoring required. Almost all of the 
significantly impacted facilities are owned by small businesses because 
of economies of scale and limited access to capital resources.
    Implementation of emission controls equal to the MACT floor, the 
basis for the proposed rule, results in significant impacts to two 
facilities that are currently in operation. Three other facilities that 
are currently shut down would also be impacted significantly. If 
control levels are imposed at levels above the MACT floor, seven 
facilities are significantly impacted. Of the seven facilities, four 
sources are currently in operation and three are shut down. When 
continuous opacity monitoring is required in addition to the MACT 
floor, one additional source that is currently shut down is 
significantly impacted.
    If the MACT floor is considered with continuous opacity and THC 
monitoring, nine facilities are significantly impacted. Of the nine 
facilities, three sources are currently in operation and six are shut 
down. If continuous monitoring for HCl is added, 11 facilities would be 
significantly impacted. Of the 11 facilities, four sources are 
currently in operation and seven are shut down.
    Under any of the regulatory alternatives considered, industry 
employment and output is reduced by less than 1-percent. At current 
market conditions (December 1993), no closures are expected as a 
consequence of the regulation. If the price of lead decreases to levels 
observed over the past year, the possibility of closure increases for 
two currently operating major sources. Under any of the regulatory 
alternatives, all smelters currently shut down have additional 
incentive to not reopen.

VI. 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

    Secondary lead smelters emit several of the 189 HAP's listed in 
section 112(b) of the Act. Organic HAP's emitted by secondary lead 
smelters include carbon disulfide, 1,3-butadiene, methyl chloride, 
benzene, styrene, toluene, formaldehyde, and naphthalene. Metal HAP's 
emitted include primarily compounds of lead, antimony, and arsenic, 
with lesser quantities of compounds of chromium, nickel, manganese, 
mercury, and cadmium. In addition, secondary lead smelters emit the 
HAP's HCl and Cl2. Criteria pollutants emitted include lead, PM, 
SO2, CO, and hydrocarbons.
    Approximately two-thirds of the secondary 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. Furthermore, as described in 
section II.D of this preamble, the Administrator has initially 
determined that secondary lead smelters that are area sources of HAP's 
present a threat of adverse effects to human health sufficient to 
support adding secondary lead smelters to the list of area source 
categories subject to regulation under section 112(c)(3) of the Act. 
Consequently, the standards being proposed would apply to all new and 
existing secondary lead smelters regardless of source (major or area) 
designation.
    The emission, equipment, and work practice standards being proposed 
today would substantially limit emissions of metal HAP's, organic 
HAP's, HCl, and Cl2 from secondary lead smelters. The standards 
being proposed to address metal and organic HAP emissions establish 
limits for surrogates rather than for individual compounds.
    Establishing emission limits for each of the numerous metal and 
organic HAP compounds emitted from secondary lead smelters is 
considered impractical because measuring each compound would be too 
costly and would pose unreasonable compliance and monitoring costs and 
would achieve little, if any, emission reduction above the surrogate 
pollutant approach. On the other hand, strong correlations exist 
between emissions of the selected surrogate pollutants and emissions of 
the pollutant classes they represent. In addition, the technologies 
identified for the control of HAP's have equivalent performance on the 
selected surrogates. Therefore, emissions standards requiring good 
control of the selected surrogates will also achieve good control of 
HAP's.
    Candidate surrogates for the mix of metal HAP's present, including 
lead compounds, are PM and lead, both of which are criteria pollutants. 
The selected surrogate is lead. Compounds of lead are the most 
prevalent metal HAP contained in secondary lead smelter emissions. In 
addition, lead is concentrated, along with metal HAP's, in the smaller 
size fractions of PM, which are the most difficult to control. 
Therefore, controlling lead will also control metal HAP's. Available 
data on the performance of baghouses used to control particulate 
emissions at secondary lead smelters indicate a much stronger 
correlation of metal HAP's with lead emissions than with total PM 
(Docket No. A-92-43, Item Nos. II-A-1, II-A-2, II-A-3, II-I-1, and II-
I-9). Therefore, lead is a better surrogate than PM. Lastly, there is a 
validated test method (EPA reference method 12) for the determination 
of inorganic lead emissions from stationary sources.
    The surrogate pollutant chosen for organic HAP's is THC. There are 
much data to demonstrate that the destruction of THC through 
incineration is strongly correlated with the destruction of organic HAP 
compounds (Docket No. A-92-43, Item No. II-I-27, 56 FR 7155-56 
(February 21, 1991)). In addition, THC is easily measured and can be 
monitored. Carbon monoxide, another indicator of destruction efficiency 
for organic compounds, was considered but dismissed. It does not 
correlate as well as THC with destruction of organic HAP compounds. No 
surrogates are needed for HCl and Cl2 because they can be measured 
directly.
    The proposed regulation does not establish explicit limits for 
dioxin/furan emissions from secondary lead smelters for several 
reasons. First, secondary lead smelters emit very small quantities of 
dioxin. Cumulative annual emissions for the entire industry are 
estimated to be only 1.6 grams of dioxin/furan, expressed in toxic 
equivalents (Docket No. A-92-43, Item No. II-B-35). Emission rates from 
the other two smelters (a reverberatory/blast smelter and a rotary 
smelter) were an order of magnitude lower (Docket No. A-92-43, Item 
Nos. II-A-1 and II-A-3). Second, the Agency believes that the emission 
controls necessary to achieve the emission limitations associated with 
this proposed standard would reduce dioxin/furan emissions, 
particularly from blast furnaces. Finally, any risks associated with 
dioxin will be addressed in the residual risk evaluation required 
within eight years of promulgation of the standard pursuant to section 
112(f) of the Act.
    The Agency currently is in the process of revising its assessment 
of the risks associated with the exposure to dioxin. The EPA requests 
comment whether additional action is necessary to reduce dioxin 
emissions from secondary lead smelters.
    Facilities that solely melt scrap or refined lead for use in 
specific molded or fabricated products would not be covered by the 
proposed rule because they do not operate blast, reverberatory, rotary, 
or electric smelting furnaces and, therefore, have substantially 
different and lower emissions potential than do secondary lead 
smelters.
    Lead-acid battery manufacturing operations that may be collocated 
with a secondary lead smelter and primary lead smelters that produce 
refined lead from ore concentrate would not be covered by the proposed 
rule because they are listed as separate categories in the list of 
major sources to be regulated by MACT standards (57 FR 31576) in 
separate rulemakings.

B. Selection of Affected Sources

    The proposed standards apply to three types of emission sources at 
secondary lead smelters: (1) Process sources, (2) process fugitive 
sources, and (3) fugitive dust sources.
1. Process Sources
    Affected process sources include all furnaces (blast, 
reverberatory, rotary, or electric) used for smelting lead-bearing 
scrap or slag. All smelting furnaces are equipped with chimneys, flues, 
or ductwork that convey exhaust gases from the furnace. These exhaust 
gases contain varying amounts of organic HAP's, metal HAP's, HCl, and 
Cl2
    Blast furnaces and collocated reverberatory and blast furnaces have 
potentially large organic HAP emissions. Therefore, standards are being 
proposed to limit organic HAP emissions from these furnace 
configurations. Rotary furnaces, electric furnaces, and reverberatory 
furnaces not collocated with blast furnaces have relatively low 
potentials for organic HAP emissions and no standards are being 
proposed to limit organic HAP emissions from these furnace 
configurations. The MACT floor for these configurations does not 
include add-on controls and the EPA does not believe that there is any 
justification to be more stringent than the MACT floor because of the 
small amounts of organic HAP emissions associated with these sources.
    Collocated reverberatory and blast furnaces are being regulated as 
a single source type because a greater level of control is achievable 
when reverberatory and blast furnaces are collocated than when they are 
not. Other furnace combinations have not been observed in this 
industry.
    All smelting furnaces have high uncontrolled emissions of metal 
HAP's. Therefore, emission standards to limit lead emissions (as a 
surrogate for metal HAP's) that would apply to all smelting furnace 
types and configurations are being proposed.
    All smelting furnaces that process lead-acid batteries are also 
potential sources of HCl and C12 emissions because of the presence 
of PVC plastic separators in the furnace feed. The amount of HCl and 
Cl2 emitted will vary substantially depending on the quantity of 
PVC in the feed and whether fluxing agents are added to promote the 
elimination of chlorides through slagging. However, because all furnace 
types (except electric furnaces) are potential sources, emission 
standards are being proposed to limit HCl and Cl2 emissions from 
all but electric smelting furnaces.
    Electric furnaces are not sources of HCl or Cl2 emissions 
because the chlorine present in the feed material is in the form of 
NaCl or CaC2 and cannot be released during smelting. However, the 
proposed regulation defines electric smelting furnaces to include only 
those that process reverberatory furnace slag as the lead-bearing 
material charged to the furnace. No electric furnaces that process 
other lead-bearing materials are currently in use.
2. Process Fugitive Sources
    The following process fugitive sources were selected for 
regulation: (1) Smelting furnace and dryer charging hoppers and chutes 
(the furnace and dryer openings into which materials are charged), (2) 
lead taps and molds, (3) slag taps and molds, (4) refining and alloying 
kettles, (5) dryer transition pieces, and (6) flue dust agglomerating 
furnace taps and molds. All process fugitive sources are potential 
emission points of metal HAP's. Blast furnace charging emissions may 
also contain organic HAP's if there is leakage of primary exhaust gases 
into the ventilation hood over the charging chute.
    The EPA is not proposing standards for battery breaking equipment 
(e.g., rotary hammermills, saws, and shears) or lead casting machines. 
Many smelters do not have add-on controls for metal HAP's for these 
sources so that the MACT floor is no control. The EPA does not believe 
there is any justification for controls more stringent than the floor. 
Battery breakers are small sources of metal HAP emissions [about 18 
kilograms (40 pounds) per year per battery breaker] compared to other 
sources, and they emit relatively large particles that settle out 
quickly from the air in the battery breaking area. The proposed NESHAP 
would require fugitive dust controls in the battery breaking area that 
would control potential emissions from these settled particles. Casting 
machines that are used to cast refined lead into ingots are also small 
sources of metal HAP emissions because the molten lead in the molds is 
below the fuming temperature of lead. Therefore, casting machines are 
not included in the proposed regulation.
3. Fugitive Dust Sources
    Fugitive dust sources selected for regulation are the following: 
(1) The battery breaking area, (2) the materials storage and handling 
area (including, but not limited to, areas in which slag and flue dust 
are stored), (3) the smelting furnace area, (4) the refining and 
casting area, and (5) plant yards and roadways. Fugitive dust sources 
are potential emission sources of metal HAP's, but not organic HAP's or 
HCl and Cl2. Therefore, the five listed sources will be covered by 
the proposed regulation.

