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


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-5996-7]
RIN 2060-AE97


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Primary Lead Smelters

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

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

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing primary lead smelters 
pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act (Act) as amended in 
November 1990. Primary lead smelters have been identified by the EPA as 
significant emitters of lead compounds, and other metal hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP) including arsenic, antimony, and cadmium. Exposure to 
lead compounds may result in adverse effects on the blood, central 
nervous system and kidneys. Chronic exposure to arsenic is associated 
with skin, bladder, liver and lung cancer and other developmental and 
reproductive effects. This proposed NESHAP provides protection to the 
public by requiring all primary lead smelters to meet emission 
standards that reflect the application of maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT).

DATES: Comments. Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or 
before June 16, 1998.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by May 8, 1998, a public hearing will be held on May 18, 
1998, beginning at 10:00 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Written comments should be submitted (in 
duplicate, if possible) to: Docket No. A-97-33 at the following 
address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket 
and Information Center (6102), 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. 
The EPA requests that a separate copy of the comments also be sent to 
the contact person listed below.
    Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA's Air and Radiation 
Docket and Information Center at: ``A-and-R-D[email protected].'' 
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use 
of special characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data 
will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format or ASCII 
file format. All comments and data in electronic form must be 
identified by the docket number (A-97-33). No Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) should be submitted through electronic mail. 
Electronic comments on this proposed rule may be filed online at many 
Federal Depository Libraries.
    Docket. Docket No. A-97-33 contains supporting information used in 
developing the proposed standards. The docket is located at the U. S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20460 in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may be 
inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 to 3:00 p.m., Monday 
through Friday. The proposed regulatory text and other materials 
related to this rulemaking are available for review in the docket or 
copies may be mailed on request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 
260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a public 
hearing by the required date (see DATES), the public hearing will be 
held at the EPA Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle 
Park, NC. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring 
as to whether a hearing is to be held should notify the contact person 
listed below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the 
proposed standards and technical aspects of primary lead smelting 
emissions and control, contact Mr. Kevin Cavender, Environmental 
Protection Agency MD-13, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone 
number (919) 541-2364, facsimile number (919) 541-5600, electronic mail 
address ``[email protected].''.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 19201]]

Regulated Entities

    The regulated category and entities affected by this action include 
Primary Lead Smelting (SIC 3339). This action will affect three 
existing primary lead smelting facilities and any new primary lead 
smelting facilities built in the future.

Technology Transfer Network

    The text of today's notice will also be available on the Technology 
Transfer Network (TTN), one of EPA's electronic bulletin boards. The 
TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of 
air pollution control. The service is free, except for the cost of a 
phone call. Dial (919) 541-5742 for up to a 14,400 BPS modem. The TTN 
also is accessible through the Internet at ``http://www.epa.gov/ttn''. 
If more information on the TTN is needed, call the HELP line at (919) 
541-5348. The HELP desk is staffed from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m.; a voice menu 
system is available at other times.

Outline

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Statutory Authority
II. Initial List of Categories of Major and Area Sources
III. Background
    A. Description of Source Category
    B. Emissions and Factors Affecting Emissions
    C. Regulatory History
IV. NESHAP Decision Process
    A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development
    B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP
    C. Determining the MACT Floor
V. Summary of the Proposed Standards
    A. Sources to be Regulated
    B. Proposed Standards for Process and Process Fugitive Sources
    C. Proposed Standards for Fugitive Dust Sources
    D. Compliance Dates
    E. Compliance Test Methods
    F. Monitoring Requirements
    G. Notification Requirements
    H. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
VII. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
    A. Selection of Pollutants and Source Category
    B. Selection of Affected Sources
    C. Selection of Basis and Level for the Proposed Standards for 
New and Existing Sources
    D. Reconstruction Considerations
    E. Selection of Compliance Dates
    F. Selection of Emission Test Methods and Schedule
VIII. Administrative Requirements
    A. Solicitation of Comments
    B. Public Hearing
    C. Docket
    D. Executive Order 12866
    E. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive 
Order 12875
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act
    H. Paperwork Reduction Act
    I. Clean Air Act
    J. Pollution Prevention Considerations

I. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this proposal is provided by sections 
101, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
7401, 7412, 7414, 7416, and 7601).

II. Initial List of Categories of Major and Area Sources

    Section 112 of the Act requires that the EPA promulgate regulations 
requiring the control of HAP emissions from major and area sources. The 
control of HAP's is achieved through promulgation of emission standards 
under sections 112 (d) and (f) and work practice standards under 
section 112(h).
    An initial list of categories of major and area sources of HAP's 
selected for regulation in accordance with section 112(c) of the Act 
was published in the Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). 
Primary lead smelting is one of the 174 categories of sources listed. 
The category consists of smelters that process lead bearing ore 
concentrates into lead metal. The listing was based on the 
Administrator's determination that primary lead smelters may reasonably 
be anticipated to emit several of the 189 listed HAP's in quantities 
sufficient to designate them as major sources. Information subsequently 
collected by the EPA as part of this rulemaking confirms that all three 
operating primary lead smelters have the potential to emit greater than 
9.1 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) [10 tons per year (tpy)] of a single HAP 
or greater than 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tpy) of a combination of HAP's (Docket 
ID No. II-B-4). Therefore, all three primary lead smelters are major 
sources.

III. Background

A. Description of Source Category

    Primary lead smelters smelt lead bearing ore concentrates producing 
lead metal. The primary lead smelting source category does not include 
secondary lead smelters, lead remelters, or lead refiners.
    There are three operating primary lead smelters in the United 
States. The Doe Run Company owns and operates a primary lead smelter in 
Herculaneum, Missouri (Doe Run). The ASARCO Inc. owns and operates two 
primary lead smelters, one located in East Helena, Montana (ASARCO-MT), 
and a second located in Glover, Missouri (ASARCO-MO). No new primary 
lead smelters have been built in the last 10 years, and one smelter has 
closed during that time. No new primary smelters are anticipated in the 
foreseeable future.
    Lead sulfide (PbS) ore concentrates are the main feed material to 
primary lead smelters. The two smelters located in Missouri obtain 
their concentrates from local mines. The ore concentrates coming from 
these mines have very high lead contents (about 70%), and low 
impurities. The ASARCO-Montana smelter buys its concentrates on the 
world market. These concentrates often have higher impurity contents.
    The primary lead smelting process consists of: (1) Concentrate 
storage and handling, (2) sintering of ore concentrates, (3) sinter 
crushing and handling, (4) smelting of sinter to lead metal, (5) 
drossing, refining, and alloying of lead metal, and (6) smelting of 
drosses.
    Lead concentrate, limestone, iron ore, silica and coke are received 
by truck and/or rail car where they are transferred to storage bins or 
piles. These materials and other in-process materials (including 
recycled flue dust) are weighed and mixed prior to charging into the 
sinter machine.
    A sinter machine is essentially a continuous steel pallet conveyor 
belt. Each pallet consists of perforated or slotted plates. The purpose 
of sintering is to reduce the sulfur content of the lead sulfide 
concentrate by oxidizing it to lead oxide and sulfur dioxide, while 
simultaneously producing a hard porous clinker material (``sinter'') 
suitable for processing in the blast furnace. The charge is ignited in 
two stages. In the first stage, the charge is dumped onto the pallets 
to a depth of approximately 1 inch. Gas burners are directed to the 
upper surface of the charge. Air and combustion gases are pulled 
through the top of the charge and are removed from the bottom. This is 
conducted over the first several feet of the machine. After this layer 
is completely ignited, a second layer of sinter is placed on top of the 
first to obtain a total depth of roughly one foot. At the same time the 
second layer is added, the airflow through the bed is reversed, blowing 
up through the bottom of the charge, and is removed from the top of the 
machine. This allows the oxygen and hot combustion gases to ignite and 
burn the remainder of the charge.
    As sinter is discharged from the machine, it falls into a series of 
crushers and screens where it is reduced and

[[Page 19202]]

sized into two fractions, smaller than and greater than 1.5 inches in 
diameter. The greater than 1.5 inch fraction is transferred to the 
blast furnace for smelting. The smaller than approximately 1.5 inch 
fraction is further crushed to a size of less than \1/4\ inch and is 
returned to the sinter machine bedding area for reprocessing.
    Smelting of the sinter takes place in a blast furnace. The two 
ASARCO facilities operate two blast furnaces, while the Doe Run 
facility operates three blast furnaces. At all three facilities one 
blast furnace is typically shutdown for service at any given time. A 
blast furnace is a rectangular shaped shaft furnace. Tuyeres through 
which combustion air is admitted under pressure are located near the 
bottom, and are evenly spaced on either side of the furnace. The 
combustion zone of the furnace is at the same level as the tuyeres, and 
the hot combustion gases filter through the charge, preheat the charge, 
and are discharged through the top of the furnace.
    The furnaces are charged periodically through the top by a charge 
car as frequently as needed to maintain a constant bed height in the 
furnace. A typical charge consists of 90 percent sinter and 10 percent 
coke.
    As the smelting reaction takes place, molten metal and slag pool at 
the bottom of the furnace, where it is continuously tapped into a 
settling chamber. In this chamber the slag is tapped from the top, and 
the lead bullion is tapped from the bottom. Bullion is transferred to 
drossing kettles. Slag is tapped into a chamber where water is injected 
and the slag is granulated. The granulated slag is then either sent to 
storage for charge to the sinter machine, or is sent to a ``slag pile'' 
for disposal.
    The bullion is allowed to cool in the drossing kettles. While 
cooling, copper dross floats to the surface and is periodically 
skimmed. Once the dross is removed, the bullion is transferred to other 
kettles for further refining and alloying. Once the desired product is 
obtained, the lead is cast into various size molds, ranging in size 
from 65 pounds to 2000 pounds.
    The dross obtained from the drossing kettles may be sent off-site 
for processing, or may be processed on-site in a small reverberatory 
furnace. The reverberatory furnace, referred to as a dross furnace, 
uses direct heat supplied by a natural gas burner to further reduce and 
separate the dross into lead bullion, copper matte, and copper speiss 
which contains arsenic. The lead bullion is added back to the dross 
kettles, while the matte and speiss are sent off-site to a copper 
smelter for copper recovery.

