29032 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344; FRL–9303–4] 

RIN 2060–AQ68 

National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Secondary 

Lead Smelting 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing 

amendments to the national emissions 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

for Secondary Lead Smelting to address 

the results of the residual risk and 

technology review that EPA is required 

to conduct by the Clean Air Act. These 

proposed amendments include revisions 

to the stack emissions limits for lead; 

revisions to the fugitive dust emissions 

control requirements; the addition of 

total hydrocarbons emissions limits for 

reverberatory, electric, and rotary 

furnaces; the addition of emissions 

limits and work practice requirements 

for dioxins and furans; and the 

modification and addition of testing and 

monitoring and related notification, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements. We are also proposing to 

revise provisions addressing periods of 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction to 

ensure that the rules are consistent with 

a recent court decision. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 5, 2011. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on 

the information collection provisions 

are best assured of having full effect if 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) receives a copy of your 

comments on or before June 20, 2011. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing by May 31, 2011, a public 

hearing will be held on June 3, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2011–0344, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, 

Attention Docket ID Number EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0344. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744, Attention 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0344. 

• Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send 

comments to: EPA Docket Center, EPA 

West (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

Please include a total of two copies. In 

addition, please mail a copy of your 

comments on the information collection 

provisions to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: 

Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA West (Air 

Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004, 

Attention Docket ID Number EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0344. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions. Direct your comments to 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0344. EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available on-line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket. EPA has established a docket 

for this rulemaking under Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the EPA Docket Center is 

(202) 566–1742. 

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is 

held, it will begin at 10 a.m. on June 3, 

2011 and will be held at EPA’s campus 

in Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina, or at an alternate facility 

nearby. Persons interested in presenting 

oral testimony or inquiring as to 

whether a public hearing is to be held 

should contact Ms. Virginia Hunt, Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Sector Policies and Programs Division, 

(D243–02), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone 

number: (919) 541–0832. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this proposed action, 

contact Mr. Chuck French, Sector 

Policies and Programs Division (D243– 

02), Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone 

(919) 541–7912; fax number: (919) 541– 

5450; and e-mail address: 

french.chuck@epa.gov. For specific 

information regarding the risk modeling 

methodology, contact Ms. Elaine 

Manning, Health and Environmental 

Impacts Division (C539–02), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

5499; fax number: (919) 541–0840; and 

e-mail address: 

manning.elaine@epa.gov. For 

information about the applicability of 

the NESHAP to a particular entity, 

contact the appropriate person listed in 

Table 1 of this preamble. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29033 

TABLE 1—LIST OF EPA CONTACTS FOR THE NESHAP ADDRESSED IN THIS PROPOSED ACTION

NESHAP for: OECA Contact 1 OAQPS Contact 2

Secondary Lead Smelting ................................................ Maria Malave, (202) 564–7027 

malave.maria@epa.gov 

Chuck French, (919) 541–7912, 

french.chuck@epa.gov 

1EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. 

2EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations 

Several acronyms and terms used to 

describe industrial processes, data 

inventories, and risk modeling are 

included in this preamble. While this 

may not be an exhaustive list, to ease 

the reading of this preamble and for 

reference purposes, the following terms 

and acronyms are defined here: 

ADAF age-dependent adjustment factors 

AEGL acute exposure guideline levels 

AERMOD air dispersion model used by the 

HEM–3 model 

ANPRM advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking 

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry 

BACT best available control technology 

BLDS bag leak detection system 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CEMS continuous emissions monitoring 

system 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CTE central tendency exposure 

D/F dioxins and furans 

EJ environmental justice 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERPG Emergency Response Planning 

Guidelines 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

HAP hazardous air pollutants 

HEM–3 Human Exposure Model, Version 3 

HEPA high efficiency particulate air 

HHRAP Human Health Risk Assessment 

Protocols 

HI Hazard Index 

HON hazardous organic national emissions 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

HQ Hazard Quotient 

ICR information collection request 

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System 

Km kilometer 

LAER lowest achievable emissions rate 

lb/yr pounds per year 

MACT maximum achievable control 

technology 

MACT Code Code within the NEI used to 

identify processes included in a source 

category 

MDL method detection level 

mg/acm milligrams per actual cubic meter 

mg/dscm milligrams per dry standard cubic 

meter 

mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter 

MIR maximum individual risk 

MRL minimum risk level 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard 

NAC/AEGL Committee National Advisory 

Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline 

Levels for Hazardous Substances 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NAS National Academy of Sciences 

NATA National Air Toxics Assessment 

NEI National Emissions Inventory 

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NOAEL no observed adverse effects level 

NRC National Research Council 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

O&M operation and maintenance 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

ODW Office of Drinking Water 

OECA Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance 

OHEA Office of Health and Environmental 

Assessment 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PB–HAP hazardous air pollutants known to 

be persistent and bio-accumulative in the 

environment 

PM particulate matter 

POM polycyclic organic matter 

ppmv parts per million volume 

RACT reasonably available control 

technology 

RBLC RACT/BACT/LAERClearinghouse 

REL reference exposure level 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RfC reference concentration 

RfD reference dose 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

RME reasonable maximum exposure 

RTR residual risk and technology review 

SAB Science Advisory Board 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SCC Source Classification Codes 

SF3 2000 Census of Population and 

Housing Summary 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SOP standard operating procedures 

SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

TEF toxic equivalency factors 

TEQ toxic equivalency quotient 

THC total hydrocarbons 

TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index 

TPY tons per year 

TRIM Total Risk Integrated Modeling 

System 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

UF uncertainty factor 

μ/m3 microgram per cubic meter 

UL upper limit 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

UPL upper predictive limit 

URE unit risk estimate 

VOC volatile organic compounds 

VOHAP volatile organic hazardous air 

pollutants 

WESP wet electrostatic precipitator 

WHO World Health Organization 

WWW worldwide Web 

Organization of this Document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. What is the statutory authority for this 

action? 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

C. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

D. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. Background 

A. Overview of the Source Category and 

MACT Standards 

B. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

III. Analyses Performed 

A. Addressing Unregulated Emissions 

Sources 

B. How did we estimate risks posed by the 

source category? 

