98-22648. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Secondary Lead Smelting  

  • [Federal Register Volume 63, Number 163 (Monday, August 24, 1998)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 45007-45011]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 98-22648]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    
    40 CFR Part 63
    
    [AD-FRL-6145-6]
    RIN 2060-AE04
    
    
    National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From 
    Secondary Lead Smelting
    
    AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    
    ACTION: Direct final rule: amendments to rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: This action amends the national emission standards for 
    hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing secondary lead 
    smelters. Changes to the NESHAP are being made to address comments 
    received following promulgation of the final rule. Four changes are 
    being made. Two are minor typographical corrections, while two are 
    substantive corrections. The EPA is making these amendments as a direct 
    final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a 
    noncontroversial
    
    [[Page 45008]]
    
    amendment and anticipates no significant adverse comments. The EPA is 
    also proposing these amendments in the Proposed Rules section of this 
    Federal Register. This rule will become effective without further 
    notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comment on the 
    parallel notice of proposed rulemaking within 30 days of today's 
    document. Should the Agency receive such comments, it will publish a 
    document informing the public that this rule did not take effect. The 
    EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposal. Any 
    parties interested in commenting on the amendments should do so at this 
    time.
    
    DATES: Effective Date. This action will be effective October 13, 1998 
    unless significant adverse comments on this action are received by 
    September 23, 1998. If significant adverse comments are received, the 
    EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing 
    the public that this rule will not take effect.
        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 
    notice may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings 
    brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.
    
    ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A-92-43, containing information 
    considered by the EPA in development of this action, is available for 
    public inspection and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday 
    through Friday except for Federal holidays, at the following address: 
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and 
    Information Center (MC-6102), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460; 
    telephone (202) 260-7548. The docket is located at the above address in 
    Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor). A reasonable fee may be 
    charged for copying.
        Comments. Written comments should be submitted to: Docket A-92-43, 
    U.S. EPA, Air & Radiation Docket & Information Center, 401 M Street, 
    SW., Room 1500, Washington, DC 20460.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Mr. Kevin Cavender, Metals Group, 
    Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection 
    Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone (919) 
    541-2364.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
    
    I. Background
    II. Summary of Changes
    III. Rationale for Changes
        A. Dryer Transition Pieces
        B. Blast Furnace Charging Hood THC Emission Limit
    IV. Administrative Requirements
        A. Docket
        B. Executive Order 12866
        C. Unfunded Mandates Act
        D. Paperwork Reduction Act
        E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
        F. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
        G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
        H. Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and 
    Safety Risk Under Executive Order 13045
        I. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive 
    Order 12875
    
    I. Background
    
        The NESHAP for secondary lead smelting (40 CFR part 63, subpart X) 
    was proposed in the Federal Register on June 9, 1994 (59 FR 29750). The 
    EPA received 31 letters commenting on the proposed rule and proposed 
    area source listing. After considering fully the comments received, the 
    EPA promulgated this NESHAP in the Federal Register on June 23, 1995 
    (60 FR 32587).
        Following publication of the final rule, the EPA received three 
    petitions for reconsideration pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the 
    act from secondary lead smelter owners and operators, and the 
    Association of Battery Recyclers, an industry trade association that 
    represents the majority of the secondary lead smelters in the United 
    States. The EPA concurred with several of the objections, and revised 
    the final rule. The revised rule was published in the Federal Register 
    on June 13, 1997 (62 FR 32209). In addition, the EPA extended the 
    compliance date and the dates for the submittal of standard operating 
    procedures (SOP) manuals for fugitive dust control and baghouse 
    inspection and maintenance by 6 months, in order to allow affected 
    sources time to address the changes being made to the final rule. The 
    extension was published in the Federal Register on December 12, 1996 
    (61 FR 65334).
        Following publication of the final rule revision, the EPA became 
    aware of two typographical errors in the revised rule. This amendment 
    corrects those errors. In addition, two secondary lead smelter 
    operators have contacted the EPA regarding two aspects of the final 
    rule. The East Penn Company which operates a smelter in Reading, 
    Pennsylvania, submitted a request on October 6, 1997, for permission to 
    operate under an alternative emission standard for dryer transition 
    pieces, as provided for in section 63.6(g) of the General Provisions. 
    The GNB Company which operates a smelter in Frisco, Texas, reported 
    that it was unable to meet the emission rate emission limit for total 
    hydrocarbons from a blast furnace charging hood, and requested that the 
    EPA amend the emission standard from a mass rate limit to a 
    concentration limit. This amendment addresses the comments received 
    from the two companies.
    
