[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 107 (Friday, June 4, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30194-30208]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-12757]
[[Page 30193]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Primary
Lead Smelting; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 1999 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 30194]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[AD-FRL-6345-8]
RIN 2060-AE97
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Primary Lead Smelting
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing primary lead
smelters pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act (Act) as amended
in November 1990. Primary lead smelters have been identified by the EPA
as significant emitters of lead compounds, and other metal hazardous
air pollutants (HAP) including arsenic, antimony, and cadmium. Exposure
to lead compounds may result in adverse effects on the blood, central
nervous system and kidneys. Chronic exposure to arsenic is associated
with skin, bladder, liver and lung cancer and other developmental and
reproductive effects. This NESHAP provides protection to the public by
requiring all primary lead smelters to meet emission standards that
reflect the application of maximum achievable control technology
(MACT).
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 4, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A-97-33 contains supporting information
used in developing the standards. The docket is located at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC.
20460 in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may be
inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 to 3:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday. The regulatory text and other materials related to this
rulemaking are available for review in the docket or copies may be
mailed on request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning these
standards and technical aspects of primary lead smelting emissions and
control, contact Mr. Kevin Cavender, Environmental Protection Agency,
MD-13, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-
2364, facsimile number (919) 541-5600, electronic mail address
cavender.kevin@epa.gov.''.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities. The regulated category and entities affected by
this action include primary lead smelters (SIC 3339). This action will
affect three existing primary lead smelting facilities and any new
primary lead smelting facilities built in the future.
Technology Transfer Network. The text of today's notice will also
be available on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN), one of EPA's
electronic bulletin boards. The TTN provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air pollution control. The service is
free, except for the cost of a phone call. Dial (919) 541-5742 for up
to a 14,400 BPS modem. The TTN also is accessible through the Internet
at ``http://www.epa.gov/ttn''. If more information on the TTN is
needed, call the HELP line at (919) 541-5348. The HELP desk is staffed
from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m.; a voice menu system is available at other
times.
Outline.
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. Background
II. Summary
A. Summary of the Promulgated Standards
B. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
C. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
III. Public Participation
IV. Summary of Comments and Responses
A. Comments on April 1998 Proposal
B. Comments on February 1999 Supplemental Proposal
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
B. Executive Order 12866
C. Executive Order 12875
D. Executive Order 13084
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Pollution Prevention Considerations
K. Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risk Under Executive Order 13045
L. Judicial Review
I. Background
Section 112 of the Act requires that the EPA promulgate regulations
requiring the control of HAP emissions from major and certain area
sources. The control of HAP's is achieved through promulgation of
emission standards under sections 112(d) and (f) and, in appropriate
circumstances, work practice standards under section 112(h).
An initial list of categories of major and area sources of HAP's
selected for regulation in accordance with section 112(c) of the Act
was published in the Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576).
Primary lead smelting is one of the 174 categories of sources listed.
The category consists of smelters that process lead bearing ore
concentrates into lead metal. The listing was based on the
Administrator's determination that primary lead smelters may reasonably
be anticipated to emit several of the 188 listed HAP's in quantities
sufficient to designate them as major sources. Information subsequently
collected by the EPA as part of this rulemaking confirms that all three
operating primary lead smelters have the potential to emit greater than
9.1 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (10 tons per year (tpy)) of a single HAP
or greater than 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tpy) of a combination of HAP's (Docket
ID No. II-B-4). Therefore, all three primary lead smelters are major
sources.
This NESHAP was proposed in the Federal Register on April 17, 1998
(63 FR 19200). The EPA received 2 letters commenting on the proposed
rule. The EPA received no requests for a public hearing.
A supplemental proposal was published in the Federal Register on
February 12, 1999 (64 FR 7149). This notice proposed an operating limit
that would require owners and operators of a primary lead smelter
(referred to as operators in the remainder of this preamble) to operate
and maintain each affected baghouse such that the required bag leak
detection system would not sound more than five percent of the
operating time. The EPA received three letters commenting on the
supplemental proposal. The EPA received no requests for a public
hearing on the supplemental proposal.
II. Summary
A. Summary of the Promulgated Standards
Standards are being promulgated to limit metal HAP emissions from:
(1) process sources, (2) process fugitive sources, and (3) fugitive
dust sources at primary lead smelters. Process source emissions are
discharged as the main exhaust of a sinter machine or smelting furnace
through a chimney, flue, or ductwork. Process sources that are
regulated include sinter machines, blast furnaces, and dross furnaces.
Process fugitive emission sources that are regulated include sinter
machine charging and discharging, sinter crushing and sizing, blast
furnace tapping, and dross furnace charging and tapping.
Fugitive dust sources that are regulated include plant yards and
roadways subject to wind and vehicle traffic, process areas, and
materials handling and storage areas.
[[Page 30195]]
1. Process and Process Fugitive Sources
A ``plant wide'' emission limit is being promulgated for lead
compounds from process and process fugitive emission sources. The lead
compound emission limit is a surrogate for all metal HAP's and will
apply to both existing and new sources. The aggregated lead emissions
from the following process and process fugitive sources are limited to
500 g/Mg of lead produced (1.0 lb/ton of lead produced):
(1) Sinter machine;
(2) Blast furnace;
(3) Dross furnace;
(4) Dross furnace charging location;
(5) Blast and dross furnace tapping locations;
(6) Sinter machine charging location;
(7) Sinter machine discharge end;
(8) Sinter crushing and sizing equipment; and
(9) Sinter machine area.
In addition to the emission limit, work practice standards are
required for the above listed fugitive sources (items 4 through 9). The
charging, tapping, and sinter handling sources identified above (items
4 through 8) shall be equipped with a hood ventilated to an air
pollution control device. The hood design and ventilation rate shall be
consistent with the American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists (ACGIH) recommended practices. In addition, the sinter
machine and sinter crushing and sizing equipment shall be located in a
building ventilated to a baghouse or equivalent device at a rate that
maintains in-draft through any doorway opening.
The operator must install a bag leak detection system for each
baghouse used on a process or process fugitive source. The bag leak
detection system shall be equipped with an audible alarm that
automatically sounds when an increase in particulate matter (PM)
emissions above a predetermined level is detected. Operators are
further required to maintain and operate each affected baghouse such
that the bag leak detection device does not sound more than five
percent of the total operating time in any 6-month period. Alarms
caused by startups, shutdowns, or malfunctions are not included in the
alarm time calculation if the condition is described in the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan and the operator follows all the
procedures in the plan prescribed for the subject condition. Alarms
caused by a malfunction of the bag leak detection system are also
excluded from the alarm time calculation.
2. Standards for Fugitive Dust Sources
The standards for fugitive dust sources are in the form of work
practice and operating standards. The EPA is setting work practice and
operating standards based on the determination in accordance with
section 112 (h)(2)(A) that the HAPs controlled by those standards
cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and constructed to emit
or capture those HAP. Again, the standards apply to fugitive dust
sources at both new and existing smelters. Each primary lead smelter
shall develop a Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) manual for fugitive
dust sources that details procedures to limit fugitive dust emissions.
Each smelter's SOP manual shall be reviewed and subject to approval by
the Administrator. Existing manuals developed as part of a control
strategy to meet a facility's State implementation plan (SIP) may be
used to meet this requirement if the existing manuals address the
identified fugitive dust sources.
3. Compliance Dates
Compliance with the standards must be achieved by June 4, 2001 for
existing primary lead smelters, and upon startup for new and
reconstructed smelters.
4. Compliance Test Methods
The following EPA test methods will be used to measure the lead
emissions from the process and process fugitive sources included in the
plant wide emission limit. Testing of lead compound emissions from
process and process fugitive emission control devices shall be
conducted according to EPA reference method 12 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix A). Sampling locations for all compliance tests shall be
determined by EPA reference method 1. Stack gas velocity and volumetric
flow rate shall be determined by EPA reference method 2. Gas analysis
shall be conducted according to EPA reference method 3 for carbon
dioxide, oxygen, excess air, and molecular weight on a dry basis.
The plant wide emission rate will be calculated as follows. The
previous 12 calender months production data shall be used to calculate
lead production based on the mass produced, and the lead content of
lead products, copper speiss, and copper matte. Plant records will be
used to determine the facility operating hours for the previous 12
calender months. The plant wide emission rate is calculated by dividing
the sum of lead emission rates, determined through stack testing, for
the process and process fugitive sources by the average hourly lead
production rate for the previous 12 calender months.