C. How did we consider the risk results in 

making decisions for this proposal? 

D. How did we perform the technology 

review? 

E. What other issues are we addressing in 

this proposal? 

IV. Analyses Results and Proposed Decisions 

A. What are the results of our analyses and 

proposed decisions regarding 

unregulated emissions sources? 

B. What are the results of the risk 

assessments and analyses? 

C. What are our proposed decisions based 

on risk acceptability and ample margin 

of safety? 

D. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review? 

E. What other actions are we proposing? 

F. What is the relationship of the 

Secondary Lead Smelting standards 

proposed in today’s action and 

implementation of the lead NAAQS? 

G. Compliance Dates 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and 

Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

E. What are the benefits? 

VI. Request for Comments 

VII. Submitting Data Corrections 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29034 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1 ‘‘Adverse environmental effect’’ is defined in 

CAA section 112(a)(7) as any significant and 

widespread adverse effect, which may be 

reasonably anticipated to wildlife, aquatic life, or 

natural resources, including adverse impacts on 

populations of endangered or threatened species or 

significant degradation of environmental qualities 

over broad areas. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a 

two-stage regulatory process to address 

emissions of hazardous air pollutants 

(HAP) from stationary sources. In the 

first stage, after EPA has identified 

categories of sources emitting one or 

more of the HAP listed in CAA section 

112(b), CAA section 112(d) calls for us 

to promulgate NESHAP for those 

sources. ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that 

emit or have the potential to emit 10 

tons per year (tpy) or more of a single 

HAP or 25 tpy or more of any 

combination of HAP. For major sources, 

these technology-based standards must 

reflect the maximum degree of 

emissions reductions of HAP achievable 

(after considering cost, energy 

requirements, and non-air quality health 

and environmental impacts) and are 

commonly referred to as maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) 

standards. 

MACT standards must require the 

maximum degree of emissions reduction 

through the application of measures, 

processes, methods, systems, or 

techniques, including, but not limited 

to, measures that (A) reduce the volume 

of or eliminate pollutants through 

process changes, substitution of 

materials or other modifications; (B) 

enclose systems or processes to 

eliminate emissions; (C) capture or treat 

pollutants when released from a 

process, stack, storage, or fugitive 

emissions point; (D) are design, 

equipment, work practice, or 

operational standards (including 

requirements for operator training or 

certification); or (E) are a combination of 

the above (CAA section 112(d)(2)(A)– 

(E)). The MACT standards may take the 

form of design, equipment, work 

practice, or operational standards where 

EPA first determines either that, (A) a 

pollutant cannot be emitted through a 

conveyance designed and constructed to 

emit or capture the pollutants, or that 

any requirement for, or use of, such a 

conveyance would be inconsistent with 

law; or (B) the application of 

measurement methodology to a 

particular class of sources is not 

practicable due to technological and 

economic limitations (CAA sections 

112(h)(1)–(2)). 

The MACT ‘‘floor’’ is the minimum 

control level allowed for MACT 

standards promulgated under CAA 

section 112(d)(3) and may not be based 

on cost considerations. For new sources, 

the MACT floor cannot be less stringent 

than the emissions control that is 

achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source. The MACT 

floors for existing sources can be less 

stringent than floors for new sources, 

but they cannot be less stringent than 

the average emissions limitation 

achieved by the best-performing 

12 percent of existing sources in the 

category or subcategory (or the bestperforming five sources for categories or 

subcategories with fewer than 30 

sources). In developing MACT 

standards, we must also consider 

control options that are more stringent 

than the floor. We may establish 

standards more stringent than the floor 

based on considerations of the cost of 

achieving the emissions reductions, any 

non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts, and energy 

requirements. 

EPA is then required to review these 

technology-based standards and revise 

them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies)’’ no less 

frequently than every 8 years, under 

CAA section 112(d)(6). In conducting 

this review, EPA is not obliged to 

completely recalculate the prior MACT 

determination, and, in particular, is not 

obligated to recalculate the MACT 

floors. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 

1084 (DC Cir., 2008). 

The second stage in standard-setting 

focuses on reducing any remaining 

‘‘residual’’ risk according to CAA section 

112(f). This provision requires, first, that 

EPA prepare a Report to Congress 

discussing (among other things) 

methods of calculating the risks posed 

(or potentially posed) by sources after 

implementation of the MACT standards, 

the public health significance of those 

risks, and EPA’s recommendations as to 

legislation regarding such remaining 

risk. EPA prepared and submitted this 

report (Residual Risk Report to 

Congress, EPA–453/R–99–001) in March 

1999. Congress did not act in response 

to the report, thereby triggering EPA’s 

obligation under CAA section 112(f)(2) 

to analyze and address residual risk. 

Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires 

us to determine, for source categories 

subject to certain MACT standards, 

whether those emissions standards 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. If the MACT 

standards that apply to a source 

category emitting a HAP that is 

‘‘classified as a known, probable, or 

possible human carcinogen do not 

reduce lifetime excess cancer risks to 

the individual most exposed to 

emissions from a source in the category 

or subcategory to less than one-in-one 

million,’’ EPA must promulgate residual 

risk standards for the source category (or 

subcategory) as necessary to provide an 

ample margin of safety to protect public 

health (CAA section 112(f)(2)(A)). This 

requirement is procedural. It mandates 

that EPA establish CAA section 112(f) 

residual risk standards if certain risk 

thresholds are not satisfied, but does not 

determine the level of those standards. 