    II. Summary of Changes
    
        Two typographical corrections are being made. The EPA is correcting 
    the reference to (a)(9) in Sec. 63.548(e) to (c)(9) as follows:
        ``(e) The bag leak detection system required by paragraph (c)(9) of 
    this section, * * *''
        The EPA is correcting Sec. 63.546(a) to read as revised in the 
    extension published in the Federal Register on December 12, 1996 (61 FR 
    65334):
    
        ``(a) Each owner or operator of an existing secondary lead 
    smelter shall achieve compliance with the requirements of this 
    subpart no later than December 23, 1997. Existing sources wishing to 
    apply for an extension of compliance pursuant to Sec. 63.6(i) of 
    this part must do so no later than June 23, 1997.''
    
        The more substantive changes are as follows. The EPA is proposing 
    to revise Sec. 63.544 to allow for pressurized seals on dryer 
    transition pieces as an alternative to enclosure hoods and ventilation. 
    Alternative monitoring requirements specific to pressurized seals are 
    also being proposed.
        The EPA is also proposing to revise the total hydrocarbon (THC) 
    emission limit for blast furnace charging hoods, Sec. 63.543(g). The 
    existing THC emission limit is 0.20 kilograms per hour (0.44 pounds per 
    hour) as propane. The EPA is proposing to revise the THC emission limit 
    to a concentration of 20 parts per million by volume on a dry basis 
    (ppmvd) as propane.
    
    III. Rationale for Changes
    
    A. Dryer Transition Pieces
    
        Most secondary lead smelters use a rotary dryer to dry feed 
    material prior to charging to a reverberatory furnace. A dryer 
    transition piece is the junction between a dryer and the charge hopper 
    or conveyor, or the junction between the dryer and the smelting furnace 
    feed chute or hopper located at the ends of the dryer. Gaps at these 
    transition points can release gases containing HAP emissions to the 
    atmosphere.
    
    [[Page 45009]]
    
        Subpart X as codified sets equipment and operational standards for 
    the control of HAP emissions from dryer transition pieces. Section 
    63.544(b) requires that dryer transition pieces be equipped with an 
    enclosure hood and ventilated to achieve a minimum face velocity of 110 
    meters per minute (360 feet per minute). Section 63.544(c) requires 
    that the enclosure hood be ventilated to a control device, and that the 
    controlled exhaust not contain more than 2.0 milligrams per dry 
    standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) of lead. While greatly reducing HAP 
    emissions, the equipment and operational standards specified in the 
    final rule do not totally eliminate HAP emissions from dryer transition 
    pieces.
        The East Penn facility has what is believed to be a unique 
    pressurized breeching seal system installed on the transition pieces of 
    their dryer. A fixed cylindrical seal support keeps two cylindrical 
    rubber seals in contact with the dryer shell at both the feed and the 
    discharge ends of the dryer. The resultant annulus at each dryer end is 
    sealed to the breeching around the feed and the discharged openings. A 
    blower supplies air to both the feed and the discharge breeching to 
    pressurize the seals. The blower provides positive pressure to ensure 
    that no dryer exhaust gases leak through the breeching seals. As a 
    result, no air emissions are generated at these locations.
        The East Penn Company submitted a request to the EPA on October 6, 
    1997 (Docket ID No. IV-D-54), for permission to operate under an 
    alternative emission standard for dryer transition pieces, as provided 
    for in section 63.6(b) of the General Provisions. Section 63.6(g) 
    specifies that if ``* * * an alternative means of emission limitation 
    will achieve a reduction in emissions of a hazardous air pollutant * * 
    * at least equivalent to the reduction in emissions of that pollutant 
    from that source achieved under any design, equipment, work practice, 
    or combination thereof, established under this part * * * the 
    Administrator will publish in the Federal Register a notice permitting 
    the use of the alternative emission standard * * *''
        Since the pressurized breeching seal precludes emissions from the 
    dryer transition piece it achieves as much or more HAP emission 
    reduction than the equipment and operational standards specified in the 
    final rule. Therefore, the EPA is adding pressurized breeching seals as 
    an alternative emission standard for dryer transition pieces. The EPA 
    is also adding monitoring requirements for pressurized breeching seals 
    to ensure their proper operation. Specifically, the owner or operator 
    of a secondary lead smelter who uses pressurized dryer breeching seals 
    shall equip each seal with an alarm that will be set off if the 
    pressurized dryer breaching seal malfunctions.
    