Operators are required to perform an initial compliance
demonstration for the sinter machine building in-draft requirement.
Operators are required to demonstrate in-draft at all doorway openings
using an anemometer or equivalent device. The demonstration is to be
conducted when wind speed is less than two meters per second (five
miles per hour.)
5. Monitoring Requirements
Each operator subject to the NESHAP shall be required to develop
and operate according to a SOP manual for operation and maintenance of
the control devices used to comply with the emission limits. Each
smelter's SOP manual shall be reviewed and subject to approval by the
Administrator. The minimum SOP requirements identified in the rule
shall serve as the criteria by which the Administrator would decide
whether to approve a smelter's SOP.
Minimum requirements for the bag leak detection system required in
the process and process fugitive standards section are detailed. The
bag leak detection system shall be equipped with an audible alarm that
automatically sounds when an increase in particulate emissions above a
predetermined level is detected. The system shall be capable of
detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual
cubic meter (0.004 grains per actual cubic foot) and provide an output
of relative PM emissions. Operators shall continuously record the bag
leak detection system output. Such a device shall serve as an indicator
of the performance of the baghouse and shall provide an indication of
when maintenance of the baghouse is needed. An alarm by itself will not
necessarily indicate noncompliance with the lead limit, but would
indicate an increase in PM emissions and trigger an inspection of the
baghouse to determine the cause of the alarm. The operator would
initiate corrective actions according to the procedures in their
operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan. The operator would be
considered out of compliance upon failure to initiate within one hour
the procedures to determine the cause of the alarm, as specified in the
baghouse operation and maintenance SOP manual.
Operators are given three options for the monitoring of sinter
building in-draft. Under the first option, operators may elect to
perform daily checks for in-draft at all doorway openings using an
anemometer or equivalent device. Checks are only to be conducted when
ambient wind speed is less than two meters per second (five miles per
hour).
[[Page 30196]]
Under the second option, operators are required to establish and
maintain the ventilation exhaust rate and damper positions at settings
that result in an in-draft at each open doorway. Operators are required
to install and operate a flow monitor device on the ventilation system
that would continuously record the ventilation exhaust rate. Operators
are required to conduct an initial demonstration of in-draft at all
doorway openings using an anemometer or equivalent device while
simultaneously recording the ventilation system exhaust rate and damper
positions. Operators are then required to maintain the ventilation rate
at or above the average rate recorded during the in-draft
demonstration, and check and record daily the damper positions to
ensure that they are maintained in the position they were in when the
in-draft demonstration was performed.
As a third option, operators may petition the administrator or
delegated authority for an alternative monitoring method by following
the procedures and requirements in Sec. 63.8(f) of the General
Provisions.
6. Notification Requirements
The operator of a primary lead smelter is required to submit the
notifications described in Sec. 63.9 of the General Provisions to part
63, (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). These will include the initial
notification, notifications of performance tests, and the notification
of compliance status. In addition, each operator will be required to
submit the baghouse operation and maintenance SOP manual and the
fugitive dust control SOP manual along with a notification to the
Administrator requesting review and approval of the smelter's SOP
manuals.
7. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
The operator of a primary lead smelter will be required to comply
with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements described in
Sec. 63.10 of the General Provisions to part 63, (40 CFR part 63,
subpart A). In addition, the operator of a primary lead smelter will be
required to retain for 5 years records of: (1) production data of the
weight and lead content of lead products, copper matte, and copper
speiss; (2) records of bag leak detection system output; (3) an
identification of the date and time of all bag leak detection system
alarms, the time procedures to determine the cause of the alarm were
initiated, their cause, and an explanation of the corrective actions
taken; (4) records of daily in-draft checks (if applicable); (5)
records of the output from the flow monitoring system (if applicable);
(6) records of the daily damper position checks (if applicable); (7)
records demonstrating implementation of the baghouse SOP; and (8)
records demonstrating implementation of the fugitive dust controls
contained in the smelter's SOP manual.
In addition to the information required by the General Provisions
to part 63, (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), the operator of a primary lead
smelter will be required to submit semi-annual reports containing: (1)
records of all alarms from the bag leak detection system including a
description of the procedures taken following each bag leak detection
system alarm; (2) the percent of operating time the bag leak detection
alarmed; (3) a summary of the records maintained as part of the
practices described in the baghouse SOP, including an explanation of
the periods when the procedures were not followed and the corrective
actions taken; (4) an identification of the periods when the in-draft
was 0.0 meters per second or less, and an explanation of the corrective
actions taken (if applicable); (5) an identification of the periods
when the 15-minute volumetric flow rate(s) dropped below the minimum
established during the most recent in-draft determination (if
applicable); (6) an identification of the days that the damper
positions were not in the positions established during the most recent
in-draft determination, and an explanation of the corrective actions
taken (if applicable); and (7) a summary of the fugitive dust control
measures performed during the required reporting period, including when
procedures outlined in the fugitive dust control SOP were not followed
and the corrective actions taken.
B. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
Based on public comments received in response to both the initial
notice of proposal and the supplemental notice, the EPA has made
several changes to the proposed rule. A summary of the major changes is
presented below.
1. Definitions
A definition of bag leak detection system has been added to the
final rule. Based on the definition, a ``bag leak detection system
means a system that is capable of monitoring particulate matter (dust)
loadings in the exhaust of a baghouse in order to detect bag failures.
A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited to, an
instrument that operates on triboelectric, light scattering,
transmittance or other effect to monitor relative particulate matter
loadings.''
The definition of total enclosure has been replaced with a
definition of a building. For the purpose of this subpart, a ``building
means a roofed and walled structure with limited openings to allow
access and egress for people and vehicles.''
The definition of malfunction included in the General Provisions
has been added to the subpart for clarity. A ``malfunction means any
sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air
pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate
in a normal or usual manner. Failures that are caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions.''
A definition of operating time has been added. For the purpose of
this subpart, ``operating time means the period of time in hours that
an affected source is in operation beginning at a startup and ending at
the next shutdown.''
A definition of plant operating time has been added. For the
purpose of this subpart, ``plant operating time means the period of
time in hours that either a sinter machine or blast furnace is in
operation.''
The definition of shutdown in the General Provisions has been added
to the subpart for clarity. A ``shutdown means the cessation of
operation of an affected source for any purpose.''
The definition of startup in the General Provisions has been added
to the subpart for clarity. A ``startup means the setting in operation
of an affected source for any purpose.''
2. Standards for Process and Process Fugitive Sources
The requirements for annual compliance tests have been changed.
Upon demonstrating compliance for 3 consecutive years, operators will
be allowed up to 24 months between compliance tests. Operators will
retain the 24 month compliance test schedule as long as each subsequent
test demonstrates that the facility is in compliance with the plant
wide emission limit.
An operating limit has been added that requires operators to
maintain and operate each affected baghouse such that the bag leak
detection system does not alarm more than five percent of the time in
any 6-month period. Alarms caused by startups, shutdowns, or
malfunctions are not included if the condition is described in the
startup, shutdown, malfunction plan and the operators follow all the
procedures in the plan prescribed for the subject
[[Page 30197]]
condition. Alarms caused by a malfunction of the bag leak detection
system are also excluded from the alarm time calculation.
3. Monitoring Requirements
The monitoring requirements for baghouses have been modified.
Operators will be required to identify, and monitor against, the normal
pressure drop range across each baghouse cell. Also, the requirement
for a quarterly check of bag tension has been changed to a quarterly
visual check of bag tension.
The requirements for demonstrating compliance with the sinter
machine building in-draft requirements have been changed. Operators are
given three options for the continuous monitoring of in-draft. Under
the first option, operators may elect to perform daily checks for in-
draft at all doorway openings using an anemometer or equivalent device.
Under the second option, operators are required to establish and
maintain the ventilation exhaust rate and damper positions at settings
that result in an in-draft at each open doorway. Operators are required
to install and operate a flow monitor device on the ventilation system
that would continuously record the ventilation exhaust rate. Operators
are required to conduct an initial demonstration of in-draft at all
doorway openings using an anemometer or equivalent device while
simultaneously recording the ventilation system exhaust rate and damper
positions. Operators are then required to maintain the ventilation rate
at or above the average rate recorded during the in-draft
demonstration, and check and record daily the damper positions to
ensure that they are maintained in the position they were in when the
in-draft demonstration was performed.