NRDC v. EPA, 529 F. 3d at 1083. The 

second sentence of CAA section 

112(f)(2) sets out the substantive 

requirements for residual risk standards: 

protection of public health with an 

ample margin of safety based on EPA’s 

interpretation of this standard in effect 

at the time of the Clean Air Act 

amendments. Id. This refers to the 

Benzene NESHAP, described in the next 

paragraph. EPA may adopt residual risk 

standards equal to existing MACT 

standards if EPA determines that the 

existing standards are sufficiently 

protective, even if (for example) excess 

cancer risks to a most exposed 

individual are not reduced to less than 

one-in-one million. Id. at 1083, (‘‘If EPA 

determines that the existing technologybased standards provide an ‘ample 

margin of safety,’ then the Agency is 

free to readopt those standards during 

the residual risk rulemaking’’). Section 

112(f)(2) of the CAA further authorizes 

EPA to adopt more stringent standards, 

if necessary ‘‘to prevent, taking into 

consideration costs, energy, safety, and 

other relevant factors, an adverse 

environmental effect.’’ 1

As just noted, CAA section 112(f)(2) 

expressly preserves our use of the twostep process for developing standards to 

address any residual risk and our 

interpretation of ‘‘ample margin of 

safety’’ developed in the National 

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Benzene Emissions From 

Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/ 

Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29035 

2USEPA. Documentation for Developing the 

Initial Source Category List—Final Report, USEPA/ 

OAQPS, EPA–450/3–91–030, July, 1992. 

Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke 

By-Product Recovery Plants (Benzene 

NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 

1989). The first step in this process is 

the determination of acceptable risk. 

The second step provides for an ample 

margin of safety to protect public health, 

which is the level at which the 

standards are set (unless a more 

stringent standard is necessary to 

prevent, taking into consideration costs, 

energy, safety, and other relevant 

factors, an adverse environmental 

effect). 

The terms ‘‘individual most exposed,’’ 

‘‘acceptable level,’’ and ‘‘ample margin of 

safety’’ are not specifically defined in 

the CAA. However, CAA section 

112(f)(2)(B) preserves EPA’s 

interpretation set out in the Benzene 

NESHAP, and the court in NRDC v. EPA 

concluded that EPA’s interpretation of 

CAA section 112(f)(2) is a reasonable 

one. See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d at 1083 

(DC Cir. 2008), which says ‘‘[S]ubsection 

112(f)(2)(B) expressly incorporates 

EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air 

Act from the Benzene standard, 

complete with a citation to the Federal 

Register.’’ See also, A Legislative History 

of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990, volume 1, p. 877 (Senate debate 

on Conference Report). We also notified 

Congress in the Residual Risk Report to 

Congress that we intended to use the 

Benzene NESHAP approach in making 

CAA section 112(f) residual risk 

determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. 

ES–11). 

In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated as 

an overall objective: 

* * * in protecting public health with an 

ample margin of safety, we strive to provide 

maximum feasible protection against risks to 

health from hazardous air pollutants by (1) 

protecting the greatest number of persons 

possible to an individual lifetime risk level 

no higher than approximately 1-in-1 million; 

and (2) limiting to no higher than 

approximately 1-in-10 thousand [i.e., 100-in1 million] the estimated risk that a person 

living near a facility would have if he or she 

were exposed to the maximum pollutant 

concentrations for 70 years. 

The Agency also stated that, ‘‘The EPA 

also considers incidence (the number of 

persons estimated to suffer cancer or 

other serious health effects as a result of 

exposure to a pollutant) to be an 

important measure of the health risk to 

the exposed population. Incidence 

measures the extent of health risks to 

the exposed population as a whole, by 

providing an estimate of the occurrence 

of cancer or other serious health effects 

in the exposed population.’’ The Agency 

went on to conclude that ‘‘estimated 

incidence would be weighed along with 

other health risk information in judging 

acceptability.’’ As explained more fully 

in our Residual Risk Report to Congress, 

EPA does not define ‘‘rigid line[s] of 

acceptability,’’ but rather considers 

broad objectives to be weighed with a 

series of other health measures and 

factors (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. ES–11). 

The determination of what represents an 

‘‘acceptable’’ risk is based on a judgment 

of ‘‘what risks are acceptable in the 

world in which we live’’ (Residual Risk 

Report to Congress, p. 178, quoting the 

DC Circuit’s en banc Vinyl Chloride 

decision at 824 F.2d 1165) recognizing 

that our world is not risk-free. 

In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated 

that ‘‘EPA will generally presume that if 

the risk to [the maximum exposed] 

individual is no higher than 

approximately 1-in-10 thousand, that 

risk level is considered acceptable.’’ 54 

FR 38045. We discussed the maximum 

individual lifetime cancer risk as being 

‘‘the estimated risk that a person living 

near a plant would have if he or she 

were exposed to the maximum pollutant 

concentrations for 70 years.’’ Id. We 

explained that this measure of risk ‘‘is 

an estimate of the upper bound of risk 

based on conservative assumptions, 

such as continuous exposure for 24 

hours per day for 70 years.’’ Id. We 

acknowledge that maximum individual 

lifetime cancer risk ‘‘does not 

necessarily reflect the true risk, but 

displays a conservative risk level which 

is an upper-bound that is unlikely to be 

exceeded.’’ Id. 

Understanding that there are both 

benefits and limitations to using 

maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk as a metric for determining 

acceptability, we acknowledged in the 

1989 Benzene NESHAP that 

‘‘consideration of maximum individual 

risk * * * must take into account the 

strengths and weaknesses of this 

measure of risk.’’ Id. Consequently, the 

presumptive risk level of 100-in-1 

million (1-in-10 thousand) provides a 

benchmark for judging the acceptability 

of maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk, but does not constitute a rigid line 

for making that determination. 