    B. Blast Furnace Charging Hood THC Emission Limit
    
        Under the current rule, if a facility with a blast furnace does not 
    combine the blast furnace charging hood exhaust with the blast furnace 
    process emissions (main exhaust), section 63.543(g) limits THC 
    emissions from the blast furnace charging hood to 0.20 kilograms per 
    hour (0.44 pounds per hour).
        The EPA added the blast furnace charging hood emission limit after 
    testing on a secondary lead blast furnace indicated substantial amounts 
    of THC and possibly organic HAP could be emitted from the blast furnace 
    charging hood (Docket ID No. IV-A-11). Based on the emissions data 
    collected, average THC emissions from the blast furnace charging hood 
    were estimated at 200-300 ppm, corresponding to approximately 30 
    kilograms per hour (70 pounds per hour) of THC as propane. The blast 
    furnace was equipped with a unique rotary charging drum that was 
    intended to prevent the furnace exhaust from escaping through the 
    charging hood. However, based on visual observations, the seal was not 
    effective at preventing leakage. Significant amounts of smoke could be 
    seen passing through the charging location, and into the charging hood. 
    Plant personnel also indicated that the main blast furnace exhaust duct 
    was partially plugged resulting in insufficient furnace draft.
        The EPA's intent was to set the THC emission limit at a level which 
    would force facilities to either demonstrate that they operate their 
    furnace at an adequate draft to prevent leakage to furnace exhaust into 
    the blast furnace charging hood, or combine the blast furnace charge 
    hood exhaust with the furnace exhaust prior to treatment. The EPA set 
    the current emission limit based on emission testing performed on the 
    blast furnace charge hood at the GNB secondary lead smelter located in 
    Columbus, Georgia (Docket ID No. II-A-6). THC measurements at the GNB-
    Columbus smelter found THC concentrations ranging from 9 to 16 parts 
    per million by volume on a dry basis (ppmvd) as propane, corresponding 
    to emission rates between 0.1 and 0.2 kilograms per hour (0.23 and 0.44 
    pound per hour) of THC as propane. The blast furnace charging hood THC 
    emission limit was set at 0.20 kilograms per hour (0.44 pounds per 
    hour) based on these results.
        GNB contacted the EPA (Docket ID No. IV-D-53) and requested that 
    the emission standard for THC from blast furnace charging hoods be 
    changed from a mass rate emission limit to a concentration based 
    emission limit. Through emissions testing, GNB determined that the GNB 
    smelter in Frisco, Texas would not be able to comply with the existing 
    mass rate limit. Test data obtained showed an average concentration of 
    4.4 ppm as propane, equivalent to approximately 0.7 kilograms per hour 
    (1.5 pounds per hour).
        In their comment, GNB points out that the GNB-Frisco facility has 
    an ongoing operational program to ensure adequate furnace draft is 
    maintained. Once per shift, an inspection and any necessary maintenance 
    is conducted on the primary potential plugging point (an exhaust stream 
    ``upcomer''). Weekly inspection and maintenance of other potential plug 
    points is also conducted. In addition, a TV camera monitors the top of 
    the blast furnace. The display monitor alerts the operator to any 
    ``puffing'' from the charging location. Such puffing could indicate 
    back pressure or plugging in the primary exhaust. If the operator 
    observes puffing, he/she would then inspect for plugging and perform 
    any necessary maintenance. Based on the information provided by GNB, 
    the EPA believes that the GNB-Frisco facility charging system is 
    representative of the technology used as the basis for the MACT 
    emission limit and that GNB is operating the equipment properly. As 
    such, the EPA is concerned that the current emission limit may not be 
    achievable in all cases.
        In GNB's request for the EPA to revise the emission limit, they 
    questioned the representativeness of the GNB-Columbus blast furnace and 
    the appropriateness of a mass rate emission limit. GNB pointed out that 
    the GNB-Frisco blast furnace is much larger than the GNB-Columbus blast 
    furnace (90 tons of lead per day versus 38 tons per day). The EPA in 
    most cases sets emission limits in a format that takes into account 
    facility size. A larger facility generally emits more than a smaller 
    facility. The EPA concurs that a mass rate emission limit is 
    inappropriate since it does not take into account facility size.
        Based on the discussion above, the EPA concurs that the current 
    emission limit should be revised. In addition, the EPA concurs that a 
    concentration based emission limit should be set since a concentration 
    based emission limit will account for facility size. Based on the
    