As a third option, operators may petition the Administrator or
delegated authority for an alternative monitoring method by following
the procedures and requirements in Sec. 63.8(f) of the General
Provisions.
C. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
There are only three existing primary lead smelters that will be
subject to the standards, and no new facilities are anticipated to be
constructed in the next 5 years. The required levels of control are
based on existing SIP emission limits for lead. No additional emission
controls will be required to comply with the standards. Therefore, no
quantifiable emission reduction or other environmental impacts are
anticipated to result from this rulemaking. However, it is anticipated
that improved baghouse operation and maintenance procedures coupled
with continuous bag leak detection will result in unquantifiable
reductions in emissions of lead compounds and other metal HAP.
Similarly, cost and economic impacts are expected to be minimal.
The only costs associated with the standards are those required to
perform compliance assurance activities such as performance testing,
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping. These costs are minimal, and
will not result in any significant economic impact.
III. Public Participation
Prior to proposal of the standards, the EPA met with
representatives from the only operators of primary lead smelters. The
EPA discussed the standards being evaluated for proposal. Comments
submitted following this meeting were incorporated into the proposed
rule as appropriate.
The standards were proposed and published in the Federal Register
on April 17, 1998 (63 FR 19200). The preamble to the proposed standards
described the technical basis, purpose, and impacts of the proposed
standards. Public comments were solicited at the time of proposal.
To provide interested persons the opportunity for oral presentation
of data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed standards, the
opportunity for a public hearing was offered at proposal; however, no
requests for a hearing were received. The public comment period was
from April 17, 1998 to June 16, 1998. Two comment letters were
received. The comments were carefully considered in formulating the
final rule.
A supplemental proposal was published in the Federal Register on
February 12, 1999 (64 FR 7149). That notice proposed an operating limit
that would require owners and operators of a primary lead smelter
(referred to as operators in the remainder of this preamble) to operate
and maintain each affected baghouse such that the required bag leak
detection system would not sound more than five percent of the
operating time. Again the opportunity for a public hearing was offered
at proposal; however, no requests for a hearing were received. The
public comment period was from February 12, 1999 to March 15, 1999.
Three comment letters were received. Again, the comments were carefully
considered in formulating the final rule.
IV. Summary of Comments and Responses
The EPA received two comment letters (one letter contained joint
comments from two commenters) on the initial proposal, and three
letters commenting on the supplemental proposal (again, one letter
contained joint comments from two commenters). Comment summaries and
EPA responses are presented below.
A. Comments on April 1998 Proposal
The comments contain both favorable and adverse comments. Topics
and requirements which received favorable and supportive comments
include the following:
--The use of lead as a surrogate pollutant for all metal HAP,
--The conclusion that organic HAP emissions from blast furnaces are
not significant enough to warrant regulation,
--The use of a plant-wide emission limit,
--The requirement that sinter plants be enclosed and ventilated to
a baghouse or equivalent control device,
--The requirement that certain process fugitive emission sources be
equipped with a hood and ventilated to a baghouse or equivalent control
device,
--Allowing 2 years to achieve compliance, and
--The requirement for an approved plan for the control of fugitive
dust emissions.
Topics and provisions of the proposed rule which received adverse
comments are summarized below with the EPA's responses.
Comment. One commenter stated that it is not possible to maintain a
sinter machine building ``at a lower than ambient pressure to ensure
in-draft through any doorway opening'' at all times. They argue that
static pressure measured at any one point in a building is the sum of
the pressures caused by the combination of several effects including
mechanical or forced ventilation, stack effects, wind influences and
local effects. A ventilation system that is designed and operated for a
specific building can effectively control the escape of most fugitive
emissions. However, the variable influence of stack draft, wind, and
local effects will cause the actual building static pressure to vary
over space and time, thereby making it impossible to comply with a
standard that requires maintaining a building at lower than ambient
pressure at all times.
The commenter suggested that the EPA give operators the following
three
[[Page 30198]]
alternatives. First, require operators to submit to the Administrator
or delegated authority a statement from a professional engineer
certifying that the design of the ventilation system in the sinter
buildings is sufficient to attain in-draft with all doorways in their
customary position during normal operation. Each operator would be
required to design and operate its ventilation system to meet a minimum
exhaust flow rate, and would have to restrict the total surface area of
doorways open during normal operation to some maximum.
Second, allow for more flexible performance tests (i.e., use of
anemometers) to account for wind effects. The commenter suggested that
the performance demonstrations be limited to periods when the wind
speed is less than five miles per hour.
The third suggestion was to allow operators flexibility in
developing site-specific methods to demonstrate compliance with the in-
draft requirement. All site specific alternatives would be subject to
approval of the Administrator or delegated authority.
Response. The EPA has considered the comment, and agrees to modify
the requirements for sinter building in-draft. The EPA believes that
with some modification, the alternatives suggested by the commenter are
better than the negative pressure requirements contained in the
proposal. As such, the EPA is making the following changes to the
proposed rule.
Operators are required to perform an initial compliance
demonstration for the sinter machine building in-draft requirement.
Operators are required to demonstrate in-draft at all doorway openings
using an anemometer or equivalent device. The demonstration is to be
conducted when wind speed is less than two meters per second (five
miles per hour.)
Operators are given three options for the continued monitoring of
in-draft. Under the first option, operators may elect to perform daily
checks for in-draft at all doorway openings using an anemometer or
equivalent device. This option is similar to the option given in the
proposed rule, however, the checks for in-draft are limited to days
when the ambient wind speed is less than two meters per second (five
miles per hour.)
Under the second option, operators are required to establish and
maintain the ventilation exhaust rate and damper positions at settings
that result in an in-draft at each open doorway. Operators are required
to install and operate a flow monitor device on the ventilation system
that would continuously record the ventilation exhaust rate. Operators
are required to conduct an initial demonstration of in-draft at all
doorway openings using an anemometer or equivalent device while
simultaneously recording the ventilation system exhaust rate and damper
positions. Again, the demonstration is not to be conducted when wind
speeds are greater than two meters per second (five miles per hour.)
Operators are then required to maintain the ventilation rate at or
above the average rate recorded during the in-draft demonstration, and
check and record daily the damper positions to ensure that they are
maintained in the position they were in when the in-draft demonstration
was performed.
As a third option, the EPA is adding a reference to the section of
the General Provisions which describes the procedures for requesting an
alternative monitoring method, 40 CFR 63.8(f). This reference is being
added to highlight the availability of this option.
Comment. One commenter identified an error in the proposed rule.
Section 63.1546(b) states ``Operators shall determine compliance with
the doorway in-draft requirements for buildings in 63.1543(b) and
63.1544(c) * * *'' However, building in-draft requirements are
contained in Sec. 63.1543(c).
Response. This error is corrected in the final rule.
Comment. One commenter stated that they are required to test for
particulate matter and lead as part of their SIP requirements. The
commenter requests that operators be given the flexibility to use the
``hybrid Method 5-12'' to test for particulate matter and lead
simultaneously.
Response. The rule specifies that EPA Method 12 be used to measure
lead emission rates. There is no EPA Method 5-12. However, section 8.1
of EPA Method 12 allows for the simultaneous measurement of both lead
and particulate matter. As such, no change is being made to address
this comment.
Comment. The proposed rule requires quarterly checks of bag tension
on certain types of baghouses. One commenter stated that none of their
facilities are currently required to check bag tension under existing
SIPs. They claim that measuring bag tension would be a time-consuming
process resulting in extended periods of worker exposure to high
temperatures and potentially lead. They recommend that the requirement
for bag tension testing be eliminated, or at a minimum modified to an
annual visual check to make certain bags are not kinked (kneed or bent)
or lying on their sides.
Response. The EPA agrees with the commenter that measuring bag
tension is a time-consuming process that can create increased risks of
worker exposures to lead. The EPA also agrees that a visual check is
sufficient to determine adequate bag tension. As such, the EPA is
amending Sec. 63.1547(c)(6) to require quarterly visual inspections of
bag tension to make certain bags are not kinked or lying on their
sides.
Comment. One commenter stated that the proposed requirement for bag
leak detection devices does not provide for alternative/equivalent
methods, such as opacity monitors, which are already in use at some
facilities. As such, the regulation would impose unnecessary additional
costs by not including other compliance methods.
Response. The EPA is adding a definition of bag leak detection
system in the final rule. This definition was inadvertently left out of
the proposal. Based on the definition, a ``bag leak detection system
means a system that is capable of monitoring particulate matter (dust)
loadings in the exhaust of a baghouse in order to detect bag failures.