The Agency also explained in the 

1989 Benzene NESHAP the following: 

‘‘In establishing a presumption for MIR 

[maximum individual cancer risk], 

rather than a rigid line for acceptability, 

the Agency intends to weigh it with a 

series of other health measures and 

factors. These include the overall 

incidence of cancer or other serious 

health effects within the exposed 

population, the numbers of persons 

exposed within each individual lifetime 

risk range and associated incidence 

within, typically, a 50-kilometer (km) 

exposure radius around facilities, the 

science policy assumptions and 

estimation uncertainties associated with 

the risk measures, weight of the 

scientific evidence for human health 

effects, other quantified or unquantified 

health effects, effects due to co-location 

of facilities, and co-emissions of 

pollutants.’’ Id. 

In some cases, these health measures 

and factors taken together may provide 

a more realistic description of the 

magnitude of risk in the exposed 

population than that provided by 

maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk alone. As explained in the Benzene 

NESHAP, ‘‘[e]ven though the risks 

judged ‘acceptable’ by EPA in the first 

step of the Vinyl Chloride inquiry are 

already low, the second step of the 

inquiry, determining an ‘ample margin 

of safety,’ again includes consideration 

of all of the health factors, and whether 

to reduce the risks even further.’’ In the 

ample margin of safety decision process, 

the Agency again considers all of the 

health risks and other health 

information considered in the first step. 

Beyond that information, additional 

factors relating to the appropriate level 

of control will also be considered, 

including costs and economic impacts 

of controls, technological feasibility, 

uncertainties, and any other relevant 

factors. Considering all of these factors, 

the Agency will establish the standard 

at a level that provides an ample margin 

of safety to protect the public health, as 

required by CAA section 112(f) (54 FR 

38046). 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

The regulated industrial source 

category that is the subject of this 

proposal is listed in Table 2 of this 

preamble. Table 2 of this preamble is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide for readers regarding 

the entities likely to be affected by this 

proposed action. These standards, once 

finalized, will be directly applicable to 

affected sources. Federal, State, local, 

and Tribal government entities are not 

affected by this proposed action. As 

defined in the source category listing 

report published by EPA in 1992, the 

Secondary Lead Smelting source 

category is defined as any facility at 

which lead-bearing scrap materials 

(including, but not limited to lead acid 

batteries) are recycled by smelting into 

elemental lead or lead alloys.2 For 

clarification purposes, all references to 

lead emissions in this preamble mean 

‘‘lead compounds’’ (which is a listed 

HAP) and all references to lead 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29036 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

production mean elemental lead (which 

is not a listed HAP as provided under 

CAA section 112(b)(7)). 

is not a listed HAP as provided under 

CAA section 112(b)(7)). 

TABLE 2—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION

Source category NESHAP NAICS code 1 MACT code 2

Secondary Lead Smelting ........................................ Secondary Lead Smelting ........................................ 331492 0205 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

2 Maximum Achievable Control Technology. 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this 

proposal will also be available on the 

World Wide Web (WWW) through the 

EPA’s Technology Transfer Network 

(TTN). Following signature by the EPA 

Administrator, a copy of this proposed 

action will be posted on the TTN’s 

policy and guidance page for newly 

proposed or promulgated rules at the 

following address: http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

Additional information is available on 

the residual risk and technology review 

(RTR) Web page at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This 

information includes source category 

descriptions and detailed emissions 

estimates and other data that were used 

as inputs to the risk assessments. 

D. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

Submitting CBI. Do not submit 

information containing CBI to EPA 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of 

the information that you claim to be 

CBI. For CBI information on a disk or 

CD–ROM that you mail to EPA, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD–ROMas 

CBI and then identify electronically 

within the disk or CD–ROMthe specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. If you 

submit a CD–ROMor disk that does not 

contain CBI, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROMclearly that it does not 

contain CBI. Information not marked as 

CBI will be included in the public 

docket and EPA’s electronic public 

docket without prior notice. Information 

marked as CBI will not be disclosed 

except in accordance with procedures 

set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI 

only to the following address: Roberto 

Morales, OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (C404–02), Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, Attention Docket ID Number 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344. 

II. Background 

A. Overview of the Source Category and 

MACT Standards 

The NESHAP (or MACT rule) for the 

Secondary Lead Smelting source 

category was promulgated on June 13, 

1997 (62 FR 32216) and codified at 40 

CFR part 63, subpart X. As promulgated 

in 1997, the NESHAP applies to affected 

sources of HAP emissions at secondary 

lead smelters. The 1997 NESHAP (40 

CFR 63.542) defines ‘‘secondary lead 

smelters’’ as ‘‘any facility at which leadbearing scrap material, primarily, but 

not limited to, lead-acid batteries, is 

recycled into elemental lead or lead 

alloys by smelting.’’ The MACT rule for 

the Secondary Lead Smelting source 

category does not apply to primary lead 

smelters, lead remelters, or lead refiners. 

Today, there are 14 secondary lead 

smelting facilities that are subject to the 

MACT rule. No new secondary lead 

smelters have been built in the last 

20 years, and we anticipate no new 

secondary lead smelting facilities in the 

foreseeable future, although there is one 

facility currently in the process of 

expanding operations. 

Lead is used to make various 

construction, medical, industrial and 

consumer products such as batteries, 

glass, x-ray protection gear and various 

fillers. The secondary lead smelting 

process consists of: (1) Pre-processing of 

lead bearing materials, (2) melting lead 

metal and reducing lead compounds to 

lead metal in the smelting furnace, and 

(3) refining and alloying the lead to 

customer specifications. 