B. Emissions and Factors Affecting Emissions

    Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are emitted from primary lead 
smelters as: (1) Process emissions, (2) process fugitive emissions, and 
(3) fugitive dust emissions. Table 1 summarizes the estimated HAP 
emissions from each of the primary lead smelters (Docket ID No. II-B-
4). These estimates represent potential to emit estimates based on 
current Federally enforceable emission limits and air pollution 
controls.

   Table 1.--Summary of Potential To Emit HAP Emission Estimates From   
                       Primary Lead Smelters (TPY)                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Total   Total 
                   Company                       Lead     metal  organic
                                              compounds    HAP     HAP  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  ASARCO--MO................................        60       80        6
  ASARCO--MT................................        70       90        5
  Doe Run--MO...............................        90      110       10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Process Emissions
    Process emissions include emissions associated with the exhaust 
gases from sinter machines and blast and dross furnaces. Metal HAP 
emissions from process sources are produced through the volatilization 
of the metals contained in the feed materials by the elevated smelting 
temperatures and by the entrainment of metal-containing PM in the 
furnace exhaust. Both sinter machines and blast furnaces emit 
substantial quantities of metal HAP. Dross furnaces, being considerably 
smaller, emit lesser amounts. About 80 percent of metal HAP emissions 
are lead compounds, with lesser amounts of antimony, arsenic, and other 
metal compounds.
    Organic HAP emissions from blast furnaces result from incomplete 
combustion of organic-containing materials (coke) in the furnace 
charge. None of the existing primary lead blast furnaces are equipped 
with organic emissions controls (e.g., afterburners). Emissions testing 
was performed by the EPA on the uncontrolled blast furnace exhaust at 
the Doe Run--MO smelter to determine the magnitude of organic HAP 
emissions from primary lead blast furnaces (Docket ID No. II-A-1). The 
emissions data obtained indicate low (part per billion) levels of 
several organic HAP compounds. The five compounds with the highest 
measured emission rates were benzene (62 ppb, 0.29 lb/hr), methylene 
chloride (50 ppb, 0.26 lb/hr), acetaldehyde (60 ppb, 0.15 lb/hr), 
carbon disulfide (33 ppb, 0.15 lb/hr), and formaldehyde (87 ppb, 0.15 
lb/hr). Combined, the measured organic HAP emissions total 2.3 lb/hr, 
which is equivalent to an annual emission rate approaching 10 tons per 
year. The EPA believes these levels of organic HAP emissions are not 
significant enough to warrant regulation.
    Furthermore, the organic HAP concentrations measured at primary 
lead smelters are far below what the EPA has historically considered 
achievable with add-on controls (e.g., thermal oxidizers). The EPA 
generally considers thermal oxidizers capable of achieving a 98 percent 
emission reduction or an outlet concentration of 20 ppm, which ever is 
greater (Docket ID No. II-B-6). As stated above, organic HAP 
concentrations at primary lead smelters are on the order of 50 to 60 
ppb, or three orders of magnitude less than what the EPA has considered 
achievable with thermal oxidizers. Therefore, the EPA believes that it 
is technically infeasible to reduce organic HAP emissions from primary 
lead blast furnaces through the use of add-on controls.
2. Process Fugitive Emissions
    Process fugitive emissions result from sinter machine and furnace 
charging, sinter crushing and sizing, furnace tapping, drossing, 
refining, and casting. Process fugitive emissions contain metal HAP's. 
The majority of process fugitive sources at primary lead smelters are 
currently hooded and ventilated to control devices. Ventilated 
enclosures are also used to further reduce process fugitive emissions 
at some sources.
3. Fugitive Dust Emissions
    Fugitive dust emissions result from the entrainment of dust due to 
material handling, vehicle traffic, and wind erosion from storage 
piles. Fugitive dust emissions contain metal HAP's. The quantity of 
fugitive dust emissions is dependent on the size of the facility and 
the fugitive dust controls and practices in place. These emissions can 
not be measured directly, and can only be roughly estimated using 
emission factors and facility-specific data or through indirect 
monitoring methods. Fugitive dust sources are typically controlled by 
reducing the potential for entrainment through measures such as 
wetting, pavement cleaning, use of chemical stabilizers, and protection 
from wind.

[[Page 19203]]

C. Regulatory History

1. New Source Performance Standards
    The EPA promulgated new source performance standards (NSPS) for 
primary lead smelters on January 15, 1976 (40 CFR part 60, subpart R). 
The NSPS limits emissions of particulate matter (PM) from blast and 
reverberatory furnaces (including rotary furnaces) to a concentration 
of 50 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) [0.022 grains 
per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)] and emissions from refining 
kettles (pot furnaces) to 10 percent opacity. However, none of the 
primary lead smelters have undergone any major construction or 
reconstruction since the rule became effective, and are, for the most 
part, not subject to the NSPS requirements.
2. State Implementation Plans for Lead
    On October 5, 1978, the EPA promulgated National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for lead at a level of 1.5 micrograms of lead 
per cubic meter of air averaged over a calendar quarter. The NAAQS 
defines levels of air quality that are determined by EPA to be 
necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public 
health (42 U.S.C. 7409). The areas around all three primary lead 
smelters were and continue to be designated as nonattainment areas for 
lead. Since the early 1980's, all three primary lead smelters and 
states have been involved in an ongoing effort to develop Federally 
enforceable control strategies to be incorporated into State 
Implementation Plans (SIP) in order to bring the areas into attainment 
with the lead NAAQS. The following paragraphs detail the history of the 
SIP development for the three primary smelters.
    ASARCO-MT. Ambient air quality monitoring data collected during the 
period of 1977-1981 by the state of Montana indicated that there were 
recorded violations of the NAAQS for lead in the East Helena area. On 
September 29, 1983, the State of Montana submitted a plan for the 
control of lead emissions from the ASARCO-MT facility as part of the 
Montana State Implementation Plan for lead. The EPA published a final 
approval of the SIP on July 9, 1984 (49 FR 27944).
    As of December 31, 1986, all of the control strategies in the 1983 
lead SIP were implemented. Ambient monitoring data for the fourth 
quarter of 1988 indicated that the lead NAAQS was not met. On November 
6, 1991, the EPA designated the East Helena area as a nonattainment 
area for lead (56 FR 56694), effective January 6, 1992. As a result of 
this designation, Montana was required to submit a revised lead SIP 
that meets the requirements of the NAAQS. The State of Montana 
submitted a new SIP proposal to the EPA on August 16, 1996 (Docket ID 
No. II-I-2). This submittal is still under review by the EPA.
    ASARCO-MO. The original Glover lead SIP was approved by EPA in 
1981. On November 6, 1991, the EPA designated the Liberty and Arcadia 
Townships which surround the ASARCO-MO facility as nonattainment for 
lead. This designation became effective on January 6, 1992. On August 
14, 1996, the State of Missouri submitted a revised SIP (Docket ID No. 
II-I-1). The EPA promulgated final approval of the submittal on March 
5, 1997 (62 FR 9970).
    Doe Run-MO. On June 3, 1986, the EPA issued a call for a revision 
to the Missouri SIP in response to violations of the NAAQS for lead 
near the Doe Run primary lead smelter in Herculaneum, Missouri. The 
state of Missouri submitted a SIP revision on September 6, 1990, with 
additional materials submitted on May 8, 1991. Before the EPA acted on 
the state's submission, the EPA promulgated a nonattainment designation 
for the area in the vicinity of Doe Run. The designation was published 
on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694), and became effective on January 6, 
1992. As a result of the nonattainment designation, the Part D 
requirements of the act became applicable to the Missouri SIP revision 
for Doe Run. The EPA granted limited approval for Missouri's 1990 SIP 
revision on March 6, 1992 (57 FR 8076). The EPA explained that the 
basis for the limited approval was that the state would be required to 
submit a supplemental SIP revision meeting the applicable Part D 
requirements. On July 2, 1993, The state of Missouri submitted a lead 
attainment plan for the Doe Run-MO facility meeting the Part D 
requirements. In response to the EPA's comments, the state submitted 
revisions to the SIP on June 30, 1994, and November 23, 1994 (Docket ID 
No. II-I-3). The EPA found that these SIP components satisfy the Part D 
requirements of the Act. The EPA promulgated final approval of the 
submittals on May 5, 1995 (52 FR 22274).
3. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
    On July 16, 1992, the EPA published an initial list of categories 
of major and area sources selected for regulation in accordance with 
section 112(c) of the Act (57 FR 31476). Primary lead smelters were 
among the listed categories. Today, the EPA is issuing a notice of 
proposed rulemaking for primary lead smelters and is soliciting 
comments on the proposed rule.

IV. NESHAP Decision Process

A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development

    Section 112 specifically directs the EPA to develop a list of all 
categories of all major and such area sources as appropriate emitting 
one or more of the 189 HAP listed in section 112(b) (section 112(c)). 
Section 112 of the Act replaces the previous system of pollutant-by-
pollutant health-based regulation that proved ineffective at 
controlling the high volumes and concentrations of HAP in air 
emissions. The provision directs that this deficiency be redressed by 
imposing technology-based controls on sources emitting HAP, and that 
these technology-based standards may later be reduced further to 
address residual risk that may remain even after imposition of 
technology-based controls. A major source is any source that emits, or 
has the potential to emit considering Federally enforceable controls, 
10 tons per year or more of any one HAP or 25 tons per year or more of 
any combination of HAP. The EPA published an initial list of source 
categories on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), and may amend the list at 
any time.