A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited to, an
instrument that operates on triboelectric, light scattering,
transmittance or other effect to monitor relative particulate matter
loadings.'' This is the same definition that appears in the final rule
for secondary lead smelters (40 CFR part 63, subpart X) and several
other currently proposed rules which include bag leak detection
requirements.
Based on the definition and the requirements of Sec. 63.1547(e)(1),
an opacity monitor can be used as a bag leak detection system if the
manufacturer of the opacity monitor certifies that it is capable of
detecting particulate matter emissions at concentrations of 10
milligram per actual cubic meter or less. However, due to the poor
correlation between opacity and particulate matter at low grain
loadings, it is doubtful that any conventional opacity monitors have
the sensitivity necessary to meet this requirement. Bag leak detection
systems based on triboelectric or light scattering effects are capable
of detecting particulate matter emissions well below the level of
visible emissions, and are believed to be more reliable, accurate, and
cost effective than opacity monitors for detecting broken bags in
baghouses.
Comment. One commenter stated that the condition of the fan has
little, if any, direct effect on baghouse performance. They suggested
that this requirement be on an annual basis rather than a quarterly
basis.
Response. The EPA concurs that fan condition may have little effect
on
[[Page 30199]]
baghouse performance. However, fan condition can greatly affect hood
capture efficiency and consequently fugitive emissions. The rule allows
for the use of vibration detectors to conduct the inspection, which
does not require the operator to shutdown the fan or remove it from
service. As such, the EPA believes that requiring quarterly inspection
of fan condition does not place an undue burden on the industry. No
change to the final rule is being made to address this comment.
Comment. One commenter stated that the benefits associated with the
suite of monitoring requirements are unclear and at best very low. They
suggest that the proposed bag leak detection system requirements alone
should be adequate to ensure proper baghouse functioning.
Response. The EPA's proposed operating procedures requirements for
baghouses represent a two-pronged approach to baghouse operation--
preventative maintenance and baghouse failure monitoring, coupled with
timely corrective action. The inspection and maintenance requirements
in the proposed rule are intended to ensure the proper operation of the
baghouse and to reduce the number of baghouse upsets through
prevention. The bag leak detection requirements are intended to assist
in early detection of baghouse failures allowing for timely corrective
action.
The proposed inspection and maintenance requirements represent a
minimal, yet practical, strategy for ensuring proper baghouse
operation. The EPA believes that good inspection and maintenance
practices are critical to achieving and maintaining the high level of
control that baghouses are capable of. Furthermore, these requirements
do not result in significant costs or burden.
Comment. One commenter stated that the time limits for initiating
corrective action may be impossible to fulfill. With regard to the bag
leak detection alarm, the preamble to the proposed rule states, ``An
alarm by itself does not indicate noncompliance with the lead limit,
but would indicate an increase in emissions and trigger an inspection
of the baghouse to determine the cause of the alarm.'' The preamble
goes on to state, ``The owner or operator would be considered out of
compliance upon failure to initiate corrective actions within 1 hour of
the alarm.'' They also point out that the rule states in section
63.1547(f)(1) that ``the procedures used to determine the cause of the
alarm must be initiated within 30 minutes of the alarm.'' They comment
that reading these provisions together suggests that facilities must
always initiate procedures to determine the cause of the alarm within
30 minutes, and to identify the needed repair or response and begin
corrective action within 1 hour.
Response. The 30-minute reference in the preamble to the proposed
rule is an error. Both the preamble and the rule were intended to refer
to the same time period, i.e., the period of time allowed between the
time an alarm occurs and the time when procedures to determine the
cause of the alarm are initiated. The rule requires facilities to
initiate the procedures outlined in their corrective action plan within
1 hour of the alarm and correct the problem as soon as practicable.
Comment. One commenter stated that compliance testing should be
required on a less than annual basis. Proposed section 63.1543(d)
requires facilities to conduct compliance tests for lead compounds on
an annual basis. The commenter suggests that the EPA should permit a
reduction in the frequency of testing on a site-by-site basis, based
upon the results of annual testing. For example, if 3 years of testing
shows the standard is consistently being met, they suggest that a
facility be able to reduce the frequency of its testing.
Response. The EPA agrees that less frequent testing should be
allowed when facilities are able to demonstrate compliance
consistently. As such, the final rule allows operators up to 24 months
between compliance tests if the results of the three most recent
compliance tests demonstrate compliance.
Comment. One commenter stated that the recordkeeping requirements
for the bag leak detection system are inconsistent with recordkeeping
requirements for fugitive dust and baghouse inspection and maintenance.
Proposed section 63.1549(b)(3) and (4), which refers to control of
fugitive dust emissions and baghouse inspection and maintenance
procedures, requires recordkeeping if it is part of the practices
described in the respective SOP manual. The commenter also stated that
the recordkeeping requirements proposed in section 63.1549(b)(2) for
the bag leak detection system are not contingent on such requirements
being part of the SOP manual, and are thus inconsistent with section
63.1549(b)(3) and (4).
Response. The rule requires facilities to develop site specific SOP
manuals for baghouse inspection and maintenance procedures. Since these
SOP manuals are site-specific, the EPA has left it up to the operator
to work with the Administrator or delegated authority to develop
appropriate site specific recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
However, the EPA has specified recordkeeping and reporting requirements
for bag leak detector system alarms since these records are necessary
to demonstrate compliance with the operating standards for bag leak
detection (section 63.1543(f) and (g)). No change is being made to the
rule to address this comment.
Comment. One commenter stated that a minimum differential pressure
should be specified and continuously monitored to ensure the baghouse
or equivalent control device is maintained at a pressure that is lower
than ambient pressure.
Response. The rule requires daily monitoring of the pressure drop
across each baghouse cell. The EPA agrees that a minimum pressure drop
should be identified and monitored against. However, several factors
affect the pressure drop across a baghouse cell including filter
material, cell geometry, cleaning cycles, and air-to-cloth ratio. As
such, the minimum pressure drop across the cell is baghouse specific,
if not cell specific. Furthermore, there is little or no correlation
between baghouse pressure drop and emissions. Therefore, it would be
inappropriate for the rule to identify a minimum pressure drop.
However, the EPA has amended the rule to require operators to monitor
the pressure drop across each cell to ensure that it is within the
normal operating range for that cell. Operators will be required to
identify the normal operating range for each baghouse cell in the
baghouse operation and maintenance SOP.
Comment. One commenter stated that the lead production rate should
be calculated on data from the previous 12 months of operation. The
commenter adds that the requirement does not consider plant shutdown,
when lead production is zero; hence, artificially low emissions could
result from the recommended calculation.
Response. Based on the proposed rule, lead production is calculated
based on production data for the 12 months prior to conducting the
test, including periods when the facility is shut down. The EPA
believes that this is in agreement with this statement.
As noted, plant shutdowns would result in lower lead production.
However, the result of lower lead production would be to increase the
calculated, production-based, lead compound emission rate, not reduce
it as suggested by the commenter. In fact, if a facility were to
experience a prolonged shutdown, it may be impossible to meet the
emission limit based on the proposed calculation.
[[Page 30200]]
Upon further review, the EPA has decided to amend the procedure for
calculation of the production-based, lead compound emission rate to
account for periods when the facility is shut down. As amended, the
production-based, lead compound emission rate will be calculated by
multiplying the sum of lead emission rates (determined through stack
testing, in units of grams per hour) from the nine listed sources by
the plant operating hours (in units of hours/year) and dividing by the
lead production rate (in units of megagrams per year). Plant operating
hours are defined as the period of time in hours that either a sinter
machine or blast furnace is in operation.
Comment. One commenter suggested that the bag leak detection system
alarms should be set at 75 percent or 80 percent of the previous 12-
month average. Alternatively the commenter suggests that the system be
equipped with two alarms: a high level set at 75 percent to 80 percent
of scale, and a high-high alarm that sounds when the maximum value is
reached. The commenter also commented that a requirement for time
averaging of the emissions should be added. The commenter suggested the
use of 1-minute time averages for monitoring the particulate emissions.
Response. The EPA has developed guidance on the use of bag leak
detectors based on information provided by bag leak detection system
vendors, industry representatives with bag leak detection experience,
and an EPA-sponsored field study. The EPA believes that this guidance
provides the most appropriate methods for selecting, installing,
initializing, and operating bag leak detection systems. No changes to
the rule are being made to address this comment.