HAP are emitted from secondary lead 

smelting as process emissions, process 

fugitive emissions, and fugitive dust 

emissions. Process emissions are the 

exhaust gases from feed dryers and from 

blast, reverberatory, rotary, and electric 

furnaces. The HAP in process emissions 

are primarily composed of metals 

(mostly lead compounds, but also some 

arsenic, cadmium, and other metals) 

and also may include organic 

compounds that result from incomplete 

combustion of coke that is charged to 

the smelting furnaces as a fuel or fluxing 

agent or from fuel natural gas and/or 

small amounts of plastics or other 

materials that get fed into the furnaces 

along with the lead bearing materials. 

Process fugitive emissions occur at 

various points during the smelting 

process (such as during charging and 

tapping of furnaces) and are composed 

primarily of metal HAP. Fugitive dust 

emissions result from the entrainment of 

HAP in ambient air due to material 

handling, vehicle traffic, wind erosion 

from storage piles, and other various 

activities. Fugitive dust emissions are 

composed of metal HAP only. 

The MACT rule applies to process 

emissions from blast, reverberatory, 

rotary, and electric smelting furnaces, 

agglomerating furnaces, and dryers; 

process fugitive emissions from 

smelting furnace charging points, 

smelting furnace lead and slag taps, 

refining kettles, agglomerating furnace 

product taps, and dryer transition 

pieces; and fugitive dust emissions 

sources such as roadways, battery 

breaking areas, furnace charging and 

tapping areas, refining and casting areas, 

and material storage areas. For process 

sources, the NESHAP specifies 

numerical emissions limits for lead 

compounds (as a surrogate for metal 

HAP) for the following types of smelting 

furnaces: (1) Collocated reverberatory 

and blast furnaces (reverberatory/blast), 

(2) blast furnaces, and (3) reverberatory 

furnaces not collocated with blast 

furnaces, rotary furnaces, and electric 

furnaces. Lead compound emissions 

from all smelting furnace configurations 

are limited to an outlet concentration of 

2.0 milligrams per dry standard cubic 

meter (mg/dscm) (0.00087 grains per dry 

standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)), 40 CFR 

63.543(a). Total hydrocarbon (THC) 

emissions (as a surrogate for organic 

HAP) from existing and new collocated 

reverberatory/blast furnace 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29037 

3U.S. EPA, 2009. Risk and Technology Review 

(RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review 

by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case 

Studies—MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and 

Portland Cement Manufacturing. EPA–452/R–09– 

006. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. 

4U.S. EPA, 2010. SAB’s Response to EPA’s RTR 

Risk Assessment Methodologies. http:// 

yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 

4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf. 

configurations are limited to an outlet 

concentration of 20 parts per million 

volume (ppmv) (expressed as propane) 

corrected to 4 percent carbon dioxide 

(CO2) to account for dilution. THC 

emissions are limited to 360 ppmv (as 

propane) at 4 percent CO2 from existing 

blast furnaces and 70 ppmv (as propane) 

at 4 percent CO2 from new blast 

furnaces (40 CFR 63.543(c)). The 

NESHAP does not specify emissions 

limits for THC emissions from 

reverberatory furnaces not collocated 

with blast furnaces, rotary furnaces, and 

electric furnaces. 

The 1997 NESHAP requires that 

process fugitive emissions sources be 

equipped with an enclosure hood 

meeting minimum face velocity 

requirements or be located in a total 

enclosure subject to general ventilation 

that maintains the building at negative 

pressure (40 CFR 63.543(b)). Ventilation 

air from the enclosure hoods and total 

enclosures is required to be conveyed to 

a control device. Lead emissions from 

these control devices are limited to 2.0 

mg/dscm (0.00087 gr/dscf) (40 CFR 

63.544(c)). Lead emissions for all dryer 

emissions vents and agglomerating 

furnace vents are limited to 2.0 mg/ 

dscm (0.00087 gr/dscf) (40 CFR 

63.544(d)). The 1997 NESHAP also 

requires the use of bag leak detection 

systems (BLDS) for continuous 

monitoring of baghouses in cases where 

a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) 

filter was not used in series with a 

baghouse (40 CFR 63.548(c)(9)). 

For fugitive dust sources, as defined 

in 40 CFR 63.545, the 1997 NESHAP 

requires that the smelting process and 

all control devices be operated at all 

times according to a standard operating 

procedures (SOP) manual developed by 

the facility. The SOP manual is required 

to describe, in detail, the measures used 

to control fugitive dust emissions from 

plant roadways, battery breaking areas, 

furnace areas, refining and casting areas, 

and material storage and handling areas. 

B. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

In June 2010, EPA issued an 

information collection request (ICR), 

pursuant to CAA section 114, to six 

companies that own and operate the 14 

secondary lead smelting facilities. The 

ICR requested available information 

regarding process equipment, control 

devices, point and fugitive emissions, 

practices used to control fugitive 

emissions, and other aspects of facility 

operations. The six companies 

completed the surveys for their facilities 

and submitted the responses to us in the 

fall of 2010. In addition to the ICR 

survey, each facility was asked to 

submit reports for any emissions tests 

conducted in 2003 or later. We received 

lead emissions test data from all 14 

facilities with some facilities submitting 

data for multiple years. Additionally, 

EPA requested that eight facilities 

conduct additional emissions tests in 

2010 for certain HAP from specific 

processes that were considered 

representative of the industry. 

Pollutants tested included most HAP 

metals, dioxins and furans, and certain 

organic HAP. The results of these tests 

were submitted to EPA in the fall of 

2010 and are available in the docket for 

this action. 

III. Analyses Performed 

In this section we describe the 

analyses performed to support the 

proposed decisions for the RTR for this 

source category. 

A. Addressing Unregulated Emissions 

Sources 

In the course of evaluating the 

Secondary Lead Smelting source 

category, we identified certain HAP for 

which we failed to establish emission 

standards in the original MACT. See 

National Lime v. EPA, 233 F. 3d 625, 

634 (DC Cir. 2000) (EPA has ‘‘clear 

statutory obligation to set emissions 

standards for each listed HAP’’). 