B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP

    The NESHAP are to be developed to control HAP emissions from both 
new and existing sources according to the statutory directives set out 
in section 112, as amended. The statute requires the standard to 
reflect the maximum degree of reduction of HAP emissions that is 
achievable taking into consideration the cost of achieving the emission 
reduction, any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and 
energy requirements.
    Emission reductions may be accomplished through application of 
measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including, but 
not limited to: (1) Reducing the volume of, or eliminating emissions 
of, such pollutants through process changes, substitution of materials, 
or other modifications, (2) enclosing systems or processes to eliminate 
emissions, (3) collecting, capturing, or treating such pollutants when 
released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point, 
(4) design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards

[[Page 19204]]

(including requirements for operator training or certification) as 
provided in subsection (h) of section 112, or (5) a combination of the 
above (section 112(d)(2)).
    To develop a NESHAP, the EPA collects information about the 
industry, including information on emission source characteristics, 
control technologies, data from HAP emissions tests at well-controlled 
facilities, and information on the costs and other energy and 
environmental impacts of emission control techniques. The EPA uses this 
information to analyze possible regulatory approaches.
    Although NESHAP are normally structured in terms of numerical 
emission limits, alternative approaches are sometimes necessary. In 
some cases, for example, physically measuring emissions from a source 
may be impossible, or at least impractical, because of technological 
and economic limitations. Section 112(h) authorizes the Administrator 
to promulgate a design, equipment, work practice, or operational 
standard, or a combination thereof, in those cases where it is not 
feasible to prescribe or enforce an emissions standard.
    If sources in the source category are major sources, then a MACT 
standard is required for those major sources. The regulation of the 
area sources in a source category is discretionary. If there is a 
finding of a threat of adverse effects on human health or the 
environment, then the source category can be added to the list of area 
sources to be regulated.

C. Determining the MACT Floor

    After the EPA has identified the specific source categories or 
subcategories of major sources to regulate under section 112, it must 
set MACT standards for each category or subcategory. Section 112 limits 
the EPA's discretion by establishing a minimum baseline or ``floor'' 
for standards. For new sources, the standards for a source category or 
subcategory cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is 
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source, as 
determined by the Administrator (section 112(d)(3)).
    The standards for existing sources can be less stringent than 
standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent and may be 
more stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the 
best-performing 12 percent of existing sources (excluding certain 
sources) for categories and subcategories with 30 or more sources, or 
the best-performing 5 sources for categories or subcategories with 
fewer than 30 sources (section 112(d)(3)).
    After the floor has been determined for a new or existing source in 
a source category or subcategory, the Administrator must set MACT 
standards that are no less stringent than the floor. Such standards 
must then be met by all sources within the category or subcategory.
    Section 112(d)(2) specifies that the EPA shall establish standards 
that require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of hazardous 
air pollutants

* * * that the Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of 
achieving such emission reduction, and any non-air quality health 
and environmental impacts and energy requirements, determines is 
achievable * * *.

    In establishing standards, the Administrator may distinguish among 
classes, types, and sizes of sources within a category or subcategory 
(section 112(d)(1)). For example, the Administrator could establish two 
classes of sources within a category or subcategory based on size and 
establish a different emissions standard for each class, provided both 
standards are at least as stringent as the MACT floor for that class of 
sources.
    The next step in establishing MACT standards is the investigation 
of regulatory alternatives. With MACT standards, only alternatives at 
least as stringent as the floor may be selected. Information about the 
industry is analyzed to develop model plant populations for projecting 
national impacts, including HAP emission reduction levels, costs, 
energy, and secondary impacts. Several regulatory alternative levels 
(which may be different levels of emissions control or different levels 
of applicability or both) are then evaluated to select the regulatory 
alternative that best reflects the appropriate MACT level.
    The selected alternative may be more stringent than the MACT floor, 
but the control level selected must be technically achievable. In 
selecting a regulatory alternative that represents MACT, the EPA 
considers the achievable emission reductions of HAP (and possibly other 
pollutants that are co-controlled), cost, and economic impacts, energy 
impacts, and other environmental impacts. The objective is to achieve 
the maximum degree of emissions reduction without unreasonable economic 
or other impacts (section 112(d)(2)). The regulatory alternatives 
selected for new and existing sources may be different because of 
different MACT floors, and separate regulatory decisions may be made 
for new and existing sources.
    The selected regulatory alternative is then translated into a 
proposed regulation. The regulation implementing the MACT decision 
typically includes sections on applicability, standards, test methods 
and compliance demonstration, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping. 
The preamble to the proposed regulation provides an explanation of the 
rationale for the decision. The public is invited to comment on the 
proposed regulation during the public comment period. Based on an 
evaluation of these comments, the EPA reaches a final decision and 
promulgates the standard.

V. Summary of the Proposed Standards

A. Sources to be Regulated

    Standards are being proposed to limit metal HAP emissions from: (1) 
Process sources, (2) process fugitive sources, and (3) fugitive dust 
sources at primary lead smelters. Process source emissions are 
discharged as the main exhaust of a sinter machine or smelting furnace 
through a chimney, flue, or ductwork. Process sources that would be 
regulated include sinter machines, blast furnaces, and dross furnaces.
    Process fugitive emission sources that would be regulated include 
sinter machine charging and discharging, sinter crushing and sizing, 
blast furnace tapping, and dross furnace charging and tapping.
    Fugitive dust sources that would be regulated include plant yards 
and roadways subject to wind and vehicle traffic, process areas, and 
materials handling and storage areas.

B. Proposed Standards for Process and Process Fugitive Sources

    A ``plant wide'' emission limit is being proposed for lead 
compounds from process and process fugitive emission sources. The lead 
compound emission limit is being proposed as a surrogate for all metal 
HAP's and will apply to both existing and new sources. The aggregated 
lead emissions from the following process and process fugitive sources 
would be limited to 500 mg/Mg of lead produced (1.0 lb/ton of lead 
produced):
    (1) Sinter machine;
    (2) Blast furnace;
    (3) Dross furnace;
    (4) Dross furnace charging location;
    (5) Blast and dross furnace tapping locations;
    (6) Sinter machine charging location;
    (7) Sinter machine discharge end;
    (8) Sinter crushing and sizing equipment; and

[[Page 19205]]

    (9) Sinter machine area.
    In addition to the emission limit, work practice standards are 
proposed for the above listed fugitive sources (items 4 through 9). The 
proposed rule requires that the charging, tapping, and sinter handling 
sources identified above (items 4 through 8) be equipped with a hood 
ventilated to a control device. The hood design and ventilation rate 
shall be consistent with the American Conference of Governmental 
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) recommended practices. In addition, the 
proposed rule requires that the sinter machine and sinter crushing and 
sizing equipment be located in a building ventilated to a baghouse or 
equivalent device at a rate that maintains the building at a lower than 
ambient pressure, ensuring in-draft through any doorway opening.

C. Proposed Standards for Fugitive Dust Sources

    The proposed standards for fugitive dust sources are in the form of 
work practice and operating standards. The EPA is proposing work 
practice and operating standards based on the determination in 
accordance with Sec. 112 (h)(2)(A) that the HAPs controlled by those 
standards cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and 
constructed to emit or capture those HAP. Again, the standards apply to 
fugitive dust sources at both new and existing smelters. Each primary 
lead smelter would be required to develop a Standard Operating 
Procedures (SOP) manual for fugitive dust sources that details 
procedures to limit fugitive dust emissions. Each smelter's SOP manual 
would be reviewed and subject to approval by the Administrator. 
Existing manuals developed as part of a facilities SIP control strategy 
may be used to meet this requirement if the existing manuals address 
the identified fugitive dust sources.

D. Compliance Dates

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

E. Compliance Test Methods

    Testing of lead compound emissions from process and process 
fugitive emission control devices would be conducted according to EPA 
reference method 12 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A). Sampling locations 
for all compliance tests would be determined by EPA reference method 1. 
Stack gas velocity and volumetric flow rate would be determined by EPA 
reference method 2. Gas analysis would be conducted according to EPA 
reference method 3 for CO2, oxygen, excess air, and 
molecular weight on a dry basis. The previous 12 calender months worth 
of production data will be used to calculate lead production based on 
the mass produced, and the lead content of lead products, copper 
speiss, and copper matte.

F. Monitoring Requirements

    Each owner or operator subject to the proposed NESHAP would be 
required to develop and operate according to a SOP manual for operation 
and maintenance of the control devices used to comply with the emission 
limits. Each smelter's SOP manual would be reviewed and subject to 
approval by the Administrator. The minimum SOP requirements identified 
in the proposed rule would serve as the criteria by which the 
Administrator would decide whether to approve a smelter's SOP.
    As proposed, the owner or operator must install a bag leak 
detection system for each fabric filter used on a process or process 
fugitive source. The bag leak detection system would be equipped with 
an audible alarm that automatically sounds when an increase in 
particulate emissions above a predetermined level is detected. The 
proposed rule requires that the monitor be capable of detecting PM 
emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter 
(0.004 grains per actual cubic foot) and provide an output of relative 
PM emissions. Such a device would serve as an indicator of the 
performance of the fabric filter and would provide an indication of 
when maintenance of the fabric filter is needed. An alarm by itself 
does not indicate noncompliance with the lead limit, but would indicate 
an increase in PM emissions and trigger an inspection of the fabric 
filter to determine the cause of the alarm. The owner or operator would 
initiate corrective actions according to the procedures in their 
operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan. The owner or operator 
would be considered out of compliance upon failure to initiate 
corrective actions within 1 hour of the alarm.

G. Notification Requirements

    The owner or operator of a primary lead smelter would be required 
to submit the notifications described in section 63.9 of the General 
Provisions to part 63, (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). These would include 
the initial notification, notifications of performance tests, and the 
notification of compliance status. In addition, each owner or operator 
would be required to submit the baghouse operation and maintenance SOP 
manual and the fugitive dust control SOP manual along with a 
notification to the Administrator requesting review and approval of the 
smelter's SOP manuals.

H. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

    The owner or operator of a primary lead smelter would be required 
to comply with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements described 
in section 63.10 of the General Provisions to part 63, (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A). In addition, the owner or operator of a primary lead 
smelter would be required to retain for 5 years records of: (1) 
production data of the weight and lead content of lead products, copper 
matte, and copper speiss, (2) an identification of the date and time of 
all bag leak detection system alarms, their cause, and an explanation 
of the corrective actions taken, (3) records demonstrating 
implementation of the baghouse SOP, and (4) records demonstrating 
implementation of the fugitive dust controls contained in the smelter's 
SOP manual.
    In addition to the information required by the General Provisions 
to part 63, (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), the owner or operator of a 
primary lead smelter would be required to submit semi-annual reports 
containing (1) records of all alarms from the bag leak detection system 
including a description of the procedures taken following each bag leak 
detection system alarm, (2) a summary of the records maintained as part 
of the practices described in the baghouse SOP, and (3) a summary of 
the fugitive dust control measures performed during the required 
reporting period.

VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

    There are only three existing primary lead smelters that would be 
subject to the proposed standards, and no new facilities are 
anticipated in the next 5 years. The proposed levels of control are 
based on existing SIP emission limits for lead. No additional emission 
controls would be required to comply with the proposed standards. 
Therefore, no quantifiable emission reduction or other environmental 
impacts are anticipated to result from this rulemaking. However, it is 
anticipated that improved baghouse operation and maintenance procedures 
coupled with continuous bag leak detection may result in unquantifiable 
reductions in emissions of lead compounds and other metal HAP.
    Similarly, cost and economic impacts are expected to be minimal. 
The only costs associated with the proposed standards are those 
required to perform

[[Page 19206]]

compliance assurance activities such as performance testing, 
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping. These costs are minimal, and 
will not result in any significant economic impact.

VII. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards

    This section describes the rationale for the decisions made by the 
Administrator in selecting the proposed standards.

A. Selection of Pollutants and Source Category

    Primary lead smelters emit several of the 189 HAP's listed in 
section 112(b) of the Act. Metal HAP's emitted include primarily 
compounds of lead, antimony, and arsenic, with lesser quantities of 
compounds of chromium, nickel, manganese, mercury, and cadmium. Organic 
HAP's are emitted at insignificant levels by primary lead smelters. 
Criteria pollutants emitted include lead, PM, SO2, 
NoX, CO, and hydrocarbons.
    All three primary lead smelters in the United States are major 
sources of HAP's, based on potential-to-emit estimates that take into 
account air pollution control measures currently in place at each 
smelter. Although no new primary lead smelters are anticipated, any new 
primary lead smelter would certainly be a major source of metal HAP 
emissions. As such, area sources are not addressed by this proposed 
standard.
    The emission, equipment, and work practice standards being proposed 
today are based on existing SIP requirements that substantially limit 
emissions of metal HAP's from primary lead smelters. The lead emission 
limit being proposed is a surrogate for individual metal HAP compounds. 
Strong correlations exist between lead emissions and other metal HAP 
emissions. In addition, the technologies identified for the control of 
metal HAP's are the same as those used to control lead emissions. 
Therefore, emissions standards requiring good control of lead will also 
achieve good control of the other metal HAP's emitted from primary lead 
smelters. Further, establishing emission limits for each of the 
numerous metal HAP compounds emitted from primary lead smelters is 
considered impractical because measuring each compound would be too 
costly and would pose unreasonable compliance and monitoring costs 
while achieving little, if any, emission reduction above the surrogate 
pollutant approach.

B. Selection of Affected Sources

    Nearly all activities at a primary lead smelter have the potential 
to emit metal HAP. In selecting the affected sources for this subpart, 
the EPA attempted to identify all operations that have the potential to 
emit appreciable quantities of HAP. As a result, the proposed standards 
apply to three types of emission sources at primary lead smelters: (1) 
Process sources, (2) process fugitive sources, and (3) fugitive dust 
sources.
    Process source emissions are discharged as the main exhaust of a 
sinter machine or smelting furnace through a chimney, flue, or 
ductwork. Process sources that would be regulated include sinter 
machines, blast furnaces, and dross furnaces. Process sources have the 
potential to emit significant amounts of metal HAP.
    Process fugitive emission sources that would be regulated include 
sinter machine charging and discharging, sinter crushing and sizing, 
blast furnace tapping, and dross furnace charging and tapping. Process 
fugitive sources are also a significant source of metal HAP.
    Fugitive dust sources that would be regulated include plant yards 
and roadways subject to wind and vehicle traffic, process areas, and 
materials handling and storage areas. Fugitive dust sources emit 
appreciable quantities of metal HAP.

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

    Each of the three primary lead smelters are subject to federally 
enforceable SIP emission limitations and work practice requirements for 
the control of lead. In developing a SIP, the State and facility work 
together to develop an emission inventory which includes process, 
process fugitive, and fugitive dust sources. Once the emission 
inventory is developed, dispersion modeling is performed to identify 
the emission sources contributing to NAAQS violations. Emission control 
options are identified and evaluated for each of the sources 
contributing to the NAAQS violation. The combination of controls, 
including contingency measures, found to be technically feasible and 
that bring the modeled air concentrations below the NAAQS are selected 
for the ``Control Strategy''. The facilities and the State agree to a 
Consent Order which legally binds them to implement the Control 
Strategy. The Consent Order also sets forth the administrative 
requirements for the implementation of the control measures. The state 
then submits a revision to the existing SIP to the EPA for approval.
    As part of this rulemaking, the EPA has reviewed the proposed SIP 
requirements and Control Strategies for each of the three facilities, 
and has determined that the SIP emission limits and work practice 
requirements represent MACT for this industry. As such, the EPA's goal 
in this rulemaking is to develop MACT limitations compatible with the 
SIP requirements. The following paragraphs provide the rationale and 
supporting information for selection of MACT for the primary lead 
smelting source category.
1. Selection of MACT for Process and Process Fugitive Sources
    Metal HAP emissions from all of the major process and process 
fugitive sources are well controlled at the three primary lead smelters 
and all three facilities have SIP lead emission limits for the process 
and main process fugitive emission sources (Tables 2-4). Baghouses are 
used to control emissions from all existing blast furnace exhausts. 
ASARCO-MO uses a baghouse to control emissions from their sinter 
machine exhausts, while the other two facilities send the sinter 
machine strong gasses to an acid plant for SO2 control, and 
the weak gasses to a baghouse. Due to the extensive cooling and 
precleaning associated with an acid plant, it is believed that an acid 
plant provides a higher level of control of metal HAP emissions as 
compared to baghouses alone.

         Table 2.--Summary of SIP Emission Limits for ASARCO--MO        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Lead    
                                                              emission  
         Emission point               Sources included       limits (lb/
                                                                day)    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main Stack......................  Sinter Machine..........        184.2 
                                  Sinter Machine Charging               
                                  Sinter Machine Discharge              
                                  Sinter Crushing                       

[[Page 19207]]

                                                                        
Ventilation Stack...............  Sinter Machine Area             125.4 
                                   Ventilation.                         
                                  Blast Furnace Tapping                 
Blast Furnace Stack.............  Blast Furnace...........         82.3 
                                  Sinter Sizing                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------


         Table 3. Summary of SIP Emission Limits for ASARCO--MT         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Lead    
                                                              emission  
         Emission point               Sources included       limits (lb/
                                                                day)    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blast Furnace Baghouse Stack....  Blast Furnaces..........         89.1 
                                  Blast Furnace Charge                  
                                   Location                             
                                  Blast Furnace Tap                     
                                   Location                             
Dross Plant Baghouse Stack......  Dross Furnace...........         83.8 
                                  Dross Furnace Charge                  
                                   Location                             
                                  Dross Furnace Tap                     
                                   Location                             
                                  Lead Granulator                       
                                  Kettle Covers                         
                                  Sinter Storage                        
                                  Blast Furnace Charge Car              
                                  Pneumatic Flue Dust                   
                                   Handling                             
Sinter Plant Baghouse Stack.....  Sinter Machine Weak Gas.         43.6 
                                  Sinter Machine Charge                 
                                   Location                             
                                  Sinter Machine Discharge              
                                  Sinter Crushing and                   
                                   Sizing                               
                                  Pneumatic Flue Dust                   
                                   Handling                             
                                  Flue Dust Storage                     
Acid Plant Stack................  Sinter Machine Strong             1.7 
                                   Gas.                                 
Crushing Mill #1 Baghouse Stack.  Sinter Machine Area               1.35
                                   Ventilation.                         
Crushing Mill #2 Baghouse Stack.  Sinter Machine Area               1.35
                                   Ventilation.                         
CSHB Baghouse Stack.............  Concentrate Storage/             98.1 
                                   Handling.                            
                                  Pneumatic Flue Dust                   
                                   Handling                             
                                  Sinter Crushing and                   
                                   Sizing                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------


          Table 4.--Summary of SIP Emission Limits for DOE Run          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Lead    
                                                              emission  
         Emission point               Sources included       limits (lb/
                                                                day)    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main Stack......................  Blast Furances..........        446.6 
                                  Blast Furnace Tap                     
                                   Location                             
                                  Sinter Machine                        
                                  Sinter Crushing                       
Cooler/Crusher Baghouse.........  Sinter Crushing and              21.8 
                                   Sizing.                              
                                  Sinter Cooling                        
Sinter Plant Southend Baghouse..  Sinter Machine Area.....          2.6 
Smooth Rolls Baghouse...........  Sinter Crushing.........          2.2 
                                  Sinter Machine Area                   
Mixing Drum Baghouse............  Sinter Charge Mixing             10.2 
                                   Drum.                                
Dross Plant Baghouse............  Dross Furnace...........         36.2 
                                  Dross Furnace Talling                 
                                  Dross Kettle Ventilation              
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the process fugitive sources identified at primary lead 
smelters are hooded, and ventilated to a baghouse with the exception of 
blast furnace charging and drossing and refining kettles. At the 
ASARCO--MT facility, the drossing and refining kettles are located in a 
totally enclosed building ventilated to a baghouse, and the blast 
furnace charging location is hooded and ventilated to a baghouse. At 
the other two facilities, the blast furnace charging location and the 
drossing and refining kettles are located in partially enclosed 
buildings which are not ventilated to a baghouse. The sinter machine 
and sinter crushing and sizing equipment at all three smelters are 
housed in buildings which are ventilated to an air pollution control 
device.
    Several approaches were identified and evaluated for determining 
MACT for process and process fugitive sources at primary lead smelters. 
One common regulatory approach is to establish emission limits for each 
individual source (sinter machine, blast furnace, etc.). For the 
primary lead smelting category, this approach has several 
disadvantages. Due to the manner in

[[Page 19208]]

which many of the process and process fugitive sources are 
``commingled'' into a single stack, emission from individual sources 
can not be isolated. As a result, it would not be possible to monitor 
compliance with emission limits for individual sources. In addition, 
this approach would result in emission limits inconsistent with the 
existing SIP, where emission limits are set for stacks rather than for 
individual emission sources.
    The EPA proposes to establish MACT for process and process fugitive 
sources at primary lead smelters based on a ``plant wide'' approach 
(Docket ID No. II-B-5). Using this approach, the emissions from all of 
the process and process fugitive sources are aggregated, and then 
divided by the facility's lead production rate to provide a production 
based lead emission rate in units of grams of lead emitted per megagram 
of lead produced. The plant wide emission limit approach has several 
advantages. It is very compatible with the existing SIPs, and it 
provides facilities with more flexibility in complying with the MACT 
standard. Furthermore, the plant wide production based emission limit 
helps promote pollution prevention within the facilities by giving each 
facility the ability to meet the emission limit through any combination 
of source reduction and control technology options. Table 5 summarizes 
the calculations used to derive the production based MACT floor.