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

    Section 112(d)(3)(B) of the Act requires that the EPA set standards 
no less stringent than ``the average emission limitation achieved by 
the best performing 5 sources'' for categories with fewer than 30 
sources. Floor levels of control were determined for each of the 
affected source types under consideration for regulation. Source types 
are process sources, process fugitive sources, and fugitive dust 
sources. For process fugitive sources and fugitive dust sources, which 
are similar in character and emissions potential across all secondary 
lead smelters, the entire population of secondary lead smelters was 
considered in determining MACT floor levels of control. For process 
sources, specifically smelting furnaces, smelters were differentiated 
and divided into configurations based on the smelting furnace types 
used at individual smelters. This was done because smelting furnaces 
differ substantially, based on configuration, in both emissions 
potential (mix and amounts) and achievable control levels for organic 
HAP's. Section 112(d)(1) of the Act gives the Administrator the 
authority to distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources 
within a category when establishing standards.
    Because the secondary lead smelter category comprises fewer than 30 
sources, the floor level of control selected for existing sources is 
based on the median level of control achieved by the best-performing 
five sources. That is, the floor level of control reflects the control 
technology in use by the source positioned third (the median) among the 
best-performing five. The median was selected as the MACT floor, rather 
than the mean, because the MACT floor is based on the control 
technology used and the mean cannot be determined. The floor for new 
sources reflects the control technology in use by the best-controlled 
source in the category. Emission limits were then selected based on the 
performance continuously achievable by the proposed MACT technology.
1. Selection of MACT for Process Sources
    Separate MACT floors were determined for the following smelting 
furnace configurations: (1) Collocated reverberatory and blast 
furnaces, (2) blast furnaces not collocated with a reverberatory 
furnace, (3) reverberatory or rotary furnaces not collocated with a 
blast furnace, and (4) electric furnaces. Only smelters with a similar 
furnace configuration were used to establish the MACT floor level of 
control for new and existing furnaces within each configuration. The 
four configurations were selected based on differences in potential 
emissions and control options among the configurations.
    With one exception--the blast-furnace-only configuration--the MACT 
floor level of control was the only option considered because no 
options more stringent than the MACT floor are known. For the blast-
furnace-only configuration, two options--the floor and one more 
stringent than the floor--were considered.
    The emission reductions and cost impacts of the proposed MACT floor 
and more stringent options are presented in more detail in chapters 5 
and 6 of the BID, respectively.
    a. Reverberatory/Blast Furnace Configuration. Control measures 
currently in use to control furnace emissions at collocated 
reverberatory/blast furnace facilities are combinations of 
afterburners, gas stream blending, baghouses, wet scrubbers, and 
fluxing additions.
    Afterburners used to control only blast furnace emissions are 
capable of achieving about 90-percent control of organic HAP's, THC, 
and CO. Gas stream blending consists of mixing blast furnace gases with 
hotter and larger volume reverberatory furnace gases in a chamber for 
incineration. Gas stream blending provides more cost-effective control 
of organic HAP's than do afterburners by utilizing the large volume of 
hot (greater than 1,000  deg.C) exhaust produced by the reverberatory 
furnace. Greater than 99-percent control of THC (the surrogate for 
organic HAP's) and 98-percent control of CO have been demonstrated 
(Docket No. A-92-43, Item No. II-A-3).
    Baghouses are used to control PM and lead. Properly operated and 
maintained, baghouses are capable of achieving greater than 99-percent 
control of PM and about 98-percent control of lead and other metal HAP 
compounds (Docket No. A-92-43, Items II-A-1, II-A-2, II-A-3). Wet 
scrubbers, primarily in place to control SO2, are capable of 
providing 99-percent control of HCl/C2 (Docket No. A-92-43, Item 
No. II-A-3). The addition of soda ash or limestone fluxing agents to 
the furnace feed to enhance the removal of chlorides through slagging 
can achieve HCl/Cl2 control equivalent to that of wet scrubbing 
(Docket No. A-92-43, Items II-A-1, II-A-2).
    Nine smelters operate reverberatory/blast configurations. The best-
controlled source and best-performing five sources all blend gas 
streams to control organic HAP emissions, use baghouses to control 
metal HAP emissions, and either scrub or flux to control HCl/Cl2 
emissions. Consequently, the combination of these controls constitutes 
MACT floors for both new sources and existing sources.
    Because there are no control options available for consideration 
more stringent than the MACT floor controls for new or existing 
sources, the technological basis selected for the proposed standards 
for collocated reverberatory/blast furnaces is gas stream blending to 
control organic HAP's, a baghouse to control metal HAP's, and a 
scrubber or flux addition to control HCl/Cl2.
    Under this selection of MACT for existing sources, six smelters 
would have to upgrade their air pollution controls to some degree to 
meet the proposed MACT. Physical upgrades would include the retrofit of 
additional ductwork at five smelters to blend the blast and 
reverberatory furnace gas stream to achieve incineration of organic 
HAP's in the blast furnace emissions. Other upgrades required at four 
smelters include the addition of fluxing agents to the reverberatory 
furnace feed for HCl/Cl2 control.
    Total estimated capital costs for upgrades at the smelters 
requiring additional ductwork would be about $330,000. The costs for 
purchasing additional fluxing agents were included as annual costs 
rather than capital costs. Total annualized costs for all six impacted 
smelters would be about $120,000--$40,000 for capital recovery and 
about $80,000 for the purchase of fluxing agents (soda ash or 
limestone) at four smelters that do not have SO2 scrubbers.
    Installing the proposed MACT floor controls at smelters with 
reverberatory/blast furnaces would reduce organic HAP emissions by 640 
Mg/yr (700 tpy) and HCl/Cl2 emissions by 360 Mg/yr (400 tpy). 
Emissions of THC and CO would also be reduced by about 2,500 Mg/yr 
(2,800 tpy) and 47,000 Mg/yr (52,000 tpy), respectively. All of these 
smelters currently have baghouses, so there would be no reduction in 
metal HAP emissions from process sources and no associated cost 
impacts.
    b. Blast Furnace Configuration. Control measures currently in use 
to control furnace emissions at blast furnace-only facilities include 
afterburners, baghouses, wet scrubbers, and fluxing. Although installed 
primarily for the combustion of CO, afterburners also provide varying 
degrees of control for organic HAP's. The most important variable in 
afterburner performance, that is, the ability to combust and destroy 
organics, is temperature, although residence time and turbulence are 
also important. Temperature, however, is the most important variable, 
with higher levels of destruction achieved at higher temperatures.
    The operating temperature of the best-performing afterburner in 
this furnace configuration is 870  deg.C (1,600  deg.F) (Docket No. A-
92-43, Item No. II-D-4), which represents an estimated 98-percent 
organic HAP control (Docket No. A-92-43, Item II-B-31). The average 
temperature of the five best-performing afterburners operating at the 
highest temperatures is 700  deg.C (1,300  deg.F), which represents an 
estimated 84-percent organic HAP control. Baghouses, wet scrubbers, and 
fluxing provide the same levels of control for metal HAP's (98 percent) 
and HCl/Cl2 (99 percent) for blast furnaces as for collocated 
reverberatory/blast furnaces.
    The blast furnace-only configuration encompasses 13 blast furnaces 
at 8 smelters. The best-controlled blast furnace is controlled by an 
afterburner at 870  deg.C (1,600  deg.F) to control organic HAP's and a 
baghouse to control metal HAP's, and performs fluxing with soda ash or 
limestone or operates an SO2 scrubber to control HCl/Cl2 
emissions. The combination of these controls constitutes the proposed 
MACT for new sources.
    Seven blast furnaces are controlled by an afterburner to control 
organic HAP's and a baghouse to control metal HAP's, and perform 
fluxing or use a scrubber to control HCl/Cl2. The average 
temperature of the five afterburners operated at the highest 
temperatures is 700  deg.C (1,300  deg.F). The proposed MACT floor for 
existing sources is, therefore, an afterburner operated at 700  deg.C 
(1,300  deg.F), a baghouse, and fluxing.
    To comply with a standard based on the MACT floor for existing 
sources, five smelters would have to upgrade their air pollution 
controls. Physical upgrades would include the installation of 
afterburners at three smelters. Other upgrades required at four 
smelters would be increased afterburner temperature, which would 
require an increase in natural gas consumption. Total estimated capital 
costs for upgrades at the smelters requiring new afterburners would be 
about $810,000. Total annualized costs would be $590,000--$120,000 for 
capital recovery and $470,000 for increased fuel costs and other 
operating expenses to operate all afterburners at 700  deg.C (1,300 
deg.F).
    Installing the proposed MACT floor controls at all existing blast 
furnace facilities would reduce organic HAP emissions by 580 Mg/yr (640 
tpy). All blast furnace facilities currently have baghouses and perform 
fluxing, so there would be no reductions in metal HAP or HCl/Cl2 
emissions and no associated cost impacts. Emissions of THC and CO would 
also be reduced by about 2,700 Mg/yr (3,000 tpy) and 32,000 Mg/yr 
(35,000 tpy), respectively.
    There is one control option more stringent than the controls in the 
floor for existing sources. That option is to raise the afterburner 
temperature from 700 to 870  deg.C (1,300 to 1,600  deg.F)--effectively 
adopting the same controls for existing sources as the new source MACT. 
The EPA evaluated the incremental impacts of selecting an afterburner 
at 870  deg.C (1,600  deg.F) as the technological basis for controlling 
existing sources. Physical upgrades would include the installation of 
new afterburners at seven smelters, and other upgrades would include 
increased natural gas consumption at all but one smelter.
    Total capital and annualized costs for upgrades at blast furnace 
smelters would nearly triple under the more stringent option. Estimated 
total capital costs would increase by $1,700,000 to $2,300,000 (at 870 
deg.C) relative to the floor level of control, and annualized costs 
would increase by $1,100,000 to $1,700,000. The increased costs would 
lead to an increase in adverse economic impacts. Under the more 
stringent option, 7 blast furnace smelters would be significantly 
impacted, compared to 5 smelters under the MACT floor option. The two 
additional smelters that are significantly impacted are operating 
smelters.
    Under the more stringent option, organic HAP emissions at blast 
furnace smelters would decrease an additional 110 Mg/yr (120 tpy), 
compared to an emissions reduction of 580 Mg/yr (640 tpy) under a 
standard based on the floor. Emissions of THC and CO would decrease by 
an additional 500 Mg/yr (550 tpy) and 21,000 Mg/yr (23,000 tpy), 
respectively, compared to initial reductions of 2,700 Mg/yr and 32,000 
Mg/yr under a standard based on the floor. The incremental cost-
effectiveness of organic HAP reductions would be $10,000/Mg ($9,100/
ton) under the more stringent option.
    In light of the cost and economic impacts and the HAP reductions 
achievable, the EPA has concluded (subject to comment) that adoption of 
this more stringent (above the MACT floor) option as the basis for 
standards for existing blast furnace smelters is unreasonable. 
Therefore, the technological basis for the proposed standards for 
existing blast furnaces is an afterburner at 700  deg.C (1,300  deg.F), 
a baghouse, and fluxing or a scrubber.
    The EPA is aware, however, that this proposal permits organic HAP 
emissions at the eight facilities with blast furnace-only 
configurations to remain significantly higher than the organic HAP 
emissions resulting from other configurations. Further, the EPA 
recognizes that additional reductions are technically feasible at these 
locations if the afterburner temperatures are raised. The EPA requests 
comment on how consideration of the differential impacts and 
environmental justice should be incorporated in the final MACT 
determination. The EPA specifically requests comment on the decision to 
establish proposed standards at the MACT floor for the blast furnace-
only smelting configuration.
    c. Rotary and Reverberatory Furnace Configurations. Control 
measures currently in use to control furnace emissions at rotary 
furnace and reverberatory furnace facilities are baghouses, wet 
scrubbers, and the addition of fluxing agents. Baghouses and wet 
scrubbers provide the same levels of control for metal HAP's (98 
percent) and HCl/Cl2 (99 percent), respectively, as with other 
furnace configurations. Soda ash and limestone are added to all rotary 
furnaces and some reverberatory furnaces as fluxing agents, providing 
HCl/Cl2 control equivalent to that of scrubbing.
    The high exhaust temperature maintained in rotary and reverberatory 
furnaces (greater than 1,000  deg.C) ensures nearly complete 
destruction of any organic HAP's present. Consequently, no additional 
control for organic HAP's is necessary.
    Six smelters operate either rotary or reverberatory furnace 
configurations. The best-controlled furnace and best-performing five 
furnaces use a baghouse to control metal HAP's and a scrubber or 
fluxing to control HCl/Cl2. Consequently, the combination of these 
controls constitutes the MACT floors for both new source and existing 
source. Because there are no control options available for 
consideration more stringent than the controls in the floors for new or 
existing sources, the technological basis selected for the proposed 
standards for rotary and reverberatory furnaces is a baghouse for 
controlling metal HAP's and a scrubber or flux addition for controlling 
HCl/Cl2.
    Under this selection of MACT for new and existing sources, two 
smelters would have to upgrade their air pollution controls to some 
degree by increasing the amount of fluxing agents added to their 
furnaces. No capital costs would be incurred; total annualized costs 
would be $76,000 for the additional fluxing agents at the two smelters. 
Hydrochloric acid and Cl2 emissions would be reduced by about 350 
Mg/yr (390 tpy). There would be no reduction in metal HAP or organic 
HAP emissions and no associated cost impacts. All six smelters 
operating this configuration currently have baghouses for PM, lead, and 
other metals control. Add-on controls for organic HAP emissions are 
unnecessary because neither furnace type emits organic HAP's.
    d. Electric Furnace Configuration. There is currently only one 
electric furnace in use in the secondary lead smelting source category. 
It is used to process slag generated at three reverberatory furnace-
only smelters. The furnace is equipped with a baghouse to control PM 
and lead emissions. Neither organic HAP's nor HCl/Cl2 are emitted 
from this furnace because it processes only slag that is relatively 
free of organic matter and available chlorine. Consequently, a baghouse 
constitutes the floor for both new source and existing source MACT for 
controlling metal HAP's. Because there are no available control options 
more stringent than a baghouse, the proposed MACT for new and existing 
sources is a baghouse. Because this furnace already has a baghouse, no 
upgrades in air pollution controls are needed and there would be no 
emission reductions or cost impacts associated with the proposed 
standard.
2. Selection of MACT for Process Fugitive Sources
    Process fugitive sources are similar in emissions characteristics 
and control technology across all secondary lead smelters, regardless 
of smelting furnace configuration. Therefore, there was no need to 
distinguish among process furnace configurations when developing the 
standards for process fugitive sources. The entire population of 
secondary lead smelters was used in determining MACT floor levels of 
control for new and existing sources.
    The four types of process fugitive sources being regulated are 
smelting furnace charging and tapping locations, flue dust 
agglomerating furnaces, refining kettles, and dryers. All of these are 
sources of metal HAP's and are typically controlled by hoods ventilated 
to baghouses.
    The proposed equipment specifications for the design and operation 
of capture hooding and ventilation for process fugitive sources are 
adapted from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's 
(OSHA's) ``Cooperative Assessment Program Manual for the Secondary Lead 
Smelter Industry'' (Docket No. A-92-43, Item No. II-I-16). The OSHA 
manual specifies that process fugitive sources should be controlled by 
an enclosure-type hood that is ventilated so that a minimum face 
velocity is achieved. Face velocity is the velocity at which air is 
drawn into a hood and, along with hood type, is a primary factor in 
hood capture efficiency. The minimum recommended face velocity varies 
by source type, but is generally about 110 m/min (350 fpm). These 
controls represent state-of-the-art ventilation practices to protect 
workers by promoting effective capture and ventilation of process 
fugitive emissions.
    The OSHA manual was developed in 1983 through a cooperative effort 
by government, industry, and labor in response to the occupational 
health standard for lead (29 CFR 1910.1025), which requires that 
employers in the secondary lead smelting industry implement controls to 
reduce employee exposure to lead. The manual was prepared to assist 
employers and employees in identifying and implementing the best 
controls that were recognized as technologically feasible.
    Based on observations at operating secondary lead smelters, the EPA 
believes that the capture and ventilation systems installed and 
operated at secondary lead smelters are designed and operated in 
accordance with the specifications contained in the OSHA cooperative 
assessment program manual. 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.
    a. Smelting Furnace Charging and Tapping. Smelting furnace charging 
and tapping are sources of metal HAP's. Blast furnace charging can also 
be a source of organic HAP's. With one exception, all furnace charging 
and lead tapping and slag tapping locations on 44 smelting furnaces are 
enclosed in a hood and captured emissions are ventilated to a baghouse 
for the control of metal HAP's. One blast furnace has no hooding or 
ventilation on the charging chute. Consequently, the MACT floor for 
existing sources is hooding and ventilation to a baghouse for the 
control of metal HAP's. There are no control options above the MACT 
floor, so the floor is the proposed MACT for both existing and new 
sources. The OSHA manual recommends an enclosure-type hood with a 
minimum face velocity of 110 m/min (350 fpm) for these emission points. 
The manual also recommends a similar hood for the transition piece on 
rotary furnaces.
    The proposed MACT to control organic HAP emissions from blast 
furnace charging is a hood over the charging chute with a ventilation 
flow rate that is properly balanced against the primary exhaust flow 
rate from the furnace. The two flow rates are balanced to minimize the 
escape of primary exhausts and organic HAP's to the furnace charging 
hood.
    b. Agglomerating Furnaces. Agglomerating furnaces are sources of 
metal HAP's. They are used at nine smelters and all are hooded and 
ventilated to a baghouse. Therefore, the MACT floor for existing 
sources is a hood with ventilation to a baghouse. There are no control 
options above the MACT floor, so the MACT floor is the basis for the 
proposed MACT for both new and existing sources. The OSHA manual 
recommends an enclosure-type hood with a minimum face velocity of 110 
m/min (350 fpm).
    c. Refining Kettles. Refining kettles are sources of metal HAP's. 
There are about 170 refining kettles and they are hooded and ventilated 
to baghouses at all but three smelters; three smelters use wet 
scrubbers instead of baghouses. Baghouses typically offer greater 
control of metal HAP's than wet scrubbers. Therefore, the MACT floor 
for existing sources is a hood and ventilation to a baghouse. There are 
no control options above the MACT floor, so the MACT floor is the basis 
for the proposed MACT for both new and existing sources. The OSHA 
manual recommends enclosure-type hoods with minimum face velocities of 
75 m/min (250 fpm) and flow rates of at least 60 m\3\/min per m\2\ (200 
acfm/ft\2\) of the surface area of the kettle's contents.
    d. Dryers. Dryers are sources of metal HAP's. They are currently in 
use at six smelters to remove moisture from materials just prior to 
charging them to reverberatory smelting furnaces. Each dryer has a 
transition piece between the dryer cylinder and the furnace feed chute. 
These transition pieces on all dryers are hooded and ventilated to a 
baghouse. The MACT floor for both existing and new dryers is, 
therefore, hoods over the transition pieces with ventilation to a 
baghouse. There are no control options above the MACT floor, so the 
MACT floor is the basis for the proposed MACT for both new and existing 
sources.
    The OSHA manual does not contain recommendations for dryers, but 
the transition piece on a dryer is analogous to the transition piece on 
a rotary smelting furnace, for which the manual recommends an 
enclosure-type hood with a face velocity of at least 110 m/min (350 
fpm). The proposed MACT includes these specifications.
3. Impacts of Proposed Standards for Process Fugitive Sources
    There are no controls more stringent than those established by the 
MACT floor described above for process fugitive sources. Therefore, the 
EPA is proposing standards for process fugitive sources that correspond 
to the MACT floor.
    One smelter would be required to upgrade its process fugitive 
controls by adding a hood over its blast furnace charging chute. The 
estimated capital and annualized costs to enclose and ventilate this 
one source would be $47,000 and $4,400, respectively. The estimated 
pollutant reduction would be 26 Mg/yr (29 tpy) of metal HAP's.
    Another smelter would be required to balance existing ventilation 
air at the blast furnace charging chute to preclude the inadvertent 
collection of process gases that contain organic HAP's. The potential 
emission reductions at the one smelter at which organic HAP process 
emissions were detected in the charging hood exhaust air would be about 
50 Mg/yr (55 tpy).
    The EPA has no data on the performance of the wet scrubbers being 
used to control the refining kettle emissions at three smelters. The 
MACT floor for refining kettles is hooding and ventilation to a 
baghouse, and baghouses are generally more efficient than scrubbers in 
controlling metal HAP's. However, refining kettles are very similar to 
scrap melting operations at battery manufacturing facilities. Data from 
the latter that are controlled by wet scrubbers indicate that refining 
kettles controlled by wet scrubbers should be able to achieve a lead 
limit that is based on the performance of a baghouse (Docket No. A-92-
43, Item No. II-A-8). Therefore, it should not be necessary to replace 
the existing wet scrubbers with baghouses and there should be no 
associated cost impacts.
4. Selection of MACT for Fugitive Dust Sources
    Fugitive dust sources are similar in emissions characteristics and 
control technology for all smelters, regardless of smelting furnace 
configuration. Therefore, there was no need to distinguish among 
furnace configurations when developing the standards for fugitive dust 
sources. The entire population of 23 secondary lead smelters was used 
to determine the MACT floors for new and existing fugitive dust 
sources.
    The four areas of fugitive dust sources being regulated are battery 
breaking areas, furnace and refining and casting areas, materials 
storage and handling areas, and plant roadways.
    Controls for fugitive dust sources include: (1) Paving all areas 
subject to vehicle traffic to facilitate the removal of accumulated 
dust, (2) periodic cleaning of all paved areas to remove deposited dust 
and prevent its re-entrainment or transfer to other areas by vehicle 
traffic, (3) vehicle washes at exits from materials storage and 
handling areas to prevent carry-out of metal HAP-bearing residues and 
dust, (4) wetting or use of chemical surfactants, binding agents, or 
sealers on storage piles coupled with partial or total enclosures to 
limit wind erosion and the generation of dust associated with materials 
storage and handling, and (5) ventilating total enclosures, where used, 
to a baghouse or equivalent device to capture airborne dust.
    Total enclosure of a fugitive dust source and ventilation of the 
enclosure to a control device may at first appear to be the most 
effective means of controlling fugitive dust emissions. However, the 
EPA has determined from observations of operating smelters and a 
technical analysis of fugitive dust control measures applicable to this 
source category that partial enclosures with appropriate wetting and 
pavement cleaning cost much less and are equally effective in 
controlling fugitive dust emissions when coupled with monitoring and 
recordkeeping to ensure these activities are performed (Docket No. A-
92-43, Item No. II-B-28).
    It should be noted that existing Clean Water Act effluent 
limitation guidelines already provide discharge allowances, based on 
technology-based controls, for pollutants in the wastewater generated 
from facility wash down and truck washing. This proposed regulation 
should not require any amendments to those standards. (See 40 CFR 421, 
subpart M).
    a. Battery Breaking Area. At least nine smelters control fugitive 
dust emissions from the battery breaking area. Controls include partial 
or total enclosures, vacuum or powerwashing systems, and the wetting of 
storage piles. Therefore, these controls are the MACT floor for 
existing sources. Because there exists no more stringent controls that 
are demonstrated for the battery breaking area, these floor level 
controls are the proposed MACT for existing sources and are also the 
proposed MACT for new sources. An equivalent alternative technology is 
to totally enclose the area and ventilate the entire building or 
enclosure volume to a baghouse.
    b. Furnace and Lead Refining and Casting Areas. At least 12 
smelters either totally enclose the furnace and lead refining and 
casting areas and ventilate the enclosure to a baghouse, or partially 
enclose this area on at least three sides and vacuum or powerwash the 
pavement. The remaining smelters use some, but not all, of these 
techniques. Therefore, partial enclosure coupled with pavement cleaning 
(vacuuming or powerwashing) or total enclosure ventilated to a baghouse 
is the MACT floor for existing sources. Because no more stringent 
controls are available, these floor level controls are the proposed 
MACT for existing sources and are also the proposed MACT for new 
sources.
    c. Materials Storage and Handling Areas. At least 12 smelters have 
paved the materials storage and handling areas, operate vehicle washes 
at exits from these areas, and either totally enclose the area and 
ventilate the enclosure to a baghouse or partially enclose the storage 
piles and use wetting or other dust suppression techniques on the 
storage piles. The remaining smelters use some, but not all, of these 
techniques. Therefore, vehicle washes, paving, and either partial 
enclosure coupled with wet suppression or total enclosure and a 
baghouse is the MACT floor for existing sources. Because no more 
stringent controls are available, these floor level controls are the 
proposed MACT for existing sources and also the proposed MACT for new 
sources.
    d. Roadways. At least 16 smelters have paved their roadways and 
periodically clean the pavement by vacuuming or powerwashing. 
Therefore, these controls are the MACT floor for existing sources. 
Because no more stringent controls are available, these floor level 
controls are the proposed MACT for existing sources and also the 
proposed MACT for new sources.
5. Impacts of Proposed Standards for Fugitive Dust Sources
    The EPA is proposing that the MACT floors should serve as the basis 
of the proposed standards for fugitive dust sources because there are 
no available control technologies more stringent than the MACT floors. 
Each smelter would be required to develop an SOP manual that describes 
how it will use MACT controls to limit fugitive dust emissions and 
operate according to the manual at all times.
    Thirteen smelters would be required to upgrade their fugitive dust 
controls and practices to meet the MACT level of control in the 
proposed standards. Four smelters would need to purchase mobile vacuum 
systems and allocate additional labor hours to operate them. Nine 
smelters that already operate vacuums would need to increase the 
operation of the vacuums to clean additional areas not currently 
vacuumed or begin implementing some form of dust suppression practices 
in the materials storage area.
    The capital costs of adopting the proposed standards would be about 
$190,000 for the purchase of vacuums at four smelters. The total annual 
cost would be $110,000, which includes the annualized cost of the new 
vacuums, operating labor for additional vacuuming, and the cost of 
additional water (including treatment) for wet suppression. The 
estimated emission reductions would be 23 Mg/yr (25 tpy) of metal 
HAP's. The dust collected by the additional vacuum sweepers and other 
fugitive dust controls would be recycled back into the smelting furnace 
to recover the lead content. Therefore, there would be no significant 
costs incurred for the management of the captured fugitive dust.