Comment. One commenter stated that the differential pressure across
baghouses equipped with high efficiency particulate arrestor (HEPA)
filters should be monitored once per operating shift and at least 8
hours apart or every 24 hours 4 hours. The commenter
states that monitoring once a day allows operators to take readings at
0100 hours one day, and at 2300 hours the next day, allowing up to 46
hours to pass between readings.
Response. An exemption to the bag leak detection system
requirements is provided in the rule if a baghouse is equipped with a
secondary HEPA filter. The exemption is not given if the HEPA filter is
the only filter in the system.
Under this configuration, the primary filter collects the bulk of
the particulates, while the secondary HEPA filter acts as a finishing
filter. Based on discussions with personnel at a secondary lead smelter
using secondary HEPA filters, HEPA filters last several months when
used as a secondary filter. As such, the EPA believes that daily checks
of the differential pressure across the HEPA filter is adequate. No
changes to the rule are being made to address this comment.
Comment. One commenter stated that the rule should specify the
building ventilation requirements in a definitive way, e.g., by
requiring an exhaust system capable of a given number of air changes
per hour.
Response. While air changes per hour may be an important
consideration in addressing indoor air quality and worker exposure, it
has little meaning when assessing the capture effectiveness of a
building. The EPA believes that the requirement that the sinter machine
building be ventilated at a rate that ensures in-draft through all open
doors provides the best assurance that emissions escaping the building
are minimized. No changes to the rule are being made to address this
comment.
Comment. One commenter stated that for total enclosures there
should be a monitoring device on the exhaust fan (e.g., motor current)
to verify continuously that the ventilation system is in operation, and
added that failure of the ventilation system should be recorded and
included in the reporting requirements.
Response. As discussed above, the EPA has amended the rule to
require that operators either (1) install, calibrate, and operate a
flow monitor to continuously measure and record total exhaust rate out
of the enclosure; or (2) perform daily checks for in-draft, with a vane
anemometer or equivalent device, at each doorway normally open.
Failure of the ventilation system would be considered a malfunction
of the air pollution control equipment. The rule requires that
operators develop a start-up, shut-down, and malfunction plan for all
air pollution control equipment. In addition, the rule requires
operators to record the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of
the source or air pollution control equipment. No additional changes
are being made to address this comment.
Comment. One commenter stated that there should be some specified
limits on the number of allowable violations (alarms) during a given
time period.
Response. On February 12, 1999 (64 FR 7149), the EPA proposed an
operating limit that would require operators of primary lead smelters
to operate and maintain their baghouses such that the bag leak
detection system did not alarm more than five percent of the time over
a 6-month period. The EPA also added the requirement that operators
continuously record the output of the bag leak detection system. The
EPA added these requirements to help ensure that baghouses are properly
operated and maintained, and that enforcement officials will have
adequate data to assess compliance with the bag leak detection system
requirements.
B. Comments on February 1999 Supplemental Proposal
Comment. One commenter stated that the term ``initiate corrective
actions'' as used in section 63.1547(e)(9) was somewhat ambiguous, and
requested that the EPA clarify what constitutes the initiation of
corrective action. Furthermore, they noted that, as required in section
63.1547(f), the first steps in the corrective action process is to
acknowledge the alarm and determine its cause. It was suggested that
the term ``initiate corrective action'' be changed to ``initiate
procedures to acknowledge the alarm and determine its cause, as
specified in the corrective actions plan.''
Response. The EPA is concerned that the term ``initiate corrective
action'' could be misinterpreted to mean the beginning of a physical
repair. As pointed out by the commenter, the first step in the
corrective action process is to acknowledge (or record) the alarm and
to begin procedures for determining the cause of the alarm. As such,
the EPA is changing the proposed rule language to capture more
accurately what is intended. The new language requires facilities to
``record the date and time of the alarm and initiate procedures to
determine the cause of a bag leak detection system alarm'' within 1
hour.
Comment. The commenters stated that they believe the addition of
section 63.1547(e)(9) makes the provision in section 63.1547(f)(1)
redundant. They suggest that section 63.1547(f)(1) be removed.
Response. The EPA does not believe that the requirements of section
63.1547(e)(9) and section 63.1547(f)(1) are redundant. The purpose of
the operating limit in section 63.1547(e)(9) is to require operators to
operate and maintain an affected baghouse such that upset events are
limited to a level that the EPA considers acceptable both in terms of
number of occurrences and duration. The intent of the requirement that
operators record and initiate procedures to determine the cause of the
alarm within 1 hour (section 63.1547(f)(1)) is to ensure that operators
acknowledge and respond to each alarm in a timely manner.
[[Page 30201]]
Please note that the requirements contained in section
63.1547(e)(9) of the supplemental proposal have been revised in the
final rule. The requirement to maintain and operate each baghouse such
that the alarm on a bag leak detection system does not sound for more
than five percent of the total operating time in a 6-month reporting
period has been moved to section 63.1543(f) in the final rule. The
methodology to be used in calculating the percent of the total
operating time that the alarm sounds has been clarified and moved to
section 63.1547(g) in the final rule. In addition, the requirements
contained in section 63.1547(f)(1) of the original proposal have been
moved to section 63.1543(g) in the final rule.
Comment. One commenter stated that it appears that the EPA is
proposing to penalize operators for a rapid response to initiate
corrective actions by setting 1 hour as a minimum time counted for each
alarm while using the actual time for periods which exceed 1 hour. The
commenter proposes that the EPA simplify the requirement such that the
alarm time should be counted as the actual amount of time taken by the
owner or operator to initiate corrective actions for all cases.
Response. As discussed above, the intent of the operating limit on
bag leak detection system alarm time is to limit not only the duration,
but also the number of alarm-causing events. By rounding the amount of
alarm time counted up to 1 hour for any alarm where the operator
responds within 1 hour, the total number of potential alarm-causing
events is limited to roughly 220 alarms in a 6-month reporting period.
Counting fractions of an hour per event could allow for an unlimited
number of events. For example, at 10 minutes per event, the total
number of alarm-causing events could be as high as 1,300 in a 6-month
reporting period.
Comment. One commenter suggested that the operating limit on bag
leak detection system alarm time be reviewed and considered for
application to other MACT standards using common add-on emissions
control technologies (i.e., baghouses).
Response. The EPA intends to incorporate the operating limit on bag
leak detection system alarm time in the rules that EPA is currently
developing and any future rules where baghouses are used to control HAP
emissions. In addition, the EPA is considering amending existing NESHAP
where baghouses are used to control HAP emissions to include the
operating limit on bag leak detection system alarm time.
Comment. One commenter stated that by limiting the cumulative time
that a source may operate before initiating corrective action, rather
than before completing corrective action, the proposed changes would
provide an incentive for the operator to indefinitely delay completion
of corrective action.
Response. The commenter is mistaken. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) of the
General Provisions requires that malfunctions be corrected as soon as
practicable after their occurrence. As such, an operator cannot delay
completion of corrective action without being in violation of the
General Provisions. However, the EPA has changed section 63.1543(g) of
the final rule to require that ``The cause of the alarm shall be
corrected as soon as practicable.'' No other changes are being made to
the rule to address this comment.
Comment. One commenter stated that the MACT technology should be
reanalyzed to account for the particulate HAP control which is
achievable during a one-time performance test conducted on a newly
constructed or reconstructed baghouse. The commenter continues to state
that while some operators might choose to maintain and promptly repair
their air pollution control devices, the rules could not be enforced to
require this level of control.
Response. The EPA believes that the commenter has misinterpreted
the rule. The commenter infers that the lead emission limits should be
based on the level of control that a brand new baghouse can achieve
since only a one-time test is required. However, the rule requires
annual compliance testing, not a one-time compliance test. Furthermore,
the rule contains federally enforceable requirements for the operation
and maintenance of each affected baghouse. No change is being made to
the rule to address this comment.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information
considered by the EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket
is a dynamic file because material is added throughout the rulemaking
process. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the
public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents
so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process.
Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles,
the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the case of
judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act.)
B. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action''
because none of the listed criteria apply to this action. Consequently,
this action was not submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order
12866.
C. Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of
[[Page 30202]]
regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these
entities. None of these entities own or operate an affected source.
Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875
do not apply to this rule.
D. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian
tribal governments. No tribal governments own or operate an affected
source. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive
Order 13084 do not apply to this action.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a 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 1 year. The maximum total annual cost of this rule for
any year has been estimated to be less than $250,000. Thus, today's
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the
UMRA. In addition, the EPA has determined that this rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments because it contains no requirements that apply to
such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, today's
rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
As amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act (SBREFA), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires
an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule
subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, as well as take
other actions intended to minimize the rule's potential impact on small
entities, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and small government jurisdictions.
The EPA has determined that none of the existing primary lead
smelters are small entities, and has concluded that this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule will be
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information
Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No.
1856.02) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at OPPE
Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(2137); 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460, by email at
farmer.sandy@epamail.epa.gov, or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may
also be downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The
information requirements are not effective until OMB approves them.
The information requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all
operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114
of the Act (42 U.S.C. 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 rule would require maintenance inspections of the control
devices but would not require any notifications or reports beyond those
required by the General Provisions. The recordkeeping requirements
require only the specific information needed to determine compliance.
The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this
collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of
the rule) is estimated to be 2,002 labor hours per year at a total
annual cost of $114,900. This estimate includes a one-time performance
test and report (with repeat tests where needed); one-time purchase and
[[Page 30203]]
installation of bag leak detection systems; one-time submission of a
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan with semiannual reports for any
event when the procedures in the plan were not followed; semiannual
excess emission reports; maintenance inspections; notifications; and
recordkeeping. Total capital/startup costs associated with the
monitoring requirements over the 3-year period of the ICR are estimated
at $107,500, with operation and maintenance costs of $5,500/yr.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
H. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 801 et seq., as added
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing
this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A
major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. Sec. 804(2).
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note), directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards instead of government-unique standards in their regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., material specifications, test method, sampling and
analytical procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or
adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standards bodies. Examples
of organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards
bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM),
the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA requires Federal agencies like
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations when an agency
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
During this rulemaking the Agency searched for voluntary consensus
standards that might be applicable. The search has identified no
applicable voluntary standards. Accordingly, the NTTAA requirement to
use applicable voluntary consensus standards does not apply to this
rule.
As part of a larger effort, the EPA is undertaking a project to
cross-reference existing voluntary consensus standards on testing,
sampling, and analysis, with current and future EPA test methods. When
completed, this project will assist the EPA in identifying potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards which can then be evaluated
for equivalency and applicability in determining compliance with future
regulations.
J. Pollution Prevention Considerations
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., Pub.
L. 101-508, November 5, 1990) establishes the national policy of the
United States for pollution prevention. This act declares that: (1)
pollution should be prevented or reduced whenever feasible, (2)
pollution that cannot be prevented or reduced should be recycled or
reused in an environmentally-safe manner wherever feasible, (3)
pollution that cannot be recycled or reused should be treated, and (4)
disposal or release into the atmosphere should be chosen only if none
of the other options is available.
The plant wide emission limit approach in this final rule promotes
the use of pollution prevention alternatives by giving facilities full
credit for source reduction in determining compliance with the emission
limit. Furthermore, the focus of the fugitive dust requirements is on
work practice and operating standards that reduce emission potential,
rather than capture and treatment options.
K. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risk Under Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health
or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
The EPA interprets Executive Order (E.O.) 13045 as applying only to
those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such
that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the E.O. has the
potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to E.O.
13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended
to mitigate health or safety risks. Furthermore, this rule has been
determined not to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.
12866.
L. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of a NESHAP is
available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of today's
publication of this final rule. Under section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the
requirements that are the subject of today's action may not be
challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce these requirements.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Primary lead
smelters.
[[Page 30204]]
Dated: May 13, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 63 is amended as
follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart TTT, to read as follows:
Subpart TTT--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Primary Lead Smelting
Sec.
63.1541 Applicability.
63.1542 Definitions.
63.1543 Standards for process and process fugitive sources.
63.1544 Standards for fugitive dust sources.
63.1545 Compliance dates.
63.1546 Test methods.
63.1547 Monitoring requirements.
63.1548 Notification requirements.
63.1549 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
63.1550 Delegation of authority.
Subpart TTT--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Primary Lead Smelting
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. 63.8 (Monitoring 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
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. 63.9 (Notification
requirements), and Sec. 63.10 (Recordkeeping and reporting
requirements). Section Sec. 63.11 (Control device requirements) does
not apply to this subpart.
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:
Bag leak detection system means a system that is capable of
continuously monitoring relative particulate matter (dust) loadings in
the exhaust of a baghouse in order to detect bag leaks and other upset
conditions. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited
to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, light scattering,
light transmittance, or other effect to continuously monitor relative
particulate matter loadings.
Blast furnace means any reduction furnace to which sinter is
charged and which forms separate layers of molten slag and lead
bullion.
Building means a roofed and walled structure with limited openings
to allow access and egress for people and vehicles.
Charging location means the physical opening through which raw
materials are introduced into a sinter machine, blast furnace, or dross
furnace.
Dross furnace means any smelting furnace to which drosses are
charged and which chemically and physically separates lead from other
impurities.
Drossing and refining kettle means an open-top vessel that is
constructed of cast iron or steel and is indirectly heated from below
and contains molten lead for the purpose of drossing, refining, or
alloying lead. Included are pot furnaces, receiving kettles, and
holding kettles.
Fugitive dust source means a stationary source of hazardous air
pollutant emissions at a primary lead smelter resulting from the
handling, storage, transfer, or other management of lead-bearing
materials where the source is not associated with a specific process,
process vent, or stack. Fugitive dust sources include roadways, storage
piles, materials handling transfer points, and materials transport
areas.
Furnace area means any area of a primary lead smelter in which a
blast furnace or dross furnace is located.
Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably
preventable failure of air pollution control equipment, process
equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner.
Failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless
operation are not malfunctions.
Materials storage and handling area means any area of a primary
lead smelter in which lead-bearing materials (including ore
concentrate, sinter, granulated lead, dross, slag, and flue dust) are
stored or handled between process steps, including areas in which
materials are stored in piles, bins, or tubs, and areas in which
material is prepared for charging to a sinter machine or smelting
furnace.
Operating time means the period of time in hours that an affected
source is in operation beginning at a startup and ending at the next
shutdown.
Plant operating time means the period of time in hours that either
a sinter machine or blast furnace is in operation.
Plant roadway means any area of a primary lead smelter that is
subject to vehicle traffic, including traffic by fork lifts, front-end
loaders, or vehicles carrying ore concentrates or cast lead ingots.
Excluded from this definition are employee and visitor parking areas,
provided they are not subject to traffic by vehicles carrying lead-
bearing materials.
Primary lead smelter means any facility engaged in the production
of lead metal from lead sulfide ore concentrates through the use of
pyrometallurgical techniques.
Process fugitive source means a source of hazardous air pollutant
emissions at a primary lead smelter that is associated with lead
smelting or refining but is not the primary exhaust stream and is not a
fugitive dust source. Process fugitive sources include sinter machine
charging locations, sinter machine discharge locations, sinter crushing
and sizing equipment, furnace charging locations, furnace taps,
drossing kettles, and refining kettles.
Refining and casting area means any area of a primary lead smelter
in which drossing or refining operations occur, or casting operations
occur.
Shutdown means the cessation of operation of an affected source for
any purpose.
Sinter machine means any device in which a lead sulfide ore
concentrate charge is heated in the presence of air to eliminate sulfur
contained in the charge and to agglomerate the charge into a hard
porous mass called sinter.
Sinter machine area means any area of a primary lead smelter where
a sinter machine, or sinter crushing and sizing equipment is located.
Sinter machine discharge end means the physical opening at the end
of a sinter machine where the sinter exits the sinter machine.
[[Page 30205]]
Startup means the setting in operation of an affected source for
any purpose.
Tapping location means the opening thru which lead and slag are
removed from the furnace.
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 a positive in-draft through any doorway opening.
(d) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, following
the initial test to demonstrate compliance with paragraph (a) of this
section, the owner or operator of a primary lead smelter shall conduct
a compliance test for lead compounds on an annual basis (no later than
12 calendar months following any previous compliance test).
(e) If the three most recent compliance tests demonstrate
compliance with the emission limit specified in paragraph (a) of this
section, the owner or operator of a primary lead smelter shall be
allowed up to 24 calendar months from the last compliance test to
conduct the next compliance test for lead compounds.