                               Table 5.--Summary of Plant Wide Lead Emission Rates                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Lead production                             
               Company                 Lead SIP emission limit   capacity  [Mg/day(ton/    Plant wide emission  
                                           [Mg/day(lb/day)]              day)]             rate  [g/Mg(lb/ton)] 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASARCO--MO...........................               0.178(392)                 357(394)                 500(1.0)
ASARCO--MT...........................               0.145(319)                 279(307)                 520(1.0)
Doe Run..............................               0.236(520)                 559(616)                420(0.84)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The median value was selected to represent the MACT floor--500 
grams lead per megagram of lead produced (1.0 pounds of lead per ton of 
lead produced).
    In addition to the lead emission limit, the EPA is proposing 
equipment standards for several process fugitive sources at primary 
lead smelters including dross furnace charging and tapping locations, 
blast furnace tapping locations, sinter machine charge and discharge 
points, and sinter crushing and sizing equipment. The proposed standard 
would require that each of these sources be hooded and ventilated to a 
baghouse or equivalent control device. The hood design and ventilation 
rate shall be consistent with ACGIH recommended practices. In addition, 
the rule will require that sinter machines and sinter crushing and 
sizing equipment be located in a building which is ventilated to a 
baghouse or equivalent control device at a rate that would maintain the 
building at a lower than ambient pressure. Based on observations at 
operating primary lead smelters (Docket ID No.'s II-B-1, II-B-2, and 
II-B-3), the EPA believes that the capture and ventilation systems 
currently installed and operated at primary lead smelters are 
consistent with the proposed requirements. These controls consequently 
establish the MACT floor. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to 
incorporate these specifications into the proposed MACT for new and 
existing process fugitive sources.
2. Selection of MACT for Fugitive Dust Sources
    The EPA is proposing that each smelter develop and submit to the 
Administrator for approval an SOP manual that would describe the 
controls and work practices that would be implemented to control 
fugitive dust emissions. The EPA is proposing to require the 
implementation of work practices based on its determination in 
accordance with Sec. 112(h)(2)(A) that the HAPs controlled by those 
practices cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and 
constructed to emit those HAPs. The use of a site-specific SOP manual 
is being proposed, rather than a list of required work practices, 
because there are several equivalent control options available for 
fugitive dust. The flexibility of the SOP approach is needed because 
the best control option for a particular smelter would be determined by 
the physical layout of the smelter and the control measures that are 
already in place. These two factors vary greatly among smelters.
    All three facilities currently operate according to SOP manuals, 
required as part of their SIP control strategy, that address the 
control of fugitive dust from these sources. Existing manuals developed 
as part of a facilities SIP control strategy may be used to meet this 
requirement provided the existing manuals address the fugitive dust 
sources identified in this proposed rule.

D. Reconstruction Considerations

    Section 112(a) of the Act defines a new source as a stationary 
source, the construction or reconstruction of which is commenced after 
the proposal date of a relevant regulation. An existing source is 
defined as any stationary source other than a new source.
    Reconstructed sources are considered to be new sources. 
Reconstruction means the replacement of components of an existing 
source to such an extent that: (1) The fixed capital cost of the new 
components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be 
required to construct a comparable new source, and (2) it is 
technologically and economically feasible for the reconstructed source 
to meet all relevant promulgated standards for new sources.
    Some changes can be made at primary lead smelters that may be 
deemed reconstructions under section 63.5 of the General Provisions. 
However, the proposed standards for primary lead smelters are the same 
for both existing and new sources. As a result, the designation of a 
change as a ``reconstruction'' has limited practical significance.

E. Selection of Compliance Dates

    The proposed regulation would require owners or operators of 
existing primary lead smelters to achieve compliance with the proposed 
standards within 24 months of promulgation. This schedule would allow 
the affected sources the time necessary to modify existing processes 
and control equipment; design, fabricate, and install new control 
equipment as needed; develop and implement the SOP for equipment and 
work practice standards; and complete installation of all required 
continuous monitoring systems. The EPA believes that a 2-year period is 
realistic and practical to accomplish these required tasks. The 
proposed standard is also

[[Page 19209]]

consistent with compliance deadlines allowed by section 112(i) of the 
Act, which allows existing sources up to 3 years to achieve compliance.
    Owners or operators of new or reconstructed primary lead smelters 
would be required to achieve compliance upon startup or promulgation of 
this NESHAP (whichever is later) and must perform compliance testing 
within 6 months of startup or promulgation, pursuant to sections 63.6 
and 63.7 of the General Provisions.

F. Selection of Emission Test Methods and Schedule

    Testing requirements are being proposed for lead emissions and 
total enclosure pressure.
1. Lead Emissions
    Lead emissions would be measured using EPA reference method 12. EPA 
reference method 1 would be used to determine the number and locations 
of sampling points, method 2 would be used to determine stack gas 
velocity and volumetric flow rate, method 3 would be used for flue gas 
analysis, and method 4 would be used to determine the volume percent 
moisture content in the stack gas.
    Each test would consist of three runs conducted under 
representative operating conditions. The average of the three runs 
would be used to determine compliance.
    The lead emission rates from the affected sources would be summed, 
and the sum divided by the average daily lead production rate for the 
previous 12 calender months. The lead production rate would be 
calculated based on the sum of the lead contained in the lead products, 
copper matte, and copper speiss produced.
    The proposed standard would require initial and annual tests of 
lead emissions from the identified process and process fugitive 
sources.
2. Total Enclosure Pressure
    Compliance with the ventilation requirements for total enclosures 
would be determined using a hand-held anemometer capable of 
demonstrating that air flow is into the building at all openings. 
Alternatively, a differential pressure gauge installed on the leeward 
wall of the enclosure can be used to demonstrate that the building is 
maintained at a negative pressure as compared to the outside of the 
building of no less than 0.02 mm Hg when all doors are in the position 
they are in during normal operation.

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Solicitation of Comments

    The EPA seeks full public participation in arriving at its final 
decisions, and strongly encourages comments on all aspects of this 
proposal from all interested parties. Full supporting data and detailed 
analyses should be submitted with comments to allow the EPA to make 
maximum use of the comments. All comments should be directed to the Air 
and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Docket No. A-97-33 (see 
ADDRESSES). Comments on this notice must be submitted on or before the 
date specified in DATES.
    Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for 
consideration should clearly distinguish such information from other 
comments, and clearly label it ``Confidential Business Information'' 
(CBI). Submissions containing such proprietary information should be 
sent directly to the following address, and not to the public docket, 
to ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in 
the docket: Attention: Kevin Cavender, c/o Ms. Melva Toomer, U.S. EPA 
Confidential Business Information Manager, OAQPS (MD-13); Research 
Triangle Park, NC 27711. Information covered by such a claim of 
confidentiality will be disclosed by the EPA only to the extent allowed 
and by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of 
confidentiality accompanies the submission when it is received by the 
EPA, the submission may be made available to the public without further 
notice to the commenter.

B. Public Hearing

    If a request to speak at a public hearing is received, a public 
hearing on the proposed standards will be held in accordance with 
section 307(d)(5) of the Act. Persons wishing to present oral testimony 
or to inquire as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact EPA 
(see ADDRESSES). To provide an opportunity for all who may wish to 
speak, oral presentations will be limited to 15 minutes each.
    Any member of the public may file a written statement on or before 
June 16, 1998. Written statements should be addressed to the Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center (see ADDRESSES) and refer to 
Docket No. A-97-33. A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written 
statements will be placed in the docket and be available for public 
inspection and copying, or mailed upon request, at the Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center.

C. Docket

    The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information 
considered by the EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket 
is a dynamic file because material is added throughout the rulemaking 
development. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the 
public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents 
so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. 
Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, 
the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the case of 
judicial review. [See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act.]

D. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order 
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to 
result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
because none of the listed criteria apply to this action. Consequently, 
this action was not submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 
12866.

E. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive Order 
12875

    In compliance with Executive Order 12875, the EPA has involved 
State regulatory experts in the development of this proposed rule. No 
tribal governments are believed to be affected by this proposed rule. 
Although not directly impacted by the rule, State

[[Page 19210]]

governments will be required to implement the rule by incorporating the 
rule into permits and enforcing the rule upon delegation. They will 
collect permit fees that will be used to offset the resources burden of 
implementing the rule. Comments have been solicited from state partners 
and have been carefully considered in the rule development process. In 
addition, all states are encouraged to comment on this proposed rule 
during the public comment period, and the EPA intends to fully consider 
these comments in the development of the final rule.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L. 
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the 
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal 
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or 
more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a 
written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires 
the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory 
alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least 
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The 
provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with 
applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA to adopt an 
alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least 
burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final 
rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before the 
EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it 
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government 
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected 
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to 
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    The EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the 
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the EPA 
has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it 
contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose 
obligations upon them. Therefore, today's rule is not subject to the 
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act

    As amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act (SBREFA), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires 
an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule 
subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, as well as take 
other actions intended to minimize the rule's potential impact on small 
entities, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and small government jurisdictions.
    The EPA has determined that none of the existing primary lead 
smelters are small entities, and has concluded that this proposed rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the requirements of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An information 
collection request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA, and a copy 
may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 401 M Street 
SW., Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
    The proposed information requirements are based on notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP general 
provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all 
owners or operators subject to national emission standards. These 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by 
section 114 of the Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7414). All information submitted 
to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for 
which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to 
Agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The proposed rule would require maintenance inspections of the 
control devices but would not require any notifications or reports 
beyond those required by the general provisions. The proposed 
recordkeeping requirements require only the specific information needed 
to determine compliance.
    The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of 
the rule) is estimated to be 1,000 labor hours per year at a total 
annual cost of $64,000. This estimate includes a one-time performance 
test and report (with repeat tests where needed); one-time purchase and 
installation of bag leak detection systems; one-time submission of a 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan with semiannual reports for any 
event when the procedures in the plan were not followed; semiannual 
excess emission reports; maintenance inspections; notifications; and 
recordkeeping. Total capital/startup costs associated with the 
monitoring requirements over the 3-year period of the ICR are estimated 
at $93,000, with operation and maintenance costs of $4,500/yr.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose, or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information; processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to respond to a request for the collection of 
information; search existing data sources; complete and review the 
collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the 
information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a request for the collection of information unless it 
displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers 
for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 
15.
    Comments are requested on the EPA's need for this information, the 
accuracy

[[Page 19211]]

of the provided burden estimates, any suggested methods for minimizing 
respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the Director, OPPE Regulatory 
Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 401 
M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th 
Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for 
EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Because OMB is 
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days 
after April 17, 1998, comment to OMB is best assured of having its full 
effect if OMB receives it by May 18, 1998. The final rule will respond 
to any OMB or public comments on the information collection 
requirements contained in this proposal.

I. Clean Air Act

    In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this 
proposal was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory 
committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies. 
This regulation will be reviewed 8 years from the date of promulgation. 
This review will include an assessment of such factors as evaluation of 
the residual health risks, any overlap with other programs, the 
existence of alternative methods, enforceability, improvements in 
emission control technology and health data, and the recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements.

J. Pollution Prevention Considerations

    The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., Pub. 
L. 101-508, November 5, 1990) establishes the national policy of the 
United States for pollution prevention. This act declares that: (1) 
Pollution should be prevented or reduced whenever feasible; (2) 
pollution that cannot be prevented or reduced should be recycled or 
reused in an environmentally-safe manner wherever feasible; (3) 
pollution that cannot be recycled or reused should be treated; and (4) 
disposal or release into the atmosphere should be chosen only if none 
of the other options is available.
    The plant wide emission limit approach proposed by the EPA promotes 
the use of pollution prevention alternatives by giving facilities full 
credit for source reduction in determining compliance with the emission 
limit. Furthermore, the focus of the fugitive dust requirements is on 
work practice and operating standards that reduce emission potential, 
rather than capture and treatment options.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: April 9, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For reasons set out in the preamble, it is proposed that 40 CFR 
part 63 be amended as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

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

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

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

Subpart TTT--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for Primary Lead Smelters.

Sec.
63.1541  Applicability.
63.1542  Definitions.
63.1543  Standards for process and process fugitive sources.
63.1544  Standards for fugitive dust sources.
63.1545  Compliance dates.
63.1546  Test methods.
63.1547  Monitoring requirements.
63.1548  Notification requirements.
63.1549  Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
63.1550  Delegation of Authority.

Subpart TTT--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Primary Lead Smelters


Sec. 63.1541  Applicability.

    (a) The provisions of this subpart apply to the following affected 
sources at primary lead smelters: sinter machine, blast furnace, dross 
furnace, process fugitive sources, and fugitive dust sources. The 
provisions of this subpart do not apply to secondary lead smelters, 
lead refiners, or lead remelters.
    (b) Table 1 of this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A 
that apply and those that do not apply to owners and operators of 
primary lead smelters. The following sections of part 63 apply to this 
subpart as stated in subpart A and Table 1: Sec. 63.1 (Applicability), 
Sec. 63.2 (Definitions), Sec. 63.3 (Units and abbreviations), Sec. 63.4 
(Prohibited activities and circumvention), Sec. 63.5 (Construction and 
reconstruction), Sec. 63.7 (Performance testing requirements), 
Sec. 63.12 (State authority and delegations), Sec. 63.13 (Addresses of 
State air pollution control agencies and EPA Regional Offices), 
Sec. 63.14 (Incorporations by reference), and Sec. 63.15 (Availability 
of information and confidentiality). The following sections of part 63 
apply to the extent specified in this subpart and Table 1: Sec. 63.6 
(Compliance with standards and maintenance requirements), Sec. 63.8 
(Monitoring requirements), Sec. 63.9 (Notification requirements), and 
Sec. 63.10 (Recordkeeping and reporting requirements). Sections 
Sec. 63.11 (Control device requirements) does not apply to this 
subpart.

                            Table 1.--General Provisions Applicability To Subpart TTT                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Reference          Applies to subpart TTT          Comment        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1.................................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.2.................................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.3.................................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.4.................................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.5.................................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.6.................................  (a), (b), (c), (e),      Yes....................  .......................
                                        (f), (g), (i) and (j).                                                  
63.6.................................  (d) and (h)............  No.....................  No opacity limits in   
                                                                                          rule.                 
63.7.................................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.8.................................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.9.................................  (a), (b), (c), (d),      Yes....................  .......................
                                        (e), (g), (h)(1-3),                                                     
                                        (h)(5-6), (i), and (j).                                                 
63.9.................................  (g)....................  No.....................  No CMS required by     
                                                                                          rule.                 

[[Page 19212]]

                                                                                                                
63.9.................................  (f) and (h)(4).........  No.....................  No opacity or visible  
                                                                                          emission limits in    
                                                                                          rule.                 
63.10................................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
63.11................................  .......................  No.....................  Flares will not be used
                                                                                          to comply with the    
                                                                                          emission limits.      
63.12 to 63.15.......................  .......................  Yes....................  .......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 63.1542  Definitions.

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Act, in subpart A of 
this part, or in this section as follows:
    Blast furnace means any reduction furnace to which sinter is 
charged and which forms separate layers of molten slag and lead 
bullion.
    Charging location means the physical opening through which raw 
materials are introduced into a sinter machine, blast furnace, or dross 
furnace.
    Dross furnace means any smelting furnace to which drosses are 
charged and which chemically and physically separates lead from other 
impurities.
    Drossing and refining kettle means an open-top vessel that is 
constructed of cast iron or steel and is indirectly heated from below 
and contains molten lead for the purpose of drossing, refining, or 
alloying lead. Included are pot furnaces, receiving kettles, and 
holding kettles.
    Fugitive dust source means a stationary source of hazardous air 
pollutant emissions at a primary lead smelter resulting from the 
handling, storage, transfer, or other management of lead-bearing 
materials where the source is not associated with a specific process, 
process vent, or stack. Fugitive dust sources include roadways, storage 
piles, materials handling transfer points, and materials transport 
areas.
    Furnace area means any area of a primary lead smelter in which a 
blast furnace or dross furnace is located.
    Materials storage and handling area means any area of a primary 
lead smelter in which lead-bearing materials (including ore 
concentrate, sinter, granulated lead, dross, slag, and flue dust) are 
stored or handled between process steps, including areas in which 
materials are stored in piles, bins, or tubs, and areas in which 
material is prepared for charging to a sinter machine or smelting 
furnace.
    Plant roadway means any area of a primary lead smelter that is 
subject to vehicle traffic, including traffic by fork lifts, front-end 
loaders, or vehicles carrying ore concentrates or cast lead ingots. 
Excluded from this definition are employee and visitor parking areas, 
provided they are not subject to traffic by vehicles carrying lead-
bearing materials.
    Primary lead smelter means any facility engaged in the production 
of lead metal from lead sulfide ore concentrates through the use of 
pyrometallurigal techniques.
    Process fugitive source means a source of hazardous air pollutant 
emissions at a primary lead smelter that is associated with lead 
smelting or refining but is not the primary exhaust stream and is not a 
fugitive dust source. Process fugitive sources include sinter machine 
charging locations, sinter machine discharge locations, sinter crushing 
and sizing equipment, furnace charging locations, furnace taps, 
drossing kettles, and refining kettles.
    Refining and casting area means any area of a primary lead smelter 
in which drossing or refining operations occur, or casting operations 
occur.
    Sinter machine means any device in which a lead sulfide ore 
concentrate charge is heated in the presence of air to eliminate sulfur 
contained in the charge and to agglomerate the charge into a hard 
porous mass called sinter.
    Sinter machine area means any area of a primary lead smelter where 
a sinter machine, or sinter crushing and sizing equipment is located.
    Sinter machine discharge end means the physical opening at the end 
of a sinter machine where the sinter exits the sinter machine.
    Tapping location means the opening thru which lead and slag are 
removed from the furnace.
    Total enclosure means a roofed and walled building with limited 
openings to allow access and egress for people and vehicles.


Sec. 63.1543  Standards for process and process fugitive sources.

    (a) No owner or operator of any existing, new, or reconstructed 
primary lead smelter shall discharge or cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere lead compounds in excess of 500 grams of lead per megagram 
of lead metal produced (1.0 pounds of lead per ton of lead metal 
produced) from the aggregation of emissions discharged from the air 
pollution control devices used to control emissions from the sources 
listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(9) of this section.
    (1) Sinter machine;
    (2) Blast furnace;
    (3) Dross furnace;
    (4) Dross furnace charging location;
    (5) Blast furnace and dross furnace tapping location;
    (6) Sinter machine charging location;
    (7) Sinter machine discharge end;
    (8) Sinter crushing and sizing equipment; and
    (9) Sinter machine area.
    (b) The process fugitive sources listed in paragraphs (a)(4) 
through (a)(8) of this section shall be equipped with a hood and shall 
be ventilated to a baghouse or equivalent control device. The hood 
design and ventilation rate shall be consistent with American 
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists recommended practices.
    (c) The sinter machine area shall be enclosed in a building that is 
ventilated to a baghouse or equivalent control device at a rate that 
maintains the building at a lower than ambient pressure to ensure in-
draft through any doorway opening.
    (d) Following the initial test to demonstrate compliance with 
paragraph (a) of this section, the owner or operator of a primary lead 
smelter shall conduct a compliance test for lead compounds on an annual 
basis (no later than 12 calendar months following the previous 
compliance test).