Specifically, we evaluated emissions 

standards for three HAP (or groups of 

HAP), described below, that are not 

specifically regulated in the existing 

1997 MACT standard, or are only 

regulated for certain emissions points. 

As described below, for two of these 

groups of HAP (i.e., organic HAP and 

dioxins and furans) we are proposing 

emissions limits pursuant to 112(d)(2) 

and 112(d)(3). For the other HAP 

(mercury compounds), we are proposing 

standards based on work practices 

pursuant to 112(h). The results and 

proposed decisions based on the 

analyses performed pursuant to CAA 

section 112(d)(2), 112(d)(3), and 112(h) 

are presented in Section IV.A of this 

preamble. 

1. Organic HAP 

EPA did not establish standards for 

organic HAP emitted from reverberatory 

furnaces not collocated with blast 

furnaces, rotary furnaces, and electric 

furnaces in the 1997 NESHAP. EPA is 

therefore proposing to set emissions 

limits for organic HAP emissions from 

these furnace configurations in today’s 

action based on emissions data received 

in response to the ICR. 

2. Mercury 

The 1997 NESHAP specified 

emissions limits for metal HAP (e.g., 

arsenic, cadmium, lead) in terms of a 

lead emissions limit (i.e., lead is used as 

a surrogate for metal HAP). There is no 

explicit standard for mercury and we 

are therefore proposing a standard 

pursuant to section 112 (as described 

further in section IV.A of this preamble). 

3. Dioxins and Furans 

Lastly, with regard to dioxin and 

furan emissions, because the 1997 

NESHAP did not include emissions 

limits, we are proposing emissions 

standards for dioxins and furans 

pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(3). We 

are also proposing work practices for 

dioxins and furans. 

B. How did we estimate risks posed by 

the source category? 

EPA conducted a risk assessment that 

provided estimates of the maximum 

individual cancer risk (MIR) posed by 

the HAP emissions from the 14 sources 

in the source category, the distribution 

of cancer risks within the exposed 

populations, total cancer incidence, 

estimates of the maximum target organspecific hazard index (TOSHI) for 

chronic exposures to HAP with the 

potential to cause chronic non-cancer 

health effects, worst-case screening 

estimates of hazard quotients (HQ) for 

acute exposures to HAP with the 

potential to cause non-cancer health 

effects, and an evaluation of the 

potential for adverse environmental 

effects. In June of 2009, the EPA’s 

Science Advisory Board (SAB) 

conducted a formal peer review of our 

risk assessment methodologies in its 

review of the document entitled, ‘‘Risk 

and Technology Review (RTR) 

Assessment Methodologies’’.3 We 

received the final SAB report on this 

review in May of 2010.4 Where 

appropriate, we have responded to the 

key messages from this review in 

developing the current risk assessment; 

we will be continuing our efforts to 

improve our assessments by 

incorporating updates based on the SAB 

recommendations as they are developed 

and become available. The risk 

assessment consisted of seven primary 

steps, as discussed below. 

The docket for this rulemaking 

contains the following document, which 

provides more information on the risk 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29038 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

assessment inputs and models: Draft 

Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Secondary Lead Smelting Source 

Category. 

1. Establishing the Nature and 

Magnitude of Actual Emissions and 

Identifying the Emissions Release 

Characteristics 

For each facility in the Secondary 

Lead Smelting source category, we 

compiled an emissions profile 

(including emissions estimates, stack 

parameters, and location data) based on 

the information provided by the 

industry in the ICR, the emissions test 

data, various calculations, and the NEI. 

The site-specific emissions profiles 

include annual estimates of process, 

process fugitive, and fugitive dust 

emissions for the 2008–2010 timeframe, 

as well as emissions release 

characteristics such as emissions release 

height, temperature, velocity, and 

location coordinates. 

The primary risk assessment is based 

on estimates of the actual emissions 

(though we also analyzed allowable 

emissions and the potential risks due to 

allowable emissions). We received a 

substantial amount of emissions test 

data and other information that enabled 

us to derive estimates of stack emissions 

of certain HAP for all of the facilities. 

However, we did not have test data for 

all pollutants at all emissions points. 

Therefore, we estimated emissions of 

some pollutants from certain emissions 

points (for which we had no emissions 

data) using test data from similar source 

types with similar controls. 

With regard to fugitive emissions, 

because they cannot be readily captured 

or directly measured, fugitive emissions 

are a more challenging emissions type to 

estimate. In 2010, as part of an 

information collection request (ICR), 

EPA asked the Secondary Lead industry 

to provide their best estimate of the 

emissions from fugitive sources (e.g., 

building openings, raw material storage 

piles, roadways, parking areas) at their 

facilities and to provide a description of 

the basis for the estimates (e.g., test data, 

emissions factors, mass balance 

calculations, engineering judgment). For 

our analysis of fugitive emissions for the 

source category, we first reviewed and 

evaluated the estimates of fugitive lead 

emissions that were submitted by each 

of the facilities in response to the 2010 

ICR to determine the reliability and 

appropriateness of those estimates as an 

input to our risk analyses and other 

assessments. We concluded that there 

were significant gaps and incomplete 

documentation for a number of 

facilities, a large amount of variability in 

estimates between the facilities, and 

various significant uncertainties. For 

example, five facilities did not provide 

any estimates of fugitive emissions, 

while a few other facilities provided 

emissions estimates that were quite 

incomplete. Thus, we developed 

estimates of fugitive emissions for all 

facilities in the source category based on 

a methodology described in the 

emissions development technical 

document (Draft Development of the 

RTR Emissions Dataset for the 

Secondary Lead Smelting Source 

Category) for this rulemaking, which is 

available in the docket. In this 

methodology, we began with estimates 

provided by one facility in the ICR 

which were well-documented and 

covered all the various fugitive 

emissions sources expected at these 

facilities. Using the ICR responses, other 

available information on fugitive 

emissions (including scientific 

literature), and various assumptions and 

calculations, we scaled these estimates 

to derive site-specific fugitive emissions 

estimates at each of the other 13 

facilities. The estimates calculated using 

this methodology were used as inputs to 

the risk assessment modeling. 