D. Selection of the Format for the Proposed Standards

    Several formats were considered to implement the control techniques 
selected as the basis for the proposed standards. These include 
emission standards in a variety of format options, as well as design, 
equipment, work practice, and operational standards. Section 112(d) of 
the Act requires the Administrator to prescribe emission standards for 
HAP control unless, in the Administrator's judgement, it is not 
feasible to prescribe or enforce emission standards.
    Section 112(h) defines two conditions under which it is not 
feasible to prescribe or enforce emission standards:
    (1) If the HAP cannot be emitted through a conveyance device 
designed and constructed to emit or capture the HAP, or
    (2) if the application of measurement methodology to a particular 
class of sources is not practicable because of technological or 
economic limitations. If it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce 
emission standards, then the Administrator may instead promulgate 
equipment, work practice, design, or operational standards, or a 
combination thereof.
    Format options for numerical emission standards or limits include 
mass concentration (mass per unit volume), volume concentration (volume 
per unit volume), mass emission rate (mass per unit time), process 
emission rate (mass per unit of production or other process parameter), 
and percent reduction.
1. Process Emission Sources
    The EPA is proposing numerical emission standards, expressed as 
mass or volume concentrations, for lead, THC, and HCl/Cl2 
emissions from smelting furnaces. As noted in section II.D of this 
preamble, lead and THC have been selected as surrogates for metal HAP's 
and organic HAP's, respectively.
    Baghouses constitute the technological basis for the MACT standards 
proposed to limit metal HAP emissions from smelting furnaces. Because 
of the physical mechanism by which baghouses operate, they 
characteristically achieve a constant outlet concentration independent 
of the inlet concentration or loading. Tempering air is introduced 
before the baghouse at some smelters to cool furnace process emissions 
and control baghouse temperature, but this dilution prior to the 
baghouse does not affect outlet concentrations or baghouse performance. 
Dilution with ambient air between the control device and an emission 
monitoring or testing point is prohibited under section 63.4 of the 
General Provisions.
    Other format options considered included mass rate (kg/hr), a 
production-based emission rate (kg/Mg of furnace charge), and percent 
reduction. The EPA is not proposing the mass emission rate format (kg/
hr) because it cannot account for differences in actual emission rates 
between different size smelting furnaces. The production-based emission 
rate format is not proposed because production rate is difficult to 
measure over short periods and the mass emission rate from a baghouse 
may not correlate well with production rate during an emissions test. 
The EPA is not proposing the percent reduction format because baghouses 
are constant outlet devices, causing removal efficiency to vary with 
inlet loading. In addition, this format would require simultaneous 
testing at inlet and outlet locations, which would subject smelters to 
unnecessary additional testing costs. Consequently, the EPA is 
proposing a concentration limit for lead reflecting performance of a 
properly operated baghouse.
    The format the EPA is proposing for the THC emission standard is 
concentration expressed in ppmv as propane, corrected to a constant 
CO2 concentration. The correction to a constant CO2 
concentration accounts for any dilution due to blending with process 
fugitive emission streams prior to discharge to the atmosphere. 
Alternative formats that were evaluated but not selected were mass 
emission rate, production-based emission rate, and percent reduction.
    The format of the proposed HCl/Cl2 standard is concentration 
expressed as mg/dscm and corrected to a constant CO2 concentration 
to account for dilution from combined process fugitive streams. Format 
options examined but not selected for the HCl/Cl2 emission 
standard include mass emission rate, production based emission rate, 
and percent reduction.
    For both the THC and HCl/Cl2 emission standards, the kg/hr 
mass emission format was not proposed because it does not account 
appropriately for size differences among smelting furnaces. The EPA is 
not proposing the production-based emission rate format because of the 
difficulty in establishing relationships between emissions and 
production or process parameters during the short time period of an 
emissions test. The percent reduction format is not proposed because 
there is often no suitable inlet location for testing. In addition, 
even if a suitable test location were available, this format requires 
simultaneous inlet and outlet testing, which would subject smelters to 
unnecessary additional testing costs.
    The measured THC and HCl/Cl2 concentrations would be corrected 
to a constant CO2 concentration of 4 percent to account for 
dilution from tempering air or from combined process fugitive emission 
sources. The measured THC or HCl/Cl2 concentration would be 
multiplied by a correction factor determined by dividing 4 percent 
CO2 by the CO2 measured during the compliance test. If the 
measured CO2 concentration is less than 0.4 percent, then a 
maximum correction factor of 10 would be used. A cap on the correction 
factor was selected because the relation between the correction factor 
and the measured CO2 concentration is non-linear and the 
correction factor becomes unreasonably high at a CO2 concentration 
below 0.4 percent. Furthermore, the proposed method for measuring 
CO2 (EPA reference method 3B) is only accurate to within 0.2 
percent CO2.
    A cap on the correction factor will not bias compliance 
calculations towards less stringent enforcement of the THC or HCl/
Cl2 emission standards. It is unlikely, because of the economic 
cost of moving such a large volume of air, that any smelter would 
attempt to dilute a process emission stream more than 10 times above 
the level needed for normal gas stream conditioning.
2. Process Fugitive Sources
    The proposed standards for process fugitive emissions would 
require: (1) Proper capture of process fugitive emissions, and (2) 
control or destruction of the captured emissions. Equipment 
specifications (i.e., requirements for hoods with specified face 
velocities) are proposed to ensure that emissions from process fugitive 
sources are effectively captured and conveyed into a duct that can be 
directed to a control device.
    Numerical emission limits are being proposed to judge the 
performance of the control device. A numerical emission limit (mg/dscm) 
for lead compounds, as a surrogate for metal HAP's, is proposed for the 
control device that collects the captured process fugitive emissions 
(e.g., the sanitary baghouse). A mass rate (kg/hr) THC emission limit, 
as a surrogate for organic HAP's, is being proposed for emissions from 
blast furnace charging. A concentration THC limit was considered but is 
inappropriate because of the variability among smelters in the quantity 
of ventilation air applied at furnace charging locations and the 
frequent mixing of furnace charging air with ventilation air from other 
process fugitive sources, such as furnace tapping locations and 
refining kettles.
    The THC limit on blast furnace charging would apply only if the 
charging process fugitive emissions are discharged through a separate 
stack from the process emissions. The facility operator would not need 
to demonstrate compliance with the THC emission standard for process 
fugitive charging emissions if two conditions exist: (1) The 
ventilation air from the hood and the process exhaust gases are 
combined and discharged through a common stack, and (2) compliance with 
the THC emission limit for process sources is determined downstream 
from the point at which the charging ventilation air and process source 
exhaust are combined. In this case, compliance with the THC limit for 
process sources would be sufficient to confirm that process emissions 
are not escaping into the blast furnace charging hood and that all 
organic HAP emissions are being properly controlled.
3. Fugitive Dust Sources
    Work practice standards are being proposed to control fugitive dust 
sources, as allowed under section 112(h) of the Act. Because of their 
nature, fugitive dust emissions can not be captured and subsequently 
discharged through a stack, vent, or other conveyance. Consequently, 
the use of conventional stack sampling methods are not practical or 
feasible. The proposed work practice standards would also require the 
development of a site-specific SOP manual that describes the steps that 
would be taken to limit fugitive dust emissions from all affected 
sources. The controls included in the SOP manual must be equivalent to 
those specified in the proposed regulation.