Sec. 63.1544  Standards for fugitive dust sources.

    (a) Each owner or operator of a primary lead smelter shall prepare, 
and at all times operate according to, a standard operating procedures 
manual that describes in detail the measures that will be put in place 
to control fugitive dust emissions from the sources listed in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section:
    (1) Plant roadways;
    (2) Material storage and handling area;
    (3) Sinter machine area;
    (4) Furnace area; and
    (5) Refining and casting area.
    (b) The standard operating procedures manual shall be submitted to 
the Administrator or delegated authority for review and approval.

[[Page 19213]]

    (c) Existing manuals that describe the measures in place to control 
fugitive emission sources required as part of a State Implementation 
Plan for lead shall satisfy the requirements of paragraph (a) of this 
section provided they address the sources listed in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (a)(5) of this section.


Sec. 63.1545  Compliance dates.

    (a) Each owner or operator of an existing primary lead smelter 
shall achieve compliance with the requirements of this subpart no later 
than [date 24 months after publication of the final rule].
    (b) Each owner or operator of a primary lead smelter that commences 
construction or reconstruction after April 17, 1998 shall achieve 
compliance with the requirements of this subpart by [Insert date of 
publication of final rule] or upon startup of operations, whichever is 
later.


Sec. 63.1546  Test methods.

    (a) The following procedure shall be used to determine compliance 
with the emissions standard for lead compounds under Sec. 63.1543(a):
    (1) The lead compound emission rate, in units of grams of lead per 
hour, for each source listed in Sec. 63.1543(a)(1) through (9) shall be 
determined according to the following test methods in appendix A of 
part 60 of this chapter:
    (i) Method 1 shall be used to select the sampling port location and 
the number of traverse points.
    (ii) Method 2 shall be used to measure volumetric flow rate.
    (iii) Method 3 shall be used for gas analysis.
    (iv) Method 4 shall be used to determine moisture content of the 
stack gas.
    (v) Method 12 shall be used to measure the lead emission rate of 
the stack gas. The minimum sample volume shall be 0.85 dry standard 
cubic meters (30 dry standard cubic feet) and the minimum sampling time 
shall be 60 minutes for each run. Three runs shall be performed and the 
average of the three runs shall be used to determine compliance.
    (2) The lead production rate, in units of megagrams per hour, shall 
be determined based on production data for the previous 12 calender 
months according to the procedure detailed in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) 
through (v) of this section:
    (i) Total lead products production multiplied by the fractional 
lead content shall be determined in units of megagrams.
    (ii) Total copper matte production multiplied by the fractional 
lead content shall be determined in units of megagrams.
    (iii) Total copper speiss production multiplied by the fractional 
lead content shall be determined in units of megagrams.
    (iv) Total lead production shall be determined by summing the 
values obtained in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (v) The lead production rate, in units of megagrams per hour, shall 
be calculated based on the total lead production obtained in paragraph 
(a)(2)(iv) of this section divided by 8760 hours.
    (3) The sum of lead compound emission rates for the sources in 
Sec. 63.1543(a)(1) through (9) obtained in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section shall be divided by the lead production rate obtained in 
paragraph (a)(2)(v) of this section to obtain a production based lead 
compound emission rate in units of grams of lead per megagram of lead 
metal produced. The production based lead compound emission rate shall 
be used to determine compliance with the emissions standard for lead 
compounds under Sec. 63.1543(a).
    (b) Owners and operators shall determine compliance with the 
doorway in-draft requirement for buildings in Sec. 63.1543(b) and 
Sec. 63.1544(c) using the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of 
this section.
    (1)(i) Owners and operators shall use a propeller anemometer or 
equivalent device.
    (ii) Doorway in-draft shall be determined by placing the anemometer 
in the plane of the doorway opening near its center.
    (iii) Doorway in-draft shall be demonstrated for each doorway that 
is open during normal operation with all remaining doorways in their 
customary position during normal operation.
    (2)(i) Owners and operators shall install a differential pressure 
gage on the leeward wall of the building to measure the pressure 
difference between the inside and outside of the building.
    (ii) The pressure gage shall be certified by the manufacturer to be 
capable of measuring pressure differential in the range of 0.02 to 0.2 
mm Hg.
    (iii) Both the inside and outside taps shall be shielded to reduce 
the effects of wind.
    (iv) Owners and operators shall demonstrate the inside of the 
building is maintained at a negative pressure as compared to the 
outside of the building of no less than 0.02 mm Hg when all doors are 
in the position they are in during normal operation.


Sec. 63.1547  Monitoring requirements.

    (a) Owners and operators of primary lead smelters shall prepare, 
and at all times operate according to, a standard operating procedures 
manual that describes in detail procedures for inspection, maintenance, 
and bag leak detection and corrective action for all baghouses that are 
used to control process, process fugitive, or fugitive dust emissions 
from any source subject to the lead emission standards in Secs. 63.1543 
and 63.1544 including those used to control emissions from building 
ventilation.
    (b) The standard operating procedures manual for baghouses required 
by paragraph (a) of this section shall be submitted to the 
Administrator or delegated authority for review and approval.
    (c) The procedures specified in the standard operating procedures 
manual for inspections and routine maintenance shall, at a minimum, 
include the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(9) of this 
section.
    (1) Daily monitoring of pressure drop across each baghouse cell.
    (2) Weekly confirmation that dust is being removed from hoppers 
through visual inspection, or equivalent means of ensuring the proper 
functioning of removal mechanisms.
    (3) Daily check of compressed air supply for pulse-jet baghouses.
    (4) An appropriate methodology for monitoring cleaning cycles to 
ensure proper operation.
    (5) Monthly check of bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning 
through visual inspection or equivalent means.
    (6) Quarterly check of bag tension on reverse air and shaker-type 
baghouses. Such checks are not required for shaker-type baghouses using 
self-tensioning (spring loaded) devices.
    (7) Quarterly confirmation of the physical integrity of the 
baghouse through visual inspection of the baghouse interior for air 
leaks.
    (8) Quarterly inspection of fans for wear, material buildup, and 
corrosion through visual inspection, vibration detectors, or equivalent 
means.
    (9) Except as provided in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section, 
continuous operation of a bag leak detection system.
    (d) The procedures specified in the standard operating procedures 
manual for maintenance shall, at a minimum, include a preventative 
maintenance schedule that is consistent with the baghouse 
manufacturer's instructions for routine and long-term maintenance.
    (e) The bag leak detection system required by paragraph (c)(9) of 
this section, shall meet the specifications

[[Page 19214]]

and requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(8) of this section.
    (1) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the 
manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter emissions at 
concentrations of 10 milligram per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains 
per actual cubic foot) or less.
    (2) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of 
relative particulate matter loadings.
    (3) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm 
system that will alarm when an increase in relative particulate 
loadings is detected over a preset level.
    (4) The bag leak detection system shall be installed and operated 
in a manner consistent with available written guidance from the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency or, in the absence of such written 
guidance, the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations 
for installation, operation, and adjustment of the system.
    (5) The initial adjustment of the system shall, at a minimum, 
consist of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the 
sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, and 
establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
    (6) Following initial adjustment, the owner or operator shall not 
adjust the sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or 
alarm delay time, except as detailed in the approved SOP required under 
paragraph (a) of this section. In no event shall the sensitivity be 
increased by more than 100 percent or decreased more than 50 percent 
over a 365 day period unless such adjustment follows a complete 
baghouse inspection which demonstrates the baghouse is in good 
operating condition.
    (7) For negative pressure, induced air baghouses, and positive 
pressure baghouses that are discharged to the atmosphere through a 
stack, the bag leak detector must be installed downstream of the 
baghouse and upstream of any wet acid gas scrubber.
    (8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's 
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (f) The standard operating procedures manual required by paragraph 
(a) of this section shall include a corrective action plan that 
specifies the procedures to be followed in the event of a bag leak 
detection system alarm. The corrective action plan shall include, at a 
minimum, the procedures used to determine and record the time and cause 
of the alarm as well as the corrective actions taken to correct the 
control device malfunction or minimize emissions as specified in 
paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section.
    (1) The procedures used to determine the cause of the alarm must be 
initiated within 30 minutes of the alarm.
    (2) The cause of the alarm must be alleviated by taking the 
necessary corrective action(s) which may include, but not be limited 
to, paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (f)(2)(vi) of this section.
    (i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken filter 
elements, or any other malfunction that may cause an increase in 
emissions.
    (ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
    (iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media, or otherwise 
repairing the control device.
    (iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment.
    (v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise 
repairing the bag leak detection system.
    (vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.
    (g) Baghouses equipped with HEPA filters as a secondary filter used 
to control process or process fugitive sources subject to the lead 
emission standards in Sec. 63.1543 are exempt from the requirement in 
paragraph (c)(9) of this section to be equipped with a bag leak 
detector. The owner or operator of an affected source that uses a HEPA 
filter shall monitor and record the pressure drop across the HEPA 
filter system daily. If the pressure drop is outside the limit(s) 
specified by the filter manufacturer, the owner or operator must take 
appropriate corrective measures, which may include, but not be limited 
to, those set forth in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this 
section.
    (1) Inspecting the filter and filter housing for air leaks and torn 
or broken filters.
    (2) Replacing defective filter media, or otherwise repairing the 
control device.
    (3) Sealing off a defective control device by routing air to other 
control devices.
    (4) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.
    (h) Baghouses that are used exclusively for the control of fugitive 
dust emissions from any source subject to the lead emissions standard 
in Sec. 63.1544 are exempt from the requirement in paragraph (c)(9) of 
this section to be equipped with a bag leak detector.