(f) The owner or operator of a primary lead smelter shall maintain
and operate each baghouse used to control emissions from the sources
listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(9) of this section such that
the alarm on a bag leak detection system required under
Sec. 63.1547(c)(9) does not sound for more than five percent of the
total operating time in a 6-month reporting period.
(g) The owner or operator of a primary lead smelter shall record
the date and time of a bag leak detection system alarm and initiate
procedures to determine the cause of the alarm according to the
corrective action plan required under Sec. 63.1547(c)(9) within 1 hour
of the alarm. The cause of the alarm shall be corrected as soon as
practicable.
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(s);
(3) Sinter machine area(s);
(4) Furnace area(s); and
(5) Refining and casting area(s).
(b) Not withstanding paragraph (c) of this section, the standard
operating procedures manual shall be submitted to the Administrator or
delegated authority for review and approval.
(c) Existing manuals that describe the measures in place to control
fugitive dust sources required as part of a State implementation plan
for lead shall satisfy the requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section provided they address the sources listed in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(5) of this section.
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 May 4, 2001.
(b) Each owner or operator of a primary lead smelter that commences
construction or reconstruction after April 17, 1998, shall achieve
compliance with the requirements of this subpart by June 4, 1999 or
upon startup of operations, whichever is later.
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
Sec. 63.1543(a)(9) shall be determined according to the following test
methods in appendix A of part 60 of this chapter:
(i) Method 1 shall be used to select the sampling port location and
the number of traverse points.
(ii) Method 2 shall be used to measure volumetric flow rate.
(iii) Method 3 shall be used for gas analysis.
(iv) Method 4 shall be used to determine moisture content of the
stack gas
(v) Method 12 shall be used to measure the lead emission rate of
the stack gas. The minimum sample volume shall be 0.85 dry standard
cubic meters (30 dry standard cubic feet) and the minimum sampling time
shall be 60 minutes for each run. Three runs shall be performed and the
average of the three runs shall be used to determine compliance.
(2) The lead production rate, in units of megagrams per hour, shall
be determined based on production data for the previous 12 calendar
months according to the procedures detailed in paragraphs (a)(2)(i)
through (a)(2)(v) of this section:
(i) Total lead products production multiplied by the fractional
lead content shall be determined in units of megragrams.
(ii) Total copper matte production multiplied by the fractional
lead content shall be determined in units of megragrams.
(iii) Total copper speiss production multiplied by the fractional
lead content shall be determined in units of megragrams.
(iv) Total lead production shall be determined by summing the
values obtained in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(iii) of this
section.
(v) The lead production rate, in units of megragrams per hours,
shall be calculated based on the total lead production, as determined
in accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(iv) of this section, divided by the
total plant operating time, in hours, for the previous 12 months.
(3) The sum of lead compound emission rates for the sources in
Sec. 63.1543(a)((1) through (a)(9), as determined in accordance with
paragraph (a)(1) of this section, shall be divided by the lead
production rate, as determined in accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(v)
of this section, to obtain a production-based, lead compound emission
rate in units of grams of lead per megagram of lead metal produced. The
production-based, lead compound emission rate shall be used to
determine compliance with the
[[Page 30206]]
emissions standard for lead compounds under Sec. 63.1543(a).
(b) Owner and operators shall perform an initial compliance test to
demonstrate compliance with the sinter building in-draft requirements
of Sec. 63.1543(c) at each doorway opening in accordance with
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section.
(1) Use a propeller anemometer or equivalent device.
(2) Determine doorway in-draft by placing the anemometer in the
plane of the doorway opening near its center.
(3) Determine doorway in-draft for each doorway that is open during
normal operation with all remaining doorways in their customary
position during normal operation.
(4) Do not determine doorway in-draft when ambient wind speed
exceeds 2 meters per second.
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 the procedures for inspection,
maintenance, and bag leak detection and corrective action for all
baghouses that are used to control process, process fugitive, or
fugitive dust emissions from any source subject to the lead emission
standards in Secs. 63.1543 and 63.1544, including those used to control
emissions from general ventilation systems.
(b) The standard operating procedures manual for baghouses required
by paragraph (a) of this section shall be submitted to the
Administrator or delegated authority for review and approval.
(c) The procedures specified in the standard operating procedures
manual for inspections and routine maintenance shall, at a minimum,
include the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(9) of this
section.
(1) Daily monitoring of pressure drop across each baghouse cell to
ensure pressure drop is within the normal operating range identified in
the standard operating procedures manual.
(2) Weekly confirmation that dust is being removed from hoppers
through visual inspection or equivalent means of ensuring the proper
functioning of removal mechanisms.
(3) Daily check of compressed air supply for pulse-jet baghouses.
(4) An appropriate methodology for monitoring cleaning cycles to
ensure proper operation.
(5) Monthly check of bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning
through visual inspection or equivalent means.
(6) Quarterly visual check of bag tension on reverse air and
shaker-type baghouses to ensure that bags are not kinked (kneed or
bent) or laying on their sides. Such checks are not required for
shaker-type baghouses using 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 paragraph (h) of this section, continuous
operation of a bag leak detection system.
(d) The procedures specified in the standard operating procedures
manual for maintenance shall, at a minimum, include a preventative
maintenance schedule that is consistent with the baghouse
manufacturer's instructions for routine and long-term maintenance.
(e) The bag leak detection system required by paragraph (c)(9) of
this section shall meet the specifications and requirements of (e)(1)
through (e)(8) of this section.
(1) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the
manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter emissions at
concentrations of 10 milligram per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains
per actual cubic foot) or less.
(2) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of
relative particulate matter loadings, and the owner or operator shall
continuously record the output from the bag leak detection system.
(3) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm
system that will sound when an increase in relative particulate loading
is detected over a preset level, and the alarm must be located such
that it can be heard by the appropriate plant personnel.
(4) Each bag leak detection system that works based on the
triboelectric effect shall be installed, calibrated, and maintained in
a manner consistent with guidance provided in the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency guidance document ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015). Other bag leak detection systems shall
be installed, calibrated, and maintained in a manner consistent with
the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations.
(5) The initial adjustment of the system shall, at a minimum,
consist of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the
sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, and
establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
(6) Following initial adjustment, the owner or operator shall not
adjust the sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or
alarm delay time, except as detailed in the approved SOP required under
paragraph (a) of this section. In no event shall the sensitivity be
increased by more than 100 percent or decreased more than 50 percent
over a 365-day period unless a responsible official certifies that the
baghouse has been inspected and found to be in good operating
condition.
(7) For negative pressure, induced air baghouses, and positive
pressure baghouses that are discharged to the atmosphere through a
stack, the bag leak detector must be installed downstream of the
baghouse and upstream of any wet acid gas scrubber.
(8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(f) The standard operating procedures manual required by paragraph
(a) of this section shall include a corrective action plan that
specifies the procedures to be followed in the event of a bag leak
detection system alarm. The corrective action plan shall include, at a
minimum, procedures to be used to determine the cause of an alarm, as
well as actions to be taken to minimize emissions, which may include,
but are not limited to, the following.
(1) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken bags or
filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in
emissions.
(2) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
(3) Replacing defective bags or filter media, or otherwise
repairing the control device.
(4) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment.
(5) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise
repairing the bag leak detection system.
(6) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.
(g) The percentage of total operating time the alarm on the bag
leak detection system sounds in a 6-month reporting period shall be
calculated in order to determine compliance with the five percent
operating limit in Sec. 63.1543(f). The percentage of time the alarm on
the bag leak detection system sounds shall be determined according to
paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this section.
(1) Alarms that occur due solely to a malfunction of the bag leak
detection system shall not be included in the calculation.
(2) Alarms that occur during startup, shutdown, or malfunction
shall not be included in the calculation if the
[[Page 30207]]
condition is described in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan
and the owner or operator follows all the procedures in the plan
defined for this condition.
(3) For each alarm where the owner or operator initiates procedures
to determine the cause of an alarm within 1 hour of the alarm, 1 hour
of alarm time shall be counted.
(4) For each alarm where the owner or operator does not initiate
procedures to determine the cause of the alarm within 1 hour of the
alarm, alarm time will be counted as the actual amount of time taken by
the owner or operator to initiate procedures to determine the cause of
the alarm.
(5) The percentage of time the alarm on the bag leak detection
system sounds shall be calculated as the ratio of the sum of alarm
times to the total operating time multiplied by 100.