    [[Page 45010]]
    
    available data, THC emissions from the blast furnace charging hoods 
    with proper furnace draft can range from 1 to 20 ppmv. The EPA is 
    amending the emission limit for THC emissions from blast furnace 
    charging hoods to 20 ppmv based on the available data.
    
    IV. 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, since material is added throughout the rulemaking 
    development. The docket system is intended to allow members of the 
    public and affected industries to readily identify and locate documents 
    so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. 
    Along with the background information documents (BIDs) and preambles to 
    the proposed and promulgated standards, the contents of the docket will 
    serve as the official record in case of judicial review (section 
    307(d)(7)(A) of the Act).
    
    B. Executive Order 12866
    
        The Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is 
    ``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the 
    requirements of the E.O. 12866, (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). 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 obligations 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.
        It has been determined that this amendment to the final rule is not 
    a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of the Executive 
    Order and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
    
    C. Unfunded Mandates Act
    
        Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded 
    Mandates Act'') requires that the Agency prepare a budgetary impact 
    statement before promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate 
    that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, 
    in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
    1 year. Section 203 requires the Agency to establish a plan for 
    obtaining input from and informing, educating, and advising any small 
    governments that may be significantly or uniquely affected by the rule.
        Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, the Agency must 
    identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives 
    before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must 
    be prepared. The Agency must select from those alternatives the least 
    costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that 
    achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the Agency explains why 
    this alternative is not selected or the selection of this alternative 
    is inconsistent with law.
        Because this final rule is estimated to result in the expenditure 
    by State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector of 
    significantly less than $100 million in any 1 year, the Agency has not 
    prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the 
    selection of the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome 
    alternative. Because small governments will not be significantly or 
    uniquely affected by this rule, the Agency is not required to develop a 
    plan with regard to small governments.
    
    D. Paperwork Reduction Act
    
        Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., the EPA 
    must consider the paperwork burden imposed by any information 
    collection request in a proposed or final rule. This amendment to the 
    rule will not impose any new information collection requirements.
    
    E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act (or RFA, Public Law 96-354, 
    September 19, 1980) requires Federal agencies to give special 
    consideration to the impact of regulation on small businesses. The RFA 
    specifies that a regulatory flexibility analysis must be prepared if a 
    screening analysis indicates a regulation will have a significant 
    economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This 
    amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
    number of small entities.
    
    F. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
    
        The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
    provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
    the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
    to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
    United States. 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. This rule is not a 
    ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    
    G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    
        Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
    Act of 1995 (NTTAA) 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 methods, 
    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. This action does not involve the proposal of any 
    new technical standards, or incorporate by reference existing technical 
    standards.
    
    H. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
    Risk Under Executive Order 13045
    
        The Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that (1) OMB 
    determines is ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive 
    Order 12866, and (2) EPA determines the environmental health or safety 
    risk addressed by the rule has a disproportionate effect on children. 
    If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate 
    the environmental health or safety
    
    [[Page 45011]]
    
    aspects 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.
        This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled 
    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 
    (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it does not involve decisions on 
    environmental health risks or safety risks that may disproportionately 
    affect children.
    
    I. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive Order 
    12875
    
        Under the executive order EPA must consult with representatives of 
    affected State, local, and Tribal governments. The EPA consulted with 
    State and local governments at the time of promulgation of subpart X 
    (60 FR 32587), and no tribal governments are believed to be affected by 
    this action. Today's changes are minor and will not impose costs on 
    governments entities or the private sector. Consequently, the EPA has 
    not consulted with State, local, and Tribal governments on this 
    amendment.
    
    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
    
        Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
    substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Secondary lead 
    smelters.
    
        Dated: August 11, 1998.
    Carol M. Browner,
    Administrator.
        For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of 
    the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
    
    PART 63--[AMENDED]
    
        1. Section 63.542 is amended by adding a definition for pressurized 
    dryer breaching seal as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 63.542  Definitions.
    