The results of the risk assessment 

modeling (which are described further 

in section IV below) indicated that the 

fugitive dust emissions were the largest 

contributor to the risks due to lead 

emissions. The impacts of fugitive 

emissions were generally considerably 

greater than the impacts due to stack 

emissions. Because of these impacts, 

and because of the difficulties and 

uncertainties associated with estimating 

fugitive emissions, we decided to do 

further analyses and review of the 

fugitive emissions estimates as a quality 

assurance check on the initial fugitive 

emissions estimates. Therefore, we 

consulted further with industry 

representatives, gathered additional 

information from the EPA’s Toxics 

Release Inventory, evaluated the ICR 

responses further, and performed 

various other analyses, which led to the 

development of an alternative set of 

fugitive emissions estimates based on a 

slightly different methodology. The total 

fugitive estimates of lead for the 

industry calculated based on the 

alternative approach are within 

10 percent of our initial estimates. We 

did not rerun the model with the 

alternative estimates because we know 

that the overall results would be quite 

similar and would not change our 

overall conclusions and decisions 

(described later in this notice). Further 

details on all the emissions data, 

calculations, estimates, and 

uncertainties, are in the emissions 

technical document (Draft Development 

of the RTR Emissions Dataset for the 

Secondary Lead Smelting Source 

Category) which is available in the 

docket for this action. We are seeking 

comments on our emissions data and 

estimates, and the fugitive emissions 

estimation methodologies and any other 

potential appropriate methods or data 

that could be used to estimate fugitive 

emissions from these facilities. 

2. Establishing the Relationship 

Between Actual Emissions and MACT– 

Allowable Emissions Levels 

The emissions data in our data set are 

estimates of actual emissions on an 

annual basis for stacks and fugitives for 

the 2008–2010 timeframe. With most 

source categories, we generally find that 

‘‘actual’’ emissions levels are lower than 

the emissions levels that a facility is 

allowed to emit under the MACT 

standards. The emissions levels allowed 

to be emitted by the MACT standards 

are referred to as the ‘‘MACT-allowable’’ 

emissions levels. This represents the 

highest emissions level that could be 

emitted by facilities without violating 

the MACT standards. 

As we have discussed in prior 

residual risk and technology review 

rules, assessing the risks at the MACTallowable level is inherently reasonable 

since these risks reflect the maximum 

level at which sources could emit while 

still complying with the MACT 

standards. However, we also explained 

that it is reasonable to consider actual 

emissions, where such data are 

available, in both steps of the risk 

analysis, in accordance with the 

Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, 

September 14, 1989). It is reasonable to 

consider actual emissions because 

sources typically seek to perform better 

than required by emissions standards to 

provide an operational cushion to 

accommodate the variability in 

manufacturing processes and control 

device performance. Facilities’ actual 

emissions may also be significantly 

lower than MACT-allowable emissions 

for other reasons such as State 

requirements, better performance of 

control devices than required by the 

MACT standards, or reduced 

production. 

For the Secondary Lead Smelting 

source category, we evaluated actual 

and allowable emissions for both stack 

emissions and fugitive dust emissions. 

As described earlier in this section, the 

actual emissions data for this source 

category were compiled based on the 

ICR responses, available test data, 

various calculations, and the NEI. We 

estimated actual emissions for all HAP 

that we identified in the dataset. The 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29039 

5U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air 

Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General 

Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion 

Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, 

November 9, 2005). 

6A census block is the smallest geographic area 

for which census statistics are tabulated. 

analysis of allowable emissions was 

largely focused on lead compound 

emissions, which we considered the 

most important HAP emitted from this 

source category based on our screening 

level risk assessment and the HAP for 

which we had the most data. However, 

we also considered allowable emissions 

for other HAP. 

With regard to fugitive emissions, 

because there are no numerical 

emissions limits, and because all 

facilities are required to implement 

identical fugitive emissions control 

work-practices, we assume that the 

allowable fugitive emissions from this 

source category are equal to the actual 

emissions. 

To estimate emissions at the MACTallowable level from stacks (e.g., 

process, process fugitive, and building 

vents), we estimated the emissions that 

would occur if facilities were 

continuously emitting lead at the 

maximum allowed by the existing 

MACT standard (i.e., 2.0 mg/dscm) from 

all vents. We then compared these 

estimated allowable emissions to the 

estimated emissions using the actual 

stack test data for each facility. We 

realize that these estimates of allowable 

emissions are theoretical high-end 

estimates as facilities must maintain 

average emissions levels at some level 

below the MACT limit to ensure 

compliance with the standard at all 

times because of the day-to-day 

variability in emissions. Nevertheless, 

these high-end estimates of allowable 

emissions were adequate for us to 

estimate the magnitude of allowable 

emissions and the differences between 

the estimates of actual emissions and 

the MACT allowable emissions. 

Based on this analysis, we conclude 

that all facilities are emitting lead at 

levels lower than allowable; however, 

the range of differences between actual 

and allowable is significant. For two 

facilities, the estimated actual emissions 

were only moderately lower than 

allowable (about 2–3 times lower). The 

majority of other facilities have 

estimated actual emissions in the range 

of 10 to 100 times lower than allowable. 

Finally, one facility, which has highly 

advanced controls, has estimated actual 

emissions of about 1,500 times below 

the MACT allowable emissions level. 