E. Selection of Emission Limits and Equipment and Work Practice 
Standards for New and Existing Sources

    The proposed emission limits for lead, THC, and HCl/Cl2 are 
based on emissions data collected by the EPA primarily through an 
emission source testing program conducted at several well-controlled 
secondary lead smelters. The purpose of the testing program was to 
evaluate the performance of candidate MACT systems and to establish 
appropriate and corresponding limits.
    Prior to the EPA testing program, compliance test data and 
emissions data from previous EPA studies of the secondary lead smelting 
industry were collected and reviewed. These data were mostly for 
criteria pollutants (PM, lead, and SO2) and included insufficient 
data for metal HAP's, organic HAP's, or HCl/Cl2 to accurately 
estimate baseline emissions and to establish emission limits. 
Therefore, the EPA testing program was initiated to collect additional 
data on HAP emissions and on surrogates that are strongly correlated 
with HAP emissions.
    The EPA testing was conducted at six facilities: a collocated 
reverberatory/blast furnace facility, a rotary furnace-only facility, a 
reverberatory furnace-only facility, and three blast furnace 
facilities. These facilities were selected for testing because they 
were representative of other facilities with similar furnace 
configurations and because each facility had controls for organic 
HAP's, metal HAP's, and HCl/Cl2 that represented the MACT floor 
controls.
    Complete results of the testing program and their analyses are 
summarized in chapter 3 and appendix A of the BID. The derivation of 
the proposed emission limits for process and process fugitive sources 
is described in more detail in Docket No. A-92-43, Item No. II-B-32.
1. Process Sources
    Emission limits for process sources were developed from EPA test 
data for lead and THC (surrogates for metal HAP's and organic HAP's, 
respectively) and for HCl/Cl2.
    a. Lead Emission Limit. The proposed lead emission limit was 
selected primarily on the basis of the results of EPA-sponsored tests 
of smelting furnaces controlled by well-maintained and well-operated 
baghouses. The EPA tested three baghouses used to control furnace 
exhausts from a blast furnace, a combined reverberatory/blast furnace, 
and a rotary furnace. The baghouse on the blast furnace also treated 
ventilation air from furnace charging and lead and slag tapping. Three 
sample runs using EPA reference method 12 were conducted at the outlet 
of each baghouse to quantify lead emissions.
    The average lead concentration from each baghouse ranged from 0.60 
to 0.70 mg/dscm (0.00026 to 0.00031 gr/dscf). The average lead 
concentration for all three baghouses tested (total of nine sample 
runs) was 0.66 mg/dscm (0.00029 gr/dscf). Individual runs ranged from 
0.28 mg/dscm to 1.03 mg/dscm.
    A statistical analysis of the variability in the process baghouse 
data was performed. The analysis inherently accounts for variability in 
emissions from well-operated and well-maintained baghouses as well as 
measurement variability. At a 95-percent confidence level, lead 
emissions measured during subsequent tests of the same baghouses could 
be as high as 1.3 mg/dscm (0.00057 gr/dscf) with no changes in baghouse 
operation or maintenance. This suggests that the proposed lead emission 
limit should be no lower than 1.3 mg/dscm.
    Compliance test data collected from other operating smelters were 
also examined. These data, consisting of 23 individual compliance 
tests, show lead emissions from process baghouses ranging from 0.04 to 
4.7 mg/dscm (0.00002 to 0.0021 gr/dscf) and suggest that the lead 
emission limit should be higher than 1.3 mg/dscm.
    Most of the data are distributed continuously at concentrations 
less than or equal to 1.6 mg/dscm. The emissions of 1.6 mg/dscm were 
measured at a new smelter just after it began operating in 1992. Close 
examination of the data greater than 1.6 mg/dscm and available 
documentation provided the following comments. Lead emissions of 2.3 
mg/dscm were measured in 1988 at a smelter that has since upgraded its 
air pollution control systems. The other emissions data greater than 
2.3 mg/dscm were measured at smelters that are not currently operating. 
The operation and maintenance quality of the baghouses at these latter 
smelters cannot, therefore, be determined.
    These compliance data indicate that the lead emission limit should 
be greater than 1.6 mg/dscm but less than 2.3 mg/dscm. Based on this 
information, the EPA selected an emission limit of 2.0 mg/dscm (0.00087 
gr/dscf) as a reasonable value between 1.6 and 2.3 mg/dscm.
    A complete and detailed presentation of the baghouse test data, 
both EPA-collected and industry-supplied, is included in chapter 3 and 
appendix A of the BID. The analysis performed in selecting the proposed 
lead emission limit is described in Docket No. A-92-43, Item No. II-B-
32.
    The compliance data available to the EPA show several smelters with 
lead emissions substantially lower than 2.0 mg/dscm. These data may 
lead to the conclusion that the MACT floor emission limit (based on the 
average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing five 
sources) should also be substantially lower than 2.0 mg/dscm. However, 
it should be kept in mind that these compliance data, like the EPA test 
data, were collected over a brief time period, i.e., three 1-hour runs. 
Therefore, these data represent only a ``snapshot'' of the performance 
of each source and do not necessarily represent an emission level that 
can be continuously achieved on a long-term basis by the MACT floor 
control technology.
    There are variations in emissions over time that cannot be 
attributed to variation in any particular furnace or control device 
operating or maintenance parameter. This is demonstrated, for example, 
by the variation in the measurements observed over the three runs 
during a single emissions test. The EPA took this variation in 
emissions into account when developing the proposed emission limit of 
2.0 mg/dscm by examining all of the data that are available for 
smelting furnaces controlled by well-operated and well-maintained 
baghouses. The proposed 2.0 mg/dscm emission limit represents the 
average of the five best-performing sources adjusted for variability 
and it is continuously achievable on a long-term basis by a smelter 
controlled by a well-operated and well-maintained baghouse.
    b. THC Emission Limits. The EPA measured controlled THC 
concentrations at the following smelting furnace configurations with 
corresponding MACT controls: (1) A reverberatory/blast furnace 
combination controlled by gas stream blending with a combined exhaust 
temperature of 930  deg.C (1,700  deg.F); (2) a blast furnace 
controlled by an afterburner operating at 700  deg.C (1,300  deg.F); 
(3) a rotary furnace with no add-on organic HAP controls; and (4) a 
reverberatory furnace with no add-on organic HAP controls.
    The THC concentration at each smelter was measured using EPA 
reference method 25A and expressed as an equivalent concentration of 
propane. The average CO2 concentration was also measured as part 
of the gas stream analysis using EPA reference method 3B (40 CFR part 
60, appendix A). The results of this testing program are presented in 
more detail in chapter 3 and appendix A of the BID. The methodology for 
the selection of the THC limits is described in more detail in Docket 
No. A-92-43, Item No. II-B-32.
    The reverberatory/blast furnace configuration tested by the EPA was 
controlled by blending the blast and reverberatory furnace gases and 
then venting the combined stream to an afterburner. The average 
temperature of the combined stream at the afterburner inlet was 780 
deg.C (1,430  deg.F) and the average afterburner outlet temperature was 
940  deg.C (1,720  deg.F). The temperature range of the afterburner 
outlet was 900  deg.C to 980  deg.C (1,650  deg.F to 1,800  deg.F). The 
residence time of the afterburner was 2.5 seconds. In this 
configuration, the fuel input to the afterburner was minimal and most 
of the afterburner temperature increase was probably due to the fuel 
value of the organic compounds in the blast furnace exhaust.
    At the reverberatory/blast furnace smelter, the controlled THC 
measurements were made over three 3-hour sampling runs. The average THC 
concentrations for the three runs were 3.0 ppmv, 5.1 ppmv, and 20 ppmv 
at 4 percent CO2. The average concentration for all three runs was 
9.4 ppmv at 4 percent CO2. The variation observed in THC 
concentrations could not be correlated with any variation in the 
smelting furnaces or combustion conditions during the tests and, 
therefore, appears to be normal for a well-controlled reverberatory/
blast furnace configuration. The THC emissions limit selected for 
collocated reverberatory/blast furnaces is 20 ppmv (as propane 
corrected to 4 percent CO2), which is the highest THC 
concentration obtained during the individual 3-hour runs. The EPA 
selected the highest run as the proposed THC limit to account for 
normal variation in THC emissions.
    The blast furnace tested by the EPA was controlled by an 
afterburner with an average operating temperature of 700  deg.C (1,300 
deg.F), although during the tests the temperature varied between 680 
and 730  deg.C (1,250 and 1,350  deg.F), with a few short-term spikes 
to 790  deg.C (1,450  deg.F). The retention time of the afterburner was 
2.5 seconds.
    At the blast furnace-only smelter, the controlled THC emissions 
were measured over two 3-hour runs. The average THC concentration in 
the first run was 300 ppmv (as propane, corrected to 4 percent 
CO2) and the average THC concentration during the second run was 
360 ppmv. The average afterburner temperature during both runs was 700 
deg.C (1,300  deg.F). The 20-percent difference in THC concentration 
between the two runs could not be attributed to any other smelting 
furnace or afterburner operating parameter, so the difference is 
expected to represent normal variation in THC emissions from a well-
controlled blast furnace. Based on these tests, the EPA is proposing a 
THC emissions limit for blast furnace facilities of 360 ppmv (as 
propane, corrected to 4 percent CO2), which is the higher 
concentration from the two 3-hour runs. The EPA selected the higher 
concentration to account for the normal variability in THC emissions 
from a blast furnace controlled by an afterburner operating at 700 
deg.C (1,300  deg.F).
    No data are available for the THC concentration from a blast 
furnace controlled by an afterburner operating at 870  deg.C (1,600 
deg.F), the proposed MACT for new blast furnaces. However, previous EPA 
studies have demonstrated that afterburners operating at 870  deg.C and 
a minimum residence time of 0.75 seconds are capable of achieving a 98-
percent destruction efficiency for vent streams with organic 
concentrations greater than 2,000 ppmv as carbon (about 700 ppmv as 
propane) (Docket No. A-92-43, Item No. II-B-31). Based on a typical 
uncontrolled level for THC of 3,500 ppmv as propane, the predicted THC 
concentration from a blast furnace controlled by an afterburner 
operating at 870  deg.C (1600  deg.F) is 70 ppmv, at 4 percent 
CO2. Therefore, the EPA is proposing a THC limit for new blast 
furnace facilities of 70 ppmv (as propane, corrected to 4 percent 
CO2).
    The exhaust temperature from rotary and reverberatory furnaces are 
comparable to the afterburner outlet temperature of the reverberatory/
blast furnace configuration (940  deg.C [1720  deg.F]), so there is 
nearly complete combustion of organic compounds within the furnace 
itself and no add-on organic HAP controls are needed. Rotary furnaces 
are operated in batches lasting from 15 to 24 hours in length. During 
charging, the furnace temperature is reduced and there are brief (1-
hour) periods when the THC level may reach as high as 1,500 ppmv. The 
THC level drops quickly, however, to less than 10 ppmv when charging is 
completed and the furnace is brought to normal operating temperature. 
Reverberatory furnaces are operated at a constant temperature so there 
are no peaks in organic emissions associated with charging.
    None of the rotary furnaces in use at secondary lead smelters have 
add-on controls for organics or CO. At the rotary furnace smelter 
tested by the EPA, the THC concentration at the furnace outlet was 
measured over six complete batch cycles. Each batch cycle lasted from 
15 to 24 hours. The THC concentration averaged over the length of each 
batch cycle ranged from 35 to 170 ppmv as propane, corrected to 4 
percent CO2. The organic HAP emission rate from the rotary 
smelting furnace was only about 0.5 kg/hr (1 lb/hr), compared to about 
3 and 9 kg/hr (7 and 20 lb/hr) of uncontrolled organic HAP emissions 
from the reverberatory/blast and blast furnaces tested by the EPA, 
respectively.
    The proposed MACT for new and existing rotary furnaces is no add-on 
control for organic HAP's, which is consistent with the MACT floor for 
these furnace types. For this reason, and because of the low organic 
HAP emissions potential from rotary furnaces, no THC emissions limit is 
being proposed for rotary furnaces.
    At the reverberatory furnace smelter tested by the EPA, the THC 
concentration was measured at the furnace outlet over one 5-hour run 
and three 1-hour runs. The average THC concentration, as propane, for 
each run ranged from 9 to 11 ppmv, at 4 percent CO2. The average 
THC concentration was lower than for rotary furnaces because 
reverberatory furnaces are operated on a continuous basis and the 
furnace temperature is not lowered during charging. No add-on or 
process modification organic HAP controls are in use for this furnace 
type, and the proposed MACT for new and existing reverberatory furnaces 
is no add-on control. Therefore, no THC emissions limit is being 
proposed for reverberatory furnaces.
    No THC or organic HAP emissions data are available for the electric 
smelting furnace. However, this furnace processes only slag that is 
essentially free of organic material, and, therefore, is not likely to 
be a source of organic HAP emissions. This presumption is confirmed by 
CO emissions (which are correlated with organic HAP emissions) that are 
similar to CO emissions from other furnace types that also have low 
organic HAP emissions (Docket No. A-92-43, Item II-I-22).
    The EPA is not proposing organic HAP or THC standards for rotary, 
reverberatory, and electric smelting furnaces because of the low 
organic HAP emission potential and because the MACT floor for organic 
HAP controls is no control for these configurations. Moreover, 