    * * * * *
        Pressurized dryer breaching seal means a seal system connecting the 
    dryer transition pieces which is maintained at a higher pressure than 
    the inside of the dryer.
    * * * * *
        2. Section 63.543 is amended by revising paragraph (g) as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 63.543  Standards for process sources.
    
    * * * * *
        (g) If the owner or operator of a blast furnace or a collocated 
    blast furnace and reverberatory furnace does not combine the blast 
    furnace charging process fugitive emissions with the blast furnace 
    process emissions and discharges such emissions to the atmosphere 
    through separate emission points, then exhaust shall not contain total 
    hydrocarbons in excess of 20 parts per million by volume, expressed as 
    propane.
    * * * * *
        3. Section 63.544 is amended by redesignating paragraph (g) as 
    paragraph (h) and adding a new paragraph (g) as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 63.544  Standards for process fugitive sources.
    
    * * * * *
        (g) As an alternative to paragraph (a)(5) of this section, an owner 
    or operator may elect to control the process fugitive emissions from 
    dryer transition pieces by installing and operating pressurized dryer 
    breaching seals at each transition piece.
    * * * * *
        4. Section 63.546 is amended by revising paragraph (a) as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 63.546  Compliance dates.
    
        (a) Each owner or operator of an existing secondary lead smelter 
    shall achieve compliance with the requirements of this subpart no later 
    than June 23, 1998.
    * * * * *
        5. Section 63.547 is amended by revising paragraph (b) as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 63.547  Test methods.
    
    * * * * *
        (b) The following tests methods in appendix A of part 60 listed in 
    paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section shall be used, as 
    specified, to determine compliance with the emission standards for 
    total hydrocarbons Sec. 63.543(c), (d), (e), and (g).
        (1) Method 1 shall be used to select the sampling port location to 
    determine compliance under Sec. 63.543(c), (d), (e), and (g).
        (2) The Single Point Integrated Sampling and Analytical Procedure 
    of Method 3B shall be used to measure the carbon dioxide content of the 
    stack gases to determine compliance under Sec. 63.543(c), (d), and (e).
        (3) Method 4 shall be used to measure moisture content of the stack 
    gases to determine compliance under Sec. 63.543(c), (d), (e), and (g).
        (4) Method 25A shall be used to measure total hydrocarbon emissions 
    to determine compliance under Sec. 63.543(c), (d), (e), and (g). The 
    minimum sampling time shall be 1 hour for each run. A minimum of three 
    runs shall be performed. A 1-hour average total hydrocarbon 
    concentration shall be determined for each run and the average of the 
    three 1-hour averages shall be used to determine compliance. The total 
    hydrocarbon emissions concentrations for determining compliance under 
    Sec. 63.543(c), (d), and (e) shall be expressed as propane and shall be 
    corrected to 4 percent carbon dioxide, as described in paragraph (c) of 
    this section.
    * * * * *
        6. Section 63.548 is amended by revising paragraph (e) introductory 
    text and adding paragraph (k) as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 63.548  Monitoring requirements.
    
    * * * * *
        (e) The bag leak detection system required by paragraph (c)(9) of 
    this section, shall meet the specification and requirements of 
    paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(8) of this section.
    * * * * *
        (k) The owner or operator of a secondary lead smelter who uses 
    pressurized dryer breaching seals in order to comply with the 
    requirements of Sec. 63.544(g) shall equip each seal with an alarm that 
    will ``sound'' or ``go off'' if the pressurized dryer breaching seal 
    malfunctions.
    
    [FR Doc. 98-22648 Filed 8-21-98; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
08/24/1998
Department:
Environmental Protection Agency
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Direct final rule: amendments to rule.
Document Number:
98-22648
Dates:
Effective Date. This action will be effective October 13, 1998 unless significant adverse comments on this action are received by September 23, 1998. If significant adverse comments are received, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take effect.
Pages:
45007-45011 (5 pages)
Docket Numbers:
AD-FRL-6145-6
RINs:
2060-AE04
PDF File:
98-22648.pdf
CFR: (7)
40 CFR 63.543(c)
40 CFR 63.542
40 CFR 63.543
40 CFR 63.544
40 CFR 63.546
More ...