Sec. 63.1548  Notification requirements.

    (a) Initial notifications. As required by Sec. 63.9(b) of subpart 
A, the owner or operator shall submit the following written 
notifications to the Administrator:
    (1) The owner or operator of an area source that subsequently 
becomes subject to the requirements of the standard shall provide 
notification to the applicable permitting authority as required by 
Sec. 63.9(b)(1) of subpart A.
    (2) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(2) of subpart A, the owner or 
operator of an affected source that has an initial startup before [the 
effective date of the final rule] shall notify the Administrator that 
the source is subject to the requirements of the standard. The 
notification shall be submitted not later than 120 calendar days after 
[the effective date of the final rule] (or within 120 calendar days 
after the source becomes subject to this standard) and shall contain 
the information specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(v) of 
subpart A.
    (3) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(3) of subpart A, the owner or 
operator of a new or reconstructed affected source, or a source that 
has been reconstructed such that it is an affected source, that has an 
initial startup after [the effective date of the final rule] and for 
which an application for approval of construction or reconstruction is 
not required under Sec. 63.5(d) of subpart A, shall notify the 
Administrator in writing that the source is subject to the standards no 
later than 120 days after initial startup. The notification shall 
contain the information specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2)(i) through 
(b)(2)(v) of subpart A, delivered or postmarked with the notification 
required in Sec. 63.9(b)(5) of subpart A.
    (4) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(4) of subpart A, the owner or 
operator of a new or reconstructed major affected source that has an 
initial startup after [the effective date of the final rule] and for 
which an application for approval of construction or reconstruction is 
required under Sec. 63.5(d) of subpart A shall provide the information 
specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(4)(i) through (b)(4)(v) of subpart A.
    (5) As required by Sec. 63.9(b)(5) of subpart A, the owner or 
operator who, after [the effective date of the final rule], intends to 
construct a new affected source or reconstruct an affected source 
subject to this standard, or reconstruct a source such that it becomes 
an affected source subject to this standard, shall notify the 
Administrator, in writing, of the intended construction or 
reconstruction.
    (b) Request for extension of compliance. As provided by 
Sec. 63.9(c) of subpart A, if the owner or operator of an affected 
source cannot comply with this standard by the applicable compliance 
date for that source, or if the owner or operator has installed BACT or 
technology to meet LAER consistent

[[Page 19215]]

with Sec. 63.6(i)(5) of subpart A, they may submit to the Administrator 
(or the State with an approved permit program) a request for an 
extension of the applicable compliance date as specified in 
Sec. 63.6(i)(4) through (i)(6) of subpart A.
    (c) Notification that source is subject to special compliance 
requirements. As required by Sec. 63.9(d) of subpart A, an owner or 
operator of a new source that is subject to special compliance 
requirements as specified in Sec. 63.6(b)(3) and (b)(4) of subpart A 
shall notify the Administrator of his/her compliance obligations not 
later than the notification dates established in Sec. 63.9(b) of 
subpart A for new sources that are not subject to the special 
provisions.
    (d) Notification of performance test. As required by Sec. 63.9(e) 
of subpart A, the owner or operator of an affected source shall notify 
the Administrator in writing of his or her intention to conduct a 
performance test at least 60 calendar days before the performance test 
is scheduled to begin to allow the Administrator to review and approve 
the site-specific test plan required under Sec. 63.7(c) of subpart A, 
if requested by the Administrator, and to have an observer present 
during the test.
    (e) Notification of compliance status. The owner or operator of an 
affected source shall submit a notification of compliance status as 
required by Sec. 63.9(h) of subpart A when the source becomes subject 
to this subpart.
    (f) Additional notification requirements. The owner or operator of 
a primary lead smelter shall submit the fugitive dust control standard 
operating procedures manual required under Sec. 63.1544(a) and the 
standard operating procedures manual for baghouses required under 
Sec. 63.1547(a) to the Administrator or delegated authority along with 
a notification that the smelter is seeking review and approval of these 
plans and procedures. Owners or operators of existing primary lead 
smelters shall submit this notification no later than [Insert date 18 
months after publication of final rule]. The owner or operator of a 
primary lead smelter that commences construction or reconstruction 
after April 17, 1998, shall submit this notification no later than 180 
days before startup of the constructed or reconstructed primary lead 
smelter, but no sooner than [Insert date 90 days after publication of 
final rule].


Sec. 63.1549  Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    (a) General recordkeeping requirements. As required by 
Sec. 63.10(b)(2) of subpart A, the owner or operator shall maintain the 
following records for five years from the date of each record:
    (1) The occurrence and duration of each startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction of process equipment;
    (2) The occurrence and duration of each malfunction of the source 
or air pollution control equipment;
    (3) All maintenance performed on the air pollution control 
equipment;
    (4) Actions taken during periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction (including corrective actions to restore malfunctioning 
process and air pollution control equipment to its normal or usual 
manner of operation) when such actions are different from the 
procedures specified in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan;
    (5) All information necessary to demonstrate conformance with the 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan when all actions taken during 
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (including corrective 
actions) are consistent with the procedures specified in such plan. 
This information can be recorded in a checklist or similar form [see 
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(v) of subpart A.];
    (6) All required measurements needed to demonstrate compliance with 
the standard and to support data that the source is required to report, 
including, but not limited to, performance test measurements (including 
initial and any subsequent performance tests) and measurements as may 
be necessary to determine the conditions of the initial test or 
subsequent tests;
    (7) All results of initial or subsequent performance tests;
    (8) If the owner or operator has been granted a waiver from 
recordkeeping or reporting requirements under Sec. 63.10(f) of subpart 
A, any information demonstrating whether a source is meeting the 
requirements for a waiver of recordkeeping or reporting requirements;
    (9) If the owner or operator has been granted a waiver from the 
initial performance test under Sec. 63.7(h) of subpart A, a copy of the 
full request and the Administrator's approval or disapproval;
    (10) All documentation supporting initial notifications and 
notifications of compliance status required by Sec. 63.9 of subpart A; 
and
    (11) Records of any applicability determination, including 
supporting analyses.
    (b) Subpart TTT records. In addition to the general records 
required by paragraph (a) of this section, each owner or operator of a 
primary lead smelter shall maintain for a period of 5 years, records of 
the information listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this 
section.
    (1) Production records of the weight and lead content of lead 
products, copper matte, and copper speiss.
    (2) An identification of the date and time of all bag leak 
detection system alarms, their cause, and an explanation of the 
corrective actions taken.
    (3) Any recordkeeping required as part of the practices described 
in the standard operating procedures manual required under 
Sec. 63.1544(a) for the control of fugitive dust emissions.
    (4) Any recordkeeping required as part of the practices described 
in the standard operating procedures manual for baghouses required 
under Sec. 63.1547(a).
    (c) General records and subpart TTT records for the most recent two 
years of operation must be maintained on site. Records for the previous 
three years may be maintained off site.
    (d) General reporting requirements. As required by subpart A, the 
owner or operator shall submit the following reports to the 
Administrator or delegated authority:
    (1) As required by Sec. 63.10(d)(2) of this part, the owner or 
operator of an affected source shall report the results of the initial 
and any subsequent performance tests.
    (2) The owner or operator of an affected source who is required to 
submit progress reports under Sec. 63.6(i) of subpart A shall submit 
such reports to the Administrator (or the State with an approved permit 
program) by the dates specified in the written extension of compliance.
    (3) Section 63.6(e) of subpart A requires the owner or operator of 
an affected source to operate and maintain each affected emission 
source and associated air pollution control equipment in a manner 
consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing 
emissions (at least to the level required by the standard) at all 
times, including during any period of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction. Malfunctions must be corrected as soon as practicable 
after their occurrence in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan.
    (i) As required by Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of subpart A, the owner or 
operator shall develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan that provides a detailed description of the procedures 
for operating the emission source or control system during a period of 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction and a program of corrective action 
for malfunctioning process and

[[Page 19216]]

air pollution control equipment. The plan shall be submitted to the 
Administrator for review and approval no later than the compliance date 
given in Sec. 63.1545 of this subpart.
    (ii) As required by Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i) of subpart A, if actions 
taken by an owner or operator during a startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction of an affected source (including actions taken to correct a 
malfunction) are consistent with the procedures specified in the 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, the owner or operator shall 
state such information in a semiannual report. The report, to be 
certified by the owner or operator or other responsible official, shall 
be submitted semiannually and delivered or postmarked by the 30th day 
following the end of each calendar half; and
    (iii) Any time an action taken by an owner or operator during a 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction (including actions taken to correct a 
malfunction) is not consistent with the procedures in the startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the owner or operator shall comply with 
all requirements of Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii) of subpart A.
    (e) Subpart TTT Reports. In addition to the information required 
under Sec. 63.10 of the General Provisions, the owner or operator shall 
provide semi-annual reports containing the information specified in 
paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(4) of this section to the Administrator 
or designated authority.
    (1) The reports shall include records of all alarms from the bag 
leak detection system specified in Sec. 63.1547(e).
    (2) The reports shall include a description of the procedures taken 
following each bag leak detection system alarm pursuant to 
Sec. 63.1547(f)(1) and (2).
    (3) The reports shall contain a summary of the records maintained 
as part of the practices described in the standard operating procedures 
manual for baghouses required under Sec. 63.1547(a), including an 
explanation of the periods when the procedures were not followed and 
the corrective actions taken.
    (4) The reports shall contain a summary of the fugitive dust 
control measures performed during the required reporting period, 
including an explanation of any periods when the procedures outlined in 
the standard operating procedures manual required by Sec. 63.1544(a) 
were not followed and the corrective actions taken. The reports shall 
not contain copies of the daily records required to demonstrate 
compliance with the requirements of the standard operating procedures 
manuals required under Secs. 63.1544(a) and 63.1547(a).


Sec. 63.1550  Delegation of Authority.

    (a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a 
state under section 112(d) of the Act, the authorities contained in 
paragraph (b) of this section shall be retained by the administrator 
and not transferred to a state.
    (b) Authorities which will not be delegated to States: no 
restrictions.

[FR Doc. 98-10011 Filed 4-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P