efficient production of lead in these furnace types requires operating 
and exhaust temperatures that result in low organic HAP and THC 
emissions. Relatively low emissions, therefore, should be ensured even 
in the absence of an emissions standard or a monitoring requirement.
    c. HCl and Chlorine Emission Limits. The EPA measured HCl and 
Cl2 emissions at the following smelting furnace configurations 
with corresponding MACT controls: (1) A reverberatory/blast furnace 
configuration controlled by the addition of soda ash to the blast 
furnace and by a wet SO2 scrubber on the combined blast and 
reverberatory furnace exhausts; (2) a blast furnace controlled by the 
addition of soda ash to the furnace and a wet SO2 scrubber; and 
(3) a rotary furnace controlled by the addition of soda ash to the 
furnace and a wet SO2 scrubber. The facilities were selected for 
testing because they were representative of other facilities with 
similar furnace configurations and because each smelter was fitted with 
a wet SO2 scrubber. At the time the testing program was initiated, 
wet SO2 scrubbers were the only HCl/Cl2 controls being 
evaluated. The use of fluxing to control HCl/Cl2 emissions was 
developed as a result of the EPA testing program.
    Emissions of HCl and Cl2 were measured ahead of and after the 
scrubber at each smelter in three 1-hour sample runs using EPA 
reference method 26A. The average CO2 concentration was also 
measured as part of the gas stream analysis using EPA reference method 
3B (40 CFR part 60 appendix A).
    At the blast furnace and rotary furnace smelters, the total HCl/
Cl2 concentrations and emission rates measured ahead of the 
scrubber were less than 1 mg/dscm (0.0004 gr/dscf) and 0.05 kg/hr (0.1 
lb/hr), respectively. At these low levels, no detectable incremental 
control was observed across the scrubber at either facility.
    The reverberatory/blast furnace had a much higher total HCl/
Cl2 concentration and emission rate ahead of the scrubber than 
either the blast and rotary furnaces: 273 mg/dscm (0.119 gr/dscf) and 
12.5 kg/hr (27.6 lb/hr), respectively. About 98 percent of these 
emissions were HCl and 2 percent were Cl2. The scrubber was 
measured to be 99.8-percent effective in reducing total HCl/Cl2 
emissions, and the controlled emissions were less than 1 mg/dscm 
(0.0004 gr/dscf) and 0.05 kg/hr (0.1 lb/hr).
    The EPA believes that the very low uncontrolled HCl emissions 
observed are due to the use of soda ash and limestone as fluxing agents 
in the rotary and blast furnaces. Both smelters reported that soda ash 
or limestone were added primarily to enhance the reduction of lead 
compounds to lead metal. An analysis performed by the EPA indicates 
that these fluxing agents will also bind chloride ions in the feed 
material as NaCl or CaCl2 salts so that the chlorides are removed 
in the slag rather than being emitted as HCl or Cl2. No fluxing 
agents were added to the reverberatory furnace in the reverberatory/
blast configuration tested, and uncontrolled emissions of HCl recorded 
were substantially higher than those recorded at the blast and rotary 
furnaces tested with fluxing. However, the wet scrubber was effective 
in reducing the HCl/Cl2 emissions from the reverberatory/blast 
furnace to the same level as observed from the blast and rotary 
furnaces using fluxing agents.
    All three of these furnace types charge the smelting furnace with 
battery scrap which contains PVC battery plate separators. These 
separators, when burned, are believed to be the source of the chlorides 
observed. These chlorides may be removed from the furnace in two ways, 
either in the form of HCl and Cl2 in the exhaust gas or they may 
be bound in the slag and subsequently removed. At both the blast and 
rotary furnaces, soda ash or limestone are normally charged with the 
battery scrap. These compounds react with the available chlorides to 
form salts (NaCl or CaCl2), which are stable at typical furnace 
temperatures. These salts are then removed from the furnace during 
slagging. At the reverberatory/blast furnace combination, neither soda 
ash nor limestone was charged to the furnace with the battery scrap. 
Subsequently the chlorides are eliminated from the furnace as HCl and 
Cl2 emissions.
    Tests were also conducted at a reverberatory furnace at which soda 
ash is charged to the furnace. These tests indicate that substantial 
reductions in HCl emissions are possible (greater than 90 percent) by 
adding soda ash to this type of furnace. Other facilities operating 
this type of furnace also add soda ash or limestone to the furnace 
feed, but the EPA has no emissions data on these furnaces. Because 
these other facilities normally charge these fluxing agents to the 
furnaces, it is believed that the addition of these fluxing agents will 
have no detrimental effect on the final lead product.
    A related method called de-sulfurizing also appears effective in 
eliminating emissions of HCl/Cl2. The chlorides are eliminated 
from the furnace in the slag using the same chemical mechanism 
previously described. In this process, the battery paste and flue dust 
are reacted with soda ash to remove the sulfur from the feedstock. In 
this process, unreacted soda ash remains with the resulting paste and 
is charged into the furnace. Data indicate that resulting HCl emissions 
are very low, less than 1.5 mg/dscm (Docket No. A-92-43, Item Nos. II-
D-18 and II-D-21).
    If a facility chooses not to add these fluxing agents to the 
furnace for process-related reasons, wet scrubbers are capable of 
achieving the same emission rates for HCl/Cl2.
    It is also important to note that the EPA believes the potential 
for HCl emissions from this source category will be diminishing over 
the next several years. As stated earlier, the source of chlorides in 
the furnace is the PVC separators. Most battery manufacturers are 
phasing out the use of PVC separators in favor of other materials 
(Docket No. A-92-43, Item No. II-I-11).
    Based on the EPA test results and technical analysis, the EPA is 
proposing an HCl/Cl2 limit of 15 mg/dscm, corrected to 4 percent 
CO2, for all smelting furnace configurations except the electric 
smelting furnace. The EPA is proposing an HCl/Cl2 limit of 15 mg/
dscm rather than 1 mg/dscm, which was the emission concentration 
measured during testing, because EPA reference method 26A has a 
possible negative bias below an HCl concentration of 30 mg/dscm (59 FR 
19306-19323). The margin between 1 mg/dscm and 15 mg/dscm was selected 
to account for this potential bias. The CO2 correction factor is 
to account for dilution if the process emissions at a facility are 
combined with process fugitive emissions before the point at which 
compliance with the HCl/Cl2 limit is determined.
    No data are available for HCl or Cl2 emissions from the 
electric smelting furnace. However, this furnace processes only 
reverberatory furnace slag in which chlorides are present in the form 
of NaCl or CaCl2 and there is a very low potential for HCl and 
Cl2 emissions. Therefore, the EPA is not proposing an HCl or 
Cl2 limit for this configuration.
2. Process Fugitive Sources
    Equipment specifications are being proposed for process fugitive 
emission capture systems. Emission limits for lead emissions as a 
surrogate for metal HAP's are being proposed for control devices that 
handle captured process fugitive emissions. Emission limits for THC 
emissions as a surrogate for organic HAP's are being proposed for 
control devices that handle the gas streams from blast furnace charging 
capture systems.
    a. Equipment Specifications. The proposed equipment specifications 
for process fugitive emission capture systems were selected on the 
basis of observations at operating smelters and the recommendations 
contained in the OSHA Cooperative Assessment Program Manual for the 
Secondary Lead Smelter Industry. The proposed equipment specifications 
are described in more detail under the selection of MACT for process 
fugitive sources in section VI.C of this preamble.
    Observations made during EPA visits to operating smelters indicated 
that nearly all process fugitive emission sources at all the smelters 
visited are controlled by enclosure-type hoods consistent with those 
recommended in the OSHA manual. All of these hoods were ventilated to 
baghouses or wet scrubbers. Face velocities measured with a hand-held 
anemometer at one smelter were greater than the minimum face velocities 
recommended in the OSHA Manual. (Docket No. A-92-43, Item No. II-B-34).
    b. Lead Emission Limit. The proposed lead emission limit was 
selected on the basis of the results of EPA-sponsored tests of process 
fugitive sources controlled by well-maintained and well-operated 
baghouses.
    The EPA determined baghouse performance for the control of process 
fugitive metal HAP emissions by measuring baghouse outlet lead 
concentrations using EPA reference method 12. The EPA tested six 
baghouses controlling process fugitive sources at three smelters. One 
baghouse controlled the refining kettles at a blast furnace smelter. 
Another baghouse controlled the refining kettles and furnace charging 
and tapping at a rotary furnace smelter. The remaining four baghouses 
controlled the process fugitive emissions and building ventilation 
sources at a reverberatory/blast furnace smelter. The average of three 
runs was used to characterize the performance of each baghouse.
    The average lead concentration from each baghouse ranged from 0.33 
to 1.82 mg/dscm (0.00015 to 0.00080 gr/dscf). The average lead 
concentration for all six baghouses tested was 0.83 mg/dscm (0.00036 
gr/dscf). The baghouse with the highest lead emission rate appeared to 
be well operated and well maintained, although removal efficiency was 
substantially lower because the inlet grain loading was also lower than 
for the other process fugitive baghouses.
    A statistical comparison of the average emission concentrations 
indicate that there is no significant difference in the controlled lead 
emissions from the process fugitive baghouses compared to the process 
baghouses at the 5 percent probability level. A statistical analysis of 
the normal variability in the process fugitive baghouse data (excluding 
the baghouse with the lowest efficiency) predicted at the 95-percent 
confidence level that lead emissions measured during subsequent tests 
of the same baghouses could be as high as 2.0 mg/dscm (0.00087 gr/dscf) 
with no changes in baghouse operation or maintenance. Compliance test 
data provided to the EPA by smelter operators show lead emissions from 
process fugitive baghouses ranging from 0.02 to 1.1 mg/dscm (0.00001 to 
0.00048 gr/dscf), indicating that all smelters could achieve a lead 
emission level of 2.0 mg/dscm. This emission level also accommodates 
the baghouse with the 1.82 mg/dscm outlet concentration measured by the 
EPA. Based on the outcome of the EPA testing program, the EPA has 
selected a proposed lead emissions limit of 2.0 mg/dscm (0.00087 gr/
dscf) for process fugitive sources.
    The EPA baghouse data are presented in chapter 3 and appendix A of 
the BID. The analysis performed in selecting the proposed lead emission 
limit is detailed in Docket No. A-92-43, Item No. II-B-32.
    c. THC Emission Limit. The proposed THC emissions limit for process 
fugitive emissions from blast furnace charging was selected on the 
basis of the results of EPA-sponsored tests of the charging system at 
two blast furnaces. Each blast furnace charging chute was enclosed in a 
hood. On the first furnace, the chute was also fitted with a door that 
opened during charging. The flow rate of each hood was balanced against 
the flow rate of the primary furnace exhaust to minimize the escape of 
primary exhaust gases to the charging hood.
    The THC emission rate was measured in the duct leading from the 
charging hood using EPA reference method 25A. Each test consisted of 
two 3-hour runs. The THC emission rates measured during each run of the 
first test were 0.026 kg/hr (0.058 lb/hr) and 0.035 kg/hr (0.077 lb/hr) 
(Docket No. A-92-43, Item No. II-A-5). The THC emission rates measured 
during each run of the second test were 0.11 kg/hr (0.24 lb/hr) and 
0.20 kg/hr (0.44 kg/hr) (Docket No. A-92-43, Item II-A-6). The average 
THC emission rate for all four runs was 0.090 kg/hr (0.20 lb/hr). The 
THC emissions were substantially lower from the furnace fitted with the 
door, but it could not be confirmed that the difference was due to the 
door or simply normal variation in emissions from well-controlled 
charging ventilation systems. The THC emission rate from the higher of 
the two sources tested was less than 1 percent of the THC emissions 
from the blast furnace charging chute at which the potential emission 
problem was first detected.
    Based on these test results, the EPA is proposing a THC emissions 
limit for blast furnace charging process fugitive emissions of 0.20 kg/
hr (0.44 lb/hr), which was the highest THC value obtained during the 
test runs and was selected to account for normal variation in THC 
emissions. The EPA THC data from blast furnace charging are presented 
in chapter 3 and appendix A of the BID.
3. Fugitive Dust Sources
    The proposed standard requires an SOP manual for the control of 
fugitive dust emissions and also establishes a lead emissions limit for 
building and enclosure ventilation systems.
    a. SOP Manual. The EPA is proposing that each smelter develop an 
SOP manual that would describe the controls and work practices that 
would be implemented to control fugitive dust emissions. These control 
and work practices would be equivalent to those specified in the 
proposed regulation. The EPA selected the controls in the proposed 
regulation on the basis of observations made during visits to smelters 
that had already implemented fugitive dust controls equivalent to the 
proposed MACT and on the basis of a technical analysis of the 
effectiveness of different control options (Docket No. A-92-43, Item 
No. II-B-28).
    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.
    b. Lead Emissions Limit. The EPA is proposing a lead emissions 
limit of 2.0 mg/dscm (0.00087 gr/dscf) for ventilation systems for 
buildings that enclose fugitive dust sources, such as the materials 
storage and handling area or the furnace and refining and casting 
areas. This limit was selected on the basis of controlled lead 
emissions from the process fugitive baghouses (which also controlled 
some building ventilation emissions) measured during the EPA testing 
program and is the same limit that was selected for process and process 
fugitive sources.