(h) Baghouses equipped with HEPA filters as a secondary filter used
to control process or process fugitive sources subject to the lead
emission standards in Sec. 63.1543 are exempt from the requirement in
Sec. 63.1543(c)(9) to be equipped with a bag leak detector. The owner
or operator of an affected source that uses a HEPA filter shall monitor
and record the pressure drop across the HEPA filter system daily. If
the pressure drop is outside the limit(s) specified by the filter
manufacturer, the owner or operator must take appropriate corrective
measures, which may include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) Inspecting the filter and filter housing for air leaks and torn
or broken filters.
(2) Replacing defective filter media, or otherwise repairing the
control device.
(3) Sealing off a defective control device by routing air to other
control devices.
(4) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.
(i) Owners and operators shall monitor sinter machine building in-
draft to demonstrate continued compliance with the operating standard
specified in Sec. 63.1543(c) in accordance with either paragraph
(i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this section.
(1) Owners and operators shall check and record on a daily basis
doorway in-draft at each doorway in accordance with the methodology
specified in Sec. 63.1546(b).
(2) Owners and operators shall establish and maintain baseline
ventilation parameters which result in a positive in-draft according to
paragraphs (i)(2)(i) through (i)(2)(iv) of this section.
(i) Owners and operators shall install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate a monitoring device that continuously records the actual
volumetric flow rate through each separately ducted hood; or install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate a monitoring device that continuously
records the volumetric flow rate at the control device inlet of each
exhaust system ventilating the building. The flow rate monitoring
device(s) can be installed in any location in the exhaust duct such
that reproducible flow rate monitoring will result. The flow rate
monitoring device(s) shall have an accuracy of plus or minus 10 percent
over its normal operating range and shall be calibrated according to
manufacturer's instructions.
(ii) During the initial demonstration of sinter building in-draft,
and at any time the owner or operator wishes to re-establish the
baseline ventilation parameters, the owner or operator shall
continuously record the volumetric flow rate through each separately
ducted hood, or continuously record the volumetric flow rate at the
control device inlet of each exhaust system ventilating the building
and record exhaust system damper positions. The owner or operator shall
determine the average volumetric flow rate(s) corresponding to the
period of time the in-draft compliance determinations are being
conducted.
(iii) The owner or operator shall maintain the volumetric flow
rate(s) at or above the value(s) established during the most recent in-
draft determination at all times the sinter machine is in operation.
Volumetric flow rate(s) shall be calculated as a 15-minute average.
(iv) If the volumetric flow rate is monitored at the control device
inlet, the owner or operator shall check and record damper positions
daily to ensure they are in the positions they were in during the most
recent in-draft determination.
(3) An owner or operator may request an alternative monitoring
method by following the procedures and requirements in Sec. 63.8(f) of
the General Provisions.
Sec. 63.1548 Notification requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of a primary lead smelter shall comply
with all of the notification requirements of Sec. 63.9 of subpart A,
General Provisions.
(b) The owner or operator of a primary lead smelter shall submit
the fugitive dust control standard operating procedures manual required
under 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 November 6, 2000. The owner or operator of a
primary lead smelter that commences construction or reconstruction
after April 17, 1998, shall submit this notification no later than 180
days before startup of the constructed or reconstructed primary lead
smelter, but no sooner than September 2, 1999.
Sec. 63.1549 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of a primary lead smelter shall comply
with all of the recordkeeping requirements of Sec. 63.10 of subpart A,
General Provisions.
(b) In addition to the general records required by paragraph (a) of
this section, each owner or operator of a primary lead smelter shall
maintain for a period of 5 years, records of the information listed in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(8) of this section.
(1) Production records of the weight and lead content of lead
products, copper matte, and copper speiss.
(2) Records of the bag leak detection system output.
(3) An identification of the date and time of all bag leak
detection system alarms, the time that procedures to determine the
cause of the alarm were initiated, the cause of the alarm, an
explanation of the actions taken, and the date and time the cause of
the alarm was corrected.
(4) Any recordkeeping required as part of the practices described
in the standard operating procedures manual required under
Sec. 63.1544(a) for the control of fugitive dust emissions.
(5) Any recorkeeping required as part of the practices described in
the standard operating procedures manual for baghouses required under
Sec. 63.1547(a).
(6) If an owner or operator chooses to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the sinter building in-draft requirement under
Sec. 63.1543(c) by employing the method allowed in Sec. 63.1546(i)(1),
the records of the daily doorway in-draft checks, an identification of
the periods when there was not a positive in-draft, and an explanation
of the corrective actions taken.
(7) If an owner or operator chooses to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the sinter building in-draft requirement under
Sec. 63.1543(c) by employing the method allowed in Sec. 63.1546(i)(2),
the records of the output from the continuous volumetric flow
monitor(s), an identification of the periods when the 15-minute
volumetric
[[Page 30208]]
flow rate dropped below the minimum established during the most recent
in-draft determination, and an explanation of the corrective actions
taken.
(8) If an owner or operator chooses to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the sinter building in-draft requirement under
Sec. 63.1543(c) by employing the method allowed in Sec. 63.1546(i)(2),
and volumetric flow rate is monitored at the baghouse inlet, records of
the daily checks of damper positions, an identification of the days
that the damper positions were not in the positions established during
the most recent in-draft determination, and an explanation of the
corrective actions taken.
(c) Records for the most recent 2 years of operation must be
maintained on site. Records for the previous 3 years may be maintained
off site.
(d) The owner or operator of a primary lead smelter shall comply
with all of the reporting requirements of Sec. 63.10 of subpart A,
General Provisions.
(e) 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)(7) of this section to the Administrator or designated
authority.
(1) The reports shall include records of all alarms from the bag
leak detection system specified in Sec. 63.1547(e).
(2) The reports shall include a description of the actions taken
following each bag leak detection system alarm pursuant to
Sec. 63.1547(f).
(3) The reports shall include a calculation of the percentage of
time the alarm on the bag leak detection system sounded during the
reporting period pursuant to Sec. 63.1547(g).
(4) If an owner or operator chooses to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the sinter building in-draft requirement under
Sec. 63.1543(c) by employing the method allowed in Sec. 63.1546(i)(1),
the reports shall contain an identification of the periods when there
was not a positive in-draft, and an explanation of the corrective
actions taken.
(5) If an owner or operator chooses to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the sinter building in-draft requirement under
Sec. 63.1543(c) by employing the method allowed in Sec. 63.1546(i)(2),
the reports shall contain an identification of the periods when the 15-
minute volumetric flow rate(s) dropped below the minimum established
during the most recent in-draft determination, and an explanation of
the corrective actions taken.
(6) If an owner or operator chooses to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the sinter building in-draft requirement under
Sec. 63.1543(c) by employing the method allowed in Sec. 63.1546(i)(2),
and volumetric flow rate is monitored at the baghouse inlet, the
reports shall contain an identification of the days that the damper
positions were not in the positions established during the most recent
in-draft determination, and an explanation of the corrective actions
taken.
(7) The reports shall contain a summary of the records maintained
as part of the practices described in the standard operating procedures
manual for baghouses required under Sec. 63.1547(a), including an
explanation of the periods when the procedures were not followed and
the corrective actions taken.
(8) The reports shall contain a summary of the fugitive dust
control measures performed during the required reporting period,
including an explanation of any periods when the procedures outlined in
the standard operating procedures manual required by 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 Sec. 63.1547(a).
Sec. 63.1550 Delegation of authority
(a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a
State under section 112(1) of the act, the authorities contained in
paragraph (b) of this section shall be retained by the Administrator
and not transferred to a State.
(b) Authorities which will not be delegated to States: no
restrictions.
Table 1 of Subpart TTT--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart TTT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Reference TTT Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1................... Yes
Sec. 63.2................... Yes
Sec. 63.3................... Yes
Sec. 63.4................... Yes
Sec. 63.5................... Yes
Sec. 63.6(a), (b), (c), (e), Yes
(f), (g), (i) and (j).
Sec. 63.6(d) and (h)........ No No opacity limits in
rule.
Sec. 63.7................... Yes
Sec. 63.8................... Yes
Sec. 63.9 (a), (b), (c), Yes
(d), (e), (g), (h)(1)
through (3), (h)(5) and (6),
(i) and (j).
Sec. 63.9(f) and (h)(4)..... No No opacity or visible
emission limits in
rule.
Sec. 63.10.................. Yes
Sec. 63.11.................. No Flares will not be
used to comply with
the emission limits.
Sec. 63.12 through 63.15.... Yes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 99-12757 Filed 6-3-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