F. 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 secondary lead smelters that may be 
deemed reconstructions under section 63.5 of the General Provisions. 
However, the proposed standards for secondary lead smelters are the 
same for both existing and new sources except in the case of the THC 
emission limit for blast furnace-only configurations. As a result, the 
designation as a ``reconstruction'' has limited practical significance. 
If a change to an existing blast furnace is determined to constitute a 
reconstruction, then that furnace would be subject to the proposed THC 
limit for new blast furnaces, which is more stringent than the limit 
for existing blast furnaces. In order to meet the more stringent THC 
limit, a reconstructed blast furnace would probably need to install a 
new afterburner that could reach a temperature of 870  deg.C (1,600 
deg.F), based on the proposed MACT for new blast furnaces.

G. Selection of Compliance Dates

    The proposed regulation would require owners or operators of 
existing secondary 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 proposed 2-year period for existing sources to achieve 
compliance with the proposed standard is based on the estimated time 
needed for a blast furnace facility to have a new afterburner designed, 
fabricated, installed, and tested. The installation of a new 
afterburner is the most significant upgrade anticipated under the 
proposed standard. The EPA believes that a 2-year period is realistic 
and practical to accomplish these required tasks. The proposed standard 
is also 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 secondary 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.

H. Selection of Emission Test Methods and Schedule

    Testing requirements are being proposed for lead, THC, and HCl/
Cl2 from process, process fugitive, and fugitive dust sources.
1. Process Sources
    Lead emissions from process emission control devices would be 
measured using EPA reference method 12, THC emissions would be measured 
using EPA reference method 25A, and HCl/Cl2 emissions would be 
measured using EPA reference method 26A. For all of these tests, 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. For the measurement of THC and HCl/
Cl2, the Single Point Integrated Sampling and Analytical Procedure 
of method 3B would be used to measure CO2 in order to correct for 
excess air or dilution.
    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 test methods selected above 
were used by the EPA to collect the data upon which the proposed 
emission limits are based.
    The proposed standard would require initial tests of lead emissions 
from all sources and annual compliance tests for process fugitive 
sources and building ventilation systems. Annual tests of the latter 
two sources must be performed because compliance with the lead emission 
standard cannot be continuously monitored. The proposed standard would 
also require initial compliance tests for THC and HCl/Cl2 and then 
monitoring to demonstrate continuous compliance. Following the initial 
THC compliance test, no annual compliance test would be required if the 
facility maintains or exceeds the minimum afterburner temperature 
established during the initial compliance test. Following the initial 
HCl compliance test, no annual compliance test would be required if the 
facility maintains the required level of fluxing, scrubber parameters, 
or SO2 concentration established during the initial compliance 
test or operates and maintains an HCl monitor.
2. Process Fugitive Sources
    An annual compliance test for lead using the same methods as for 
process sources would be required for process fugitive control devices. 
If a facility is subject to the THC emission limit for blast furnace 
charging, then an initial test would be required that would use the 
same THC measurement methods as for process sources.
    Compliance with the face velocity and flow rate requirements for 
enclosure hoods over process fugitive emission sources would be 
determined by measuring the flow in the duct leading from the source 
and by measuring the area of the openings in the hood and the area of 
the refining kettle, if appropriate. Volumetric flow rate in the duct 
would be measured using EPA reference method 2. Hood face area or 
kettle surface area would be measured directly.
    There are no EPA reference methods for directly measuring the face 
velocity of a hood. The use of a hand-held anemometer was evaluated, 
but this technique is not as accurate or as precise as calculating the 
face velocity from the measured volumetric flow rate and face area.
3. Fugitive Dust Sources
    Compliance with the lead emission standard for building ventilation 
emission points would be determined using the same methods as for 
process sources. Compliance would be determined through an annual test 
of each emission point, except in the case of emissions from identical 
control devices that are discharged through separate stacks.
    If a facility has two or more identical control devices for 
building ventilation, then each would be required to undergo an initial 
compliance test. Subsequent compliance tests, however, could be 
alternated or rotated among the identical control devices so that not 
all of them would be tested every year. However, at least one device 
would be tested each year and each device would be tested at least once 
every 5 years. This provision assumes that the maintenance of identical 
units would be similar as a result of the baghouse inspection and 
logging procedures in the monitoring requirements of the proposed 
standard. In addition, smelters would only be allowed to alternate 
compliance testing as long as they demonstrate compliance with the 
baghouse inspection and logging provisions of the proposed monitoring 
requirements. This provision is being proposed to reduce unnecessary 
testing costs. This provision would not apply to control devices 
receiving emissions from process or process fugitive sources.

I. Selection of Proposed Enhanced Monitoring Requirements

    Section 114(a) of the Act, as amended under section 702(b) of title 
VII of the 1990 amendments, requires enhanced monitoring and the 
submission of periodic compliance certifications for all major 
stationary sources. Compliance certifications shall include information 
on the methods used for determining compliance status and statements as 
to whether compliance was determined on an intermittent or continuous 
basis.
    The enhanced monitoring requirements proposed herein were 
determined by examining the hierarchy of monitoring options available 
for specific processes, pollutants, and control equipment. This 
hierarchy may range from monitoring continuously the emissions of a 
specific pollutant or pollutant class to the continuous monitoring of a 
related process or control device parameter. Each option was evaluated 
relative to its technical feasibility, cost, ease of implementation, 
and relevance to its underlying process emission limit or control 
device.
    The proposed standards for secondary lead smelters contain 
monitoring requirements for process sources, process fugitive sources, 
and fugitive dust sources. The proposed standards require either 
pollutant monitoring directly through the use of a CEM, parameter 
monitoring that indicates proper operation and maintenance of a control 
device, or recordkeeping to ensure that specific work practices are 
being followed.
1. Process Sources
    Monitoring requirements are being proposed to ensure control of 
metal HAP, organic HAP, and HCl/Cl2 emissions from process 
sources.
    a. Metal HAP's. The EPA is proposing that each process baghouse be 
monitored with a COM and that a site-specific opacity limit be 
established for each process emission point. The site-specific opacity 
limit for an affected baghouse would be equal to the maximum 6-minute 
opacity reading recorded by a COM during the initial compliance test 
for lead emissions, plus 2 percent opacity to allow for normal drift in 
the output from the COM. Exceedance of the site-specific opacity limit 
would constitute a violation of the standard for lead emissions.
    The proposed MACT for the control of metal HAP's is a baghouse of 
the design now used in the industry that is operated and maintained 
optimally on a continuous basis. The facilities at which baghouses were 
assessed in the EPA testing program had comprehensive, periodic 
inspection and maintenance programs to ensure proper operation of the 
baghouses. However, these inspection and maintenance programs are 
relatively costly to implement, and offer no explicit assurance that 
the emission limitations in the standards are being achieved on a 
continuous basis.
    Emissions from a baghouse change with time as a result of 
incidental or periodic upsets (e.g., torn bags) and normal wear of 
baghouse components. Inspection and maintenance programs aid in 
protecting against slow, continual degradation of baghouse performance 
but do not ensure continuous optimal operation. Although inspection and 
maintenance may indicate a baghouse is functioning normally, there is 
no assurance that an established emission limitation is being achieved. 
Furthermore, these programs, if sufficiently comprehensive to ensure 
the baghouse is performing optimally on a continuous basis, are labor-
intensive and, as noted, quite costly.
    The EPA estimates that with a good inspection and maintenance 
program a baghouse may still emit, on average, an emission stream with 
an opacity of 5 or 10 percent. Several theoretical and experimental 
studies have been performed to quantify the relationship between the PM 
concentration in an emissions stream and the opacity of the stream. 
From such a relationship developed at a secondary brass/lead smelter, 
it is estimated that gases in a stack with a 1.5 meter diameter 
exhibiting an opacity of 10 percent could contain as much as 80 mg/dscm 
PM. Given that the PM discharged from process baghouses at secondary 
lead smelters typically contains about 25 percent lead, the lead 
concentration of the baghouse discharge corresponding to 10 percent 
opacity would be 20 mg/dscm. This is 10 times the pollutant 
concentration of the proposed standard (Docket No. A-92-43, Item No. 
II-A-35).
    In contrast, the use of COM's offer a timely, sensitive and direct 
indication of increased emissions. They give an immediate indication of 
an occurrence, which provides for timely action that will minimize the 
duration and, therefore, the emissions, of an upset. They can also 
address the long-term gradual deterioration of performance of a 
baghouse.
    In addition, COM's are cost-effective. A typical, generally 
available monitor with auxiliaries costs about $37,300 to install and 
about $16,500 to operate annually. Proper usage of a COM can ensure 
that the gases emitted from a baghouse exhibit less than 2 percent 
opacity on average over a year (Docket No. A-92-43, Item No. II-B-34. 
The approximate cost-effectiveness of reducing the average opacity from 
10 percent to 2 percent through the use of a COM is $2,100 per ton of 
lead or $525 per ton of PM.
    The EPA invites comments on the reasonableness of incorporating 
this strategy for COM into the final standard promulgated for this 
source category.
    b. Organic HAP's. The EPA is proposing two monitoring options that 
smelter operators may pursue. Continuous monitoring systems are 
available for THC, but the operating and maintenance costs of existing 
systems may be prohibitive for many sources in this category. 
Alternatively, operators may continuously monitor afterburner or 
exhaust stream temperature, which correlates strongly with THC 
emissions, after conducting an initial performance test to demonstrate 
compliance with the THC standard.
    Under the second option, THC and temperature would have to be 
measured simultaneously for three runs lasting 1 hour each during the 
initial THC compliance test. The average THC concentration and 
temperature would be determined for the total sampling period. 
Compliance with the THC standard would be determined on the basis of 
the average THC concentration. The minimum allowable afterburner or 
exhaust temperature would be determined on the basis of the average 
temperature during the total sampling period. To remain in compliance, 
the owner or operator could not allow the average temperature for any 
3-hour period to fall more than 28  deg.C (50  deg.F) below the average 
measured during the initial THC compliance test. Allowing the average 
temperature to fall below this level would constitute a violation of 
the emissions standard.
    The proposed allowable temperature range of 28  deg.C (50  deg.F) 
for the afterburner or combined reverberatory/blast exhaust streams is 
based on temperature data collected during the organic HAP and THC 
testing performed by the EPA. During the test of the blast furnace, the 
3-hour average temperature of the afterburner varied over a range of 32 
 deg.C (59  deg.F). During the test of the reverberatory/blast furnace 
configuration, the 3-hour average temperature of the combined exhaust 
stream varied over a range of 29  deg.C (52  deg.F). The proposed 28 
deg.C (50  deg.F) allowable temperature range is consistent with the 
range allowed in the monitoring requirements for sources controlled by 
afterburners in other Federal standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts EE, 
MM, SS, TT, WW, BBB, DDD, FFF, III, NNN, QQQ, SSS, and VVV).
    Another THC compliance test would be required if the operator 
desires to establish a lower afterburner temperature. Owners or 
operators also have the option of monitoring THC using a CEM instead of 
temperature.
    c. HCl and Chlorine. Continuous emission monitors are available for 
HCl, but they have not been used in this industry. Furthermore, the 
estimated capital and annual costs of these CEM's for the entire 
industry would be $2,900,000 and $1,400,000, respectively. The cost of 
requiring an HCl CEM would double the capital and annual cost impacts 
of the proposed standards and would increase the number of facilities 
that are significantly impacted. Other, less costly monitoring options 
are available, so the EPA has determined that an HCl CEM should not be 
required and several alternative monitoring options are being included 
in the proposed standard. However, these alternatives allow the use of 
an HCl CEM to fulfill the monitoring requirements for HCl/Cl2, if 
an operator chooses to use one.
    Where SO2 scrubbers are used, continuous emission monitoring 
for SO2 can be used as an indicator of scrubber performance. 
Alternatively, scrubber parameters, including sorbent injection rate 
and pH, can also be monitored as indicators of scrubber performance. 
Where fluxing with soda ash or limestone is used to preclude HCl/
Cl2 emissions, monitoring the use of these fluxing agents can 
ensure that sufficient quantities are being added to control emissions.
    The EPA is therefore proposing four alternative monitoring options 
for control of HCl/Cl2: (1) manual monitoring of the addition of 
soda ash and limestone, (2) instrument monitoring of scrubber 
parameters, (3) CEM for SO2, or (4) CEM for HCl. Each of these 
alternatives is described below.
    Option 1. Owners or operators could monitor the amounts of soda ash 
and limestone added to the smelting furnace and the total amount of 
charge material added during the 8-hour shift in which the initial HCl/
Cl2 compliance test was performed. This ratio of soda ash and 
limestone to total charge material would establish a minimum ratio that 
would be maintained thereafter. A new HCl/Cl2 compliance test 
would be required if the operator wanted to alter the amount or type of 
fluxing agent to be used in the future. Continued compliance would be 
determined on the basis of the ratio of soda ash and limestone to total 
charge material added to the furnace during each 8-hour shift 
thereafter. Failure to maintain the same ratio would constitute a 
violation of the HCl/Cl2 standard.
    Option 2. The owner or operator of a facility that has a scrubber 
to control HCl and Cl2 could record the scrubber liquid injection 
rate and pH every 15 minutes during the initial HCl/Cl2 compliance 
test, which consists of three 1-hour runs. The average of these 
recorded values for pH and media injection rate would be used to 
establish minimum operating parameters for the scrubber that must be 
maintained thereafter. Failure to maintain the minimum scrubber media 
injection rate or minimum inlet pH would constitute a violation of the 
HCl/Cl2 standard.
    The media injection rate would be recorded every 15 minutes after 
the HCl compliance test and could be no less than 70 percent of the 
average injection rate demonstrated during the initial HCl compliance 
test. No data were collected during the EPA tests on the variability of 
SO2 scrubber media injection rates. The proposed 30-percent 
allowable drop in media injection rate is adopted from the range 
allowed in the monitoring requirements in other Federal standards (40 
CFR part 60, subparts LL, OOO, and PPP) for sources controlled by wet 
scrubbers.
    The standards in subparts LL, OOO, and PPP are for control of PM 
sources, not acid gases. Therefore, the EPA is also considering 
allowing no drop in liquid injection rate, but has not included that 
requirement in the proposed regulation. The EPA solicits comment on the 
appropriateness of allowing a 30-percent drop in liquid injection rate.
    The scrubber media inlet pH would also be recorded every 15 minutes 
and the 3-hour average could be no more than 1.0 pH points below the 
average inlet pH demonstrated during the initial HCl/Cl2 
compliance test. The allowable pH range of 1.0 for the scrubber media 
inlet pH is based on data collected during the HCl/Cl2 testing 
performed by the EPA. During the EPA test of the blast furnace, the 3-
hour average pH of the sorbent at the SO2 scrubber inlet varied 
from 7.7 to 8.3, a range of 0.6. At the reverberatory/blast furnace 
tested, the pH of the sorbent at the SO2 scrubber outlet showed a 
similar pH range. An allowable pH range of 1.0, rather than 0.6, is 
being proposed because HCl and Cl2 are absorbed more easily than 
SO2, and control of HCl and Cl2 would not vary significantly 
over a scrubber sorbent pH range of 1.0.
    Option 3. The owner or operator of a facility that operates an 
SO2 scrubber could record the SO2 concentration every 15 
minutes during the initial HCl/Cl2 compliance test. The average of 
these recorded values for SO2 concentration would be used to 
establish a 3-hour average maximum SO2 concentration that could 
not be exceeded thereafter. The SO2 concentration would be 
recorded every 15 minutes and the average for any 3-hour period could 
be no more than 200 ppmv above the average SO2 concentration 
measured during the initial HCl/Cl2 compliance test. A 3-hour 
average SO2 concentration exceeding the maximum SO2 
concentration would constitute a violation of the HCl/Cl2 
standard.
    The allowable SO2 range is based on data collected during the 
HCl/Cl2 testing performed by the EPA. During the test of the 
reverberatory/blast furnace configuration, the 3-hour average SO2 
concentration, as recorded by the facility's SO2 CEM, ranged from 
37 ppmv to 195 ppmv. During the test of the blast furnace, the 3-hour 
average SO2 concentration ranged from 0 ppmv to 50 ppmv. An 
allowable range of 200 ppmv above the average SO2 concentration 
measured during the initial HCl/Cl2 compliance test is being 
proposed to reflect the range of SO2 concentrations measured and 
the fact that HCl and Cl2 are absorbed more easily than SO2.
    Option 4. The owner or operator could also install, operate, and 
maintain an HCl CMS and demonstrate compliance with an initial HCl/
Cl2 compliance test and by meeting all of the requirements for 
CMS's found in the General Provisions. The CO2 concentration 
needed to correct for dilution would be determined during the initial 
HCl/Cl2 compliance test and would not need to be continuously 
monitored. To remain in compliance, the HCl concentration measured by 
the CMS and corrected to 4 percent CO2 must remain below an HCl 
limit of 15 mg/dscm.
    The HCl limit of 15 mg/dscm for enhanced monitoring was based on 
the results of the EPA-sponsored HCl/Cl2 testing. These tests 
indicated that about 98 percent of the chlorine was emitted as HCl.
2. Process Fugitive Sources
    The proposed MACT for control of metal HAP emissions from process 
fugitive sources is an enclosure-type hood ventilated to a baghouse. 
When these hoods are in place and the smelter has demonstrated 
compliance with the proposed face velocity and flow rate requirements, 
no further monitoring of capture efficiency would be necessary. 
Similarly, the proposed MACT for control of organic HAP emissions from 
blast furnace charging is proper balance between the blast furnace 
charging and primary exhaust ventilation systems. No monitoring of 
blast furnace charging would be necessary after compliance has been 
demonstrated with the THC limit for blast furnace charging.
    As noted previously, no CMS's are available for lead. In addition, 
a COM cannot be used to monitor process fugitive baghouse performance 
because the opacity of uncontrolled process fugitive emissions is too 
low to indicate a control device failure. Therefore, the proposed 
standard would require daily, weekly, and monthly inspection of process 
fugitive baghouses and would require monitoring the pressure drop and 
water flow rate of PM scrubbers. Scrubbers are used instead of 
baghouses at some smelters to control process fugitive sources.
    The majority of smelters already perform regular inspections of 
baghouses and monitor scrubber operating parameters as part of normal 
baghouse and scrubber operation and maintenance. These monitoring 
requirements would ensure that the control devices are being operated 
and maintained in a manner consistent with good air pollution control 
practices. These monitoring requirements are being proposed as 
separately enforceable standards. However, a violation of the proposed 
monitoring requirements could not be used to indicate a violation of 
the proposed lead emissions limit for process fugitive sources. 
Therefore, the proposed standard would also require an annual 
compliance test of lead emissions.
    The proposed baghouse inspection program is the only monitoring 
option available for process fugitive sources controlled by baghouses 
at secondary lead smelters. This proposed requirement is not intended 
to serve as a model of monitoring requirements for other source 
categories of particulate or HAP emissions controlled by baghouses.
3. Fugitive Dust Sources
    Monitoring of compliance with the work practice controls for 
fugitive dust sources specified in each smelter's SOP manual would be 
accomplished through recordkeeping requirements that would also be 
specified in the SOP.
    A COM is not applicable to the building and enclosure ventilation 
emission points that are subject to the lead emissions limit. The 
proposed standard, therefore, would require a baghouse inspection 
program and an annual compliance test of lead emissions for the same 
reasons as those described above for process fugitive baghouses.

J. Selection of Notification Requirements

    Owners or operators of secondary lead smelters would be required to 
comply with all of the notification requirements under section 63.9 of 
the General Provisions. An owner or operator would be required to 
submit the initial notification, notifications of performance tests, 
notification of CMS performance evaluations, and the notification of 
compliance status. Information submitted in these notifications would 
confirm that the source is subject to the standards and establish the 
source's compliance status.
    Each operator of a smelter would also be required to submit the 
fugitive dust control SOP manual to the Administrator or his or her 
authorized representative, along with a notification that the smelter 
is seeking review and approval of the manual. Operators of existing 
smelters would be required to submit the manual no later than 180 days 
before the compliance date for existing smelters. Operators of new 
smelters would be required to submit the manual no later than 180 days 
before startup of the new smelter but no sooner than the effective date 
of the proposed standard.
    The notification of compliance status would list the results of any 
performance tests and opacity measurements, methods used for 
determining continuous compliance, descriptions of the air pollutant 
control equipment and methods applied at each affected emission point, 
and a statement as to whether the source is in compliance with all 
relevant standards and provisions of this subpart. The proposed 
regulation would waive the requirement that the smelter perform an 
analysis demonstrating whether the smelter is a major source or area 
source since the regulation would apply equally to all smelters. The 
compliance notification would also certify that the facility has 
completed an SOP manual for the control of fugitive dust emissions and 
that the SOP manual has been approved by the Administrator.

K. Selection of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

    The recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the General 
Provisions for 40 CFR part 63 would apply to secondary lead smelters 
unless specifically superseded in this part.
1. Recordkeeping
    Consistent with the General Provisions of part 63 and with the 
operating permit rules in part 70, promulgated under title V of the 
Act, records required by this part would be retained for at least 5 
years. Each affected source would be required to maintain records of 
the results of compliance tests for each of the proposed emission 
limits, including THC, lead, and HCl/Cl2. These records are 
necessary to document the initial compliance determination with these 
standards. If a smelter is subject to the proposed emission standards 
for THC and must monitor afterburner or exhaust stream temperature to 
comply with the proposed enhanced monitoring requirements, then records 
of the afterburner or exhaust stream temperature would be maintained. 
These records could be in the form of strip charts or digital 
printouts, with the period between measurements not to exceed 15 
minutes. A block average temperature would be recorded every 3 hours. 
These records would be used by an affected source to demonstrate 
continuous compliance with the THC standards.
    The source would be required to maintain records explaining any 
periods when the monitored afterburner temperature dropped below the 
minimum established during the facility's initial THC compliance test. 
Maintenance records of the afterburner temperature monitor would also 
be required pursuant to section 63.10 of the General Provisions. All 
secondary lead smelters that currently operate afterburners already 
monitor and record afterburner temperature as part of normal 
afterburner operation and maintenance. Therefore, the incremental 
burden associated with these proposed recordkeeping requirements for 
temperature are considered minimal.
    Each source would be required to maintain records of opacity, as 
measured by a COM and in terms of 6-minute averages. Records would also 
be maintained of any exceedances of the site-specific opacity limit and 
any corrective actions following those exceedances. Maintenance records 
of the opacity monitor probes would also be maintained, including 
records of periodic cleaning and replacements and calibration checks, 
pursuant to section 63.10 of the General Provisions. These records 
would be used to demonstrate continuous compliance with the opacity 
standard.
    Each source would also be required to maintain records consistent 
with the enhanced monitoring approach chosen for controlling HCl/
Cl2 emissions to ensure that the source is in continuous 
compliance with the HCl/Cl2 standard. If an owner or operator 
chooses to rely on fluxing as a control for HCl/Cl2, records of 
the soda ash or limestone added to the smelting furnace and the total 
amount of material charged would have to be maintained. The amount of 
fluxing agent added and material charged would be recorded on a total-
per-shift basis. Most smelters already maintain records of fluxing 
agents added to the furnace and material charged as a normal part of 
production and quality control. Consequently, the incremental burden 
associated with this recordkeeping requirement would be minimal.
    If a source operates an acid gas scrubber and the owner or operator 
chooses to control HCl and Cl2 with the scrubber rather than 
through fluxing, then the source would be required to either (1) 
maintain records of scrubber media injection rate and pH, or (2) 
maintain records of SO2 concentrations measured continuously with 
a CMS. Most sources with scrubbers already maintain records of media 
injection rate and pH as part of normal scrubber operation, as well as 
CMS's for SO2. If a source operates a CMS for HCl, it would 
maintain records of HCl concentration.
    Records would also be maintained of fugitive dust control 
activities, as required by each smelter's SOP.
2. Reporting
    Owners or operators of secondary lead smelters would be required to 
comply with all of the reporting requirements under section 63.10 of 
the General Provisions. They would be required to report the results of 
performance tests and CMS performance evaluations, and to submit 
quarterly excess emissions and CMS performance reports or summary 
reports.
    These quarterly reports would include summaries (e.g., 3-hour 
averages) of the records required to demonstrate continuous compliance 
with the proposed standards. These reports would also contain summaries 
of the records that are required to demonstrate continuous compliance 
with the fugitive dust control measures described in the source's SOP 
manual, including an explanation of the periods when the procedures 
outlined in the SOP were not followed.
    The Administrator believes that excess emissions and compliance 
parameter monitoring reports are a critical enforcement tool. 
Therefore, the proposed standard would require quarterly, rather than 
semi-annual reports. However, pursuant to section 63.10(e)(3)(ii) of 
the General Provisions, sources may request to reduce reporting 
frequency after they can demonstrate continuous compliance for a one-
year period.

L. Operating Permit Program

    Under title V of the Act, all HAP-emitting sources would be 
required to obtain an operating permit. Oftentimes, the emission limits 
and the requirements for monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping for a 
facility are scattered among numerous provisions of State 
Implementation Plans or Federal regulations. As discussed in the final 
rule for the operating permit program, published on July 21, 1992 (57 
FR 32295), an operating permit under this new permit program will 
include all of the requirements that pertain to a single source in a 
single document.
    After a State's permit program has been approved, each secondary 
lead smelter within that State must apply for and obtain an operating 
permit. If the State where the secondary lead smelter is located does 
not have an approved permitting program, the owner or operator must 
submit the application under the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63. 
The addresses for the EPA Regional Offices and States are included in 
the General Provisions.

M. Whether to Also Regulate Air Emissions Under RCRA

    As noted earlier, air emissions from secondary lead smelting 
furnaces are also potentially subject to regulation under RCRA because 
the battery and other lead-bearing secondary feed is often classified 
as a hazardous waste because of lead content. These emissions are 
presently exempt from regulation (40 CFR 266.100(c)), but the EPA is 
considering whether RCRA controls are necessary as part of this 
rulemaking. The EPA has agreed to reexamine the appropriateness of the 
exemption as part of a settlement agreement in Horsehead Resources Inc. 
v. Browner, No. 92-1221. The settlement agreement provides that the EPA 
may issue revised regulatory standards under the Act alone, under RCRA, 
or under both statutes.
    The EPA is proposing to continue exempting air emissions from 
secondary lead smelting furnaces from RCRA essentially because the EPA 
believes these emissions will be comprehensively and adequately 
regulated under the section 112 rules proposed here, plus the 
subsequent residual risk determination. Although the RCRA standard for 
regulation [''as may be necessary to protect human health and the 
environment'', RCRA section 3004 (a)] differs from the initial 
technology-based regime of section 112 of the Act, the EPA does not 
believe that further RCRA regulation of air emissions is necessary. The 
reasons are that: (1) The proposed MACT optimizes control of the 
principal HAP contributed by the hazardous waste (i.e. lead-bearing 
feed, as opposed to fossil fuels) processed by the source by imposing 
the best pollution control technology for the principal HAP--lead 
compounds--emitted from these sources; (2) all secondary lead smelters 
(both major and area sources) would be controlled by the proposed 
standards; (3) the proposed standards control not only stack emissions, 
but facility-wide fugitive emissions; (4) organic HAP's are controlled 
as well, and emissions of chlorinated organic HAP's (such as PCDD's and 
PCDF's) are minimal; and (5) HCl and Cl2 emissions are controlled 
as well. To the extent any significant residual risk remains after MACT 
standards are implemented, the risk will be addressed through the 
section 112(f) residual risk process. Consequently, the EPA believes 
that RCRA regulation of air emissions from these sources should not be 
required.
    In this regard, it is important to remember that RCRA section 1006 
requires the Agency to ``integrate all provisions of [RCRA] for 
purposes of administration and enforcement and * * * avoid duplication, 
to the maximum extent practicable, with the appropriate provisions of 
the Clean Air Act * * * .''. The EPA believes that imposition of RCRA 
air emission standards for these sources could result in the types of 
unnecessary duplication that section 1006 is intended to prevent. 
Accordingly, the Agency is proposing to retain the current regulatory 
exemption from RCRA regulation for air emissions from secondary lead 
smelters.
    There is also a second potential area of overlap between RCRA 
standards and the proposed MACT standards. This is with respect to 
strategy units that are presently regulated under RCRA. The EPA 
believes that the controls for fugitive dust emissions proposed in this 
rule (proposed Secs. 63.545 (c)(2) and (c)(5) in particular) are 
consistent with, and complement, the existing RCRA standards. The RCRA 
standards are directed largely at preventing releases of waste to land 
and groundwater, and so would be complemented by the proposed rules, 
which are directed to preventing exposure via an air exposure pathway. 
In addition, the provisions of the RCRA rules preventing air emissions 
are consistent with the standards proposed today. For example, 
Sec. 264.1101(c)(1)(iv) prevents fugitive dust emissions from 
containment buildings by prohibiting visible emissions and achieves the 
same emission control objective of the fugitive dust control standards 
being proposed today. The Agency solicits comment, however, to ensure 
that none of the requirements for RCRA storage units are incompatible 
with the standards proposed today.

N. Solicitation of Comments

    The EPA welcomes comments on all aspects of the proposed standards 
and specifically solicits comments on the following: (1) The 
determination by the EPA that area sources in the category present a 
threat of adverse effects to human health and therefore should be 
regulated; (2) the use of fluxing agents to eliminate HCl and Cl2 
emissions from smelting furnaces, including the technical feasibility 
of this approach, any adverse impacts on smelting operations, and its 
effectiveness in reducing HCl/Cl2 emissions; (3) the feasibility 
and impacts of establishing a THC limit for existing blast furnaces 
based on an afterburner temperature above that identified as the MACT 
floor (700  deg.C); and (4) the proposed enhanced monitoring 
requirements, including the proposed strategy of establishing a site-
specific opacity limit concurrent with the initial lead compliance 
test. Comments on these aspects of the standards will be most useful if 
they contain specific information and data pertinent to an evaluation 
of the magnitude and severity of the impact(s) and suggested 
alternative courses of action that would avoid the impact(s).

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing

    A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the 
proposed standards for secondary lead smelters, in accordance with 
section 307(d)(5) of the Act. Persons wishing to make an oral 
presentation at a public hearing should contact the EPA at the address 
given in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. Oral presentations 
will be limited to 15 minutes each. Any member of the public may file a 
written statement before, during, or within 30 days after the hearing. 
Written statements should be addressed to the Air Docket Section 
address given in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble and should 
refer to Docket No. A-92-43. A verbatim transcript of the hearing and 
written statements will be available for public inspection and copying 
during normal working hours at the EPA's Air Docket Section in 
Washington, DC (see ADDRESSES section of this preamble).

B. Docket

    The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information 
submitted to, or otherwise considered by, the EPA in the development of 
this proposed rule. The principal purposes of the docket are to: (1) 
Allow interested parties to readily identify and locate documents so 
they can intelligently and effectively participate in the rulemaking 
process, and (2) serve as the record in case of judicial review, except 
for interagency review materials [section 307(d)(7)(a) of the CAA].

C. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 5173, October 4, 1993), the EPA 
must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and, 
therefore, subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and 
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines 
``significant'' regulatory action as one that is likely to lead to a 
rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million 
or more, or adversely and materially affect 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.
    The proposed regulation presented in this notice was submitted to 
the OMB for review. Any written EPA response to those comments are 
included in the docket listed at the beginning of today's notice under 
ADDRESSES. The docket is available for public inspection at EPA's Air 
Docket Section, which is listed in the ADDRESSES section of this 
preamble.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule were 
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request document was 
prepared by the EPA (ICR No. 1686.01), and a copy may be obtained from 
Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 401 M Street SW. (2136), Washington, DC 20460, or by calling 
(202) 260-2740. The public reporting burden for this collection of 
information (including emission testing) is estimated to average 1,200 
hours per smelter for reporting in the first year in which compliance 
is demonstrated and 550 hours per year for subsequent years, and to 
require 210 hours annually per smelter for recordkeeping. These 
estimates include time for reviewing instructions, searching existing 
data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing 
and reviewing the collection of information.
    Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of 
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 
burden, to Chief, Information Policy Branch, 2136, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, and to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for 
EPA.'' The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the 
EPA to consider potential impacts of proposed regulations on small 
business entities. If a preliminary analysis indicates that a proposed 
regulation would have any economic impact on any small entities, then a 
regulatory flexibility analysis must be prepared.
    Present Regulatory Flexibility Act guidelines indicate that an 
economic impact should be considered significant if it meets one of the 
following criteria: (1) Compliance increases annual production costs by 
more than 5 percent, assuming costs are passed on to consumers; (2) 
compliance costs as a percentage of sales for small entities are at 
least 10 percent more than compliance costs as a percentage of sales 
for large entities; (3) capital costs of compliance represent a 
significant portion of capital available to small entities, considering 
internal cash flow plus external financial capabilities; or (4) 
regulatory requirements are likely to result in closure of small 
entities. Based on discussions with technical support experts, the EPA 
formulated alternative criteria for the determination of significant 
impacts in the secondary lead industry. The guidelines were discussed 
in the economic impacts section of this preamble.
    The results of an economic assessment indicated that the proposed 
rule will have an economic impact on small business entities. However, 
adverse economic impacts have been minimized to the greatest extent 
possible in this rule making, and those that remain are unavoidable. 
All of the small entities that are currently operating and that are 
impacted are major sources of HAP's for which the EPA is required to 
propose MACT standards. Consequently, the economic impacts can not be 
minimized by proposing less stringent standards based on GACT. The 
standards being proposed in this rule making are based on MACT floor 
controls, and in no instance did the EPA choose to propose standards 
based on controls more stringent than the floor. The EPA was also able 
to identify alternatives to add-on controls (e.g., process 
modifications and work practices) in the MACT floors that offered 
equivalent levels of control.
    The EPA has minimized the impacts associated with monitoring by 
adopting a surrogate pollutant approach and by allowing for alternative 
monitoring strategies when available. Finally, the EPA has minimized 
the impacts associated with recordkeeping and reporting by proposing 
only the minimum requirements needed to document continuous compliance 
with the proposed emission limits.

F. Pollution Prevention Considerations

    Pollution prevention/source reduction is the use of process 
modifications or alternative processing technologies to reduce air 
pollutant emissions from the source, rather than through the use of 
add-on controls. Several pollution prevention and source reduction 
options were considered for application to the secondary lead smelter 
industry in this rulemaking. These options are described in more detail 
in chapter 3 of the BID.
1. Emission Prevention Through Electrowinning
    Electrowinning is a process to recover lead metal by dissolving 
lead compounds in acid and then depositing lead metal on a cathode in 
an electrolytic cell. Electrowinning is being developed as an 
alternative to the use of smelting furnaces to reduce lead compounds to 
lead metal. Electrowinning would reduce potential emissions of metal 
HAP's, organic HAP's, and HCl/Cl2. This process is still 
experimental and has not been demonstrated on a commercial basis 
anywhere in the world. However, the proposed standards would not 
prevent a smelter from pursuing this technology. The proposed standards 
for process sources are in the form of emission limits and operators 
may use any technology that can achieve the emission limit. There are 
no design, equipment, or work practice requirements that would 
discourage or prohibit the use of this technology.
2. Organic HAP and HCl/Chlorine Emission Prevention Through Plastic 
Removal
    Plastic battery separators are sources of organic HAP and HCl/
Cl2 emissions from smelting furnaces. Technology is available to 
remove these materials from the furnace feed material and this may 
decrease organic HAP and HCl/Cl2 emissions. However, no data are 
available to confirm such a decrease and the recycling options for the 
recovered material are limited. Material that is not recycled would 
need to be disposed of as hazardous waste if it is contaminated with 
lead. However, the proposed standards would not prevent a smelter from 
pursuing this option.
3. HCl and Chlorine Emission Prevention Through Fluxing
    Soda ash or limestone can be added to a smelting furnace to prevent 
emissions of HCl and Cl2. The use of fluxing agents would avoid 
the need for a wet scrubber and the solid waste and wastewater impacts 
associated with a wet scrubber. This practice is currently in use in 
the secondary lead industry and is incorporated in the proposed 
regulation.
4. HCl and Chlorine Emission Prevention Through Dechlorination of Flue 
Dust
    Chlorine is found in the flue dust of secondary lead smelters in 
the form of lead chloride. Recycling the flue dust to the smelting 
furnace causes the chlorine to build up in the furnace and baghouse 
system until it is released as HCl or Cl2, unless it is removed in 
the slag. The same technology that can be used to perform paste 
desulfurization can be used to remove chlorine from the flue dust by 
diverting the flue dust to the paste desulfurization system before 
recycling it to the furnace. This strategy is being used by at least 
one secondary lead smelter and it appears to be as effective as fluxing 
in the control of HCl and Cl2 emissions. The proposed standards 
would not prevent smelters from pursuing this option.

G. Miscellaneous

    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. 
The Administrator welcomes comments on all aspects of the proposed 
regulation, including health, economic, and technological issues, and 
on the proposed test methods.
    This regulation will be reviewed 8 years from the date of 
promulgation. This review will include an assessment of such factors as 
evaluation of 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.

VIII. 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Secondary lead 
smelters.

    Dated: May 27, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-13667 Filed 6-8-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P