We then developed a ratio of MACTallowable to actual emissions for each 

facility in the source category. After 

developing these ratios, we applied 

them on a facility-by-facility basis to the 

maximum modeled ambient lead 

concentrations to estimate the 

maximum ambient concentrations that 

would occur if all stacks were emitting 

at maximum allowable levels. The ratios 

were applied to stack emissions while 

leaving fugitive dust emissions at actual 

levels since, as described above, actual 

fugitive dust emissions were assumed to 

be equal to allowable fugitive dust 

emissions. The estimates of MACTallowable emissions are described 

further in the technical document: Draft 

Development of the RTR Emissions 

Dataset for the Secondary Lead 

Smelting Source Category. The 

estimates of risks due to allowable 

emissions are summarized in Section 

IV.B of this preamble and described 

further in the draft risk report: Draft 

Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Secondary Lead Smelting Source 

Category. 

3. Conducting Dispersion Modeling, 

Determining Inhalation Exposures, and 

Estimating Individual and Population 

Inhalation Risks 

Both long-term and short-term 

inhalation exposure concentrations and 

health risks from the source category 

addressed in this proposal were 

estimated using the Human Exposure 

Model (Community and Sector HEM–3 

version 1.1.0). The HEM–3 performs 

three of the primary risk assessment 

activities listed above: (1) Conducting 

dispersion modeling to estimate the 

concentrations of HAP in ambient air, 

(2) estimating long-term and short-term 

inhalation exposures to individuals 

residing within 50 km of the modeled 

sources, and (3) estimating individual 

and population-level inhalation risks 

using the exposure estimates and 

quantitative dose-response information. 

The dispersion model used by HEM– 

3 is AERMOD, which is one of EPA’s 

preferred models for assessing pollutant 

concentrations from industrial 

facilities.5 To perform the dispersion 

modeling and to develop the 

preliminary risk estimates, HEM–3 

draws on three data libraries. The first 

is a library of meteorological data, 

which is used for dispersion 

calculations. This library includes 1 

year of hourly surface and upper air 

observations for 130 meteorological 

stations, selected to provide coverage of 

the United States and Puerto Rico. A 

second library, of United States Census 

Bureau census block 6 internal point 

locations and populations, provides the 

basis of human exposure calculations 

based on the year 2000 U.S. Census. In 

addition, for each census block, the 

census library includes the elevation 

and controlling hill height, which are 

also used in dispersion calculations. A 

third library of pollutant unit risk 

factors and other health benchmarks is 

used to estimate health risks. These risk 

factors and health benchmarks are the 

latest values recommended by EPA for 

HAP and other toxic air pollutants. 

These values are available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/ 

summary.html and are discussed in 

more detail later in this section. 

In developing the risk assessment for 

chronic exposures, we used the 

estimated annual average ambient air 

concentrations of each of the HAP 

emitted by each source for which we 

have emissions data in the source 

category. The air concentrations at each 

nearby census block centroid were used 

as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation 

exposure concentration for all the 

people who reside in that census block. 

We calculated the MIR for the facilities 

as the cancer risk associated with a 

lifetime (70-year period) of exposure to 

the maximum concentration at the 

centroid of inhabited census blocks. 

Individual cancer risks were calculated 

by multiplying the estimated lifetime 

exposure to the ambient concentration 

of each of the HAP (in micrograms per 

cubic meter) by its unit risk estimate 

(URE), which is an upper bound 

estimate of an individual’s probability 

of contracting cancer over a lifetime of 

exposure to a concentration of 1 

microgram of the pollutant per cubic 

meter of air. In general, for residual risk 

assessments, we use URE values from 

EPA’s Integrated Risk Information 

System (IRIS). For carcinogenic 

pollutants without EPA IRIS values, we 

look to other reputable sources of cancer 

dose-response values, often using 

California Environmental Protection 

Agency (CalEPA) URE values, where 

available. In cases where new, 

scientifically credible dose response 

values have been developed in a manner 

consistent with EPA guidelines and 

have undergone a peer review process 

similar to that used by EPA, we may use 

such dose-response values in place of, 

or in addition to, other values, if 

appropriate. For this review, URE values 

and their sources (e.g., IRIS, CalEPA) 

can be found in Table 2.6–1(a) in the 

risk assessment document entitled, 

Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Secondary Lead Smelting Source 

Category, which is available in the 

docket for this proposed rulemaking. 

Incremental individual lifetime 

cancer risks associated with emissions 

from the 14 facilities in the source 

category were estimated as the sum of 

the risks for each of the carcinogenic 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29040 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

7These classifications also coincide with the 

terms ‘‘known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and 

possible carcinogen,’’ respectively, which are the 

terms advocated in the EPA’s previous Guidelines 

for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 

(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). Summing the 

risks of these individual compounds to obtain the 

cumulative cancer risks is an approach that was 

recommended by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board 

(SAB) in their 2002 peer review of EPA’s NATA 

entitled, NATA—Evaluating the National-scale Air 

Toxics Assessment 1996 Data—an SAB Advisory, 

available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/ 

sabproduct.nsf/ 

214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ 

ecadv02001.pdf. 

8See http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/compliance/ 

field_ops/eer/index.html or docket to access the 

source of these data. 

HAP (including those classified as 

carcinogenic to humans, likely to be 

carcinogenic to humans, and suggestive 

evidence of carcinogenic potential 7) 

emitted by the modeled source. Cancer 

incidence and the distribution of 

individual cancer risks for the 

population within 50 km of the sources 

were also estimated for the source 

category as part of these assessments by 

summing individual risks. A distance of 

50 km is consistent with both the 

analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene 

NESHAP (54 FR 38044) and the 

limitations of Gaussian dispersion 

models, including AERMOD. 

To assess the risk of non-cancer 

health effects from chronic exposures, 

we summed the HQ for each of the HAP 

that affects a common target organ 

system to obtain the HI for that target 

organ system (or target organ-specific 

HI, TOSHI). The HQ is the estimated 

exposure divided by the chronic 

reference value, which is either the EPA 

RfC, defined as ‘‘an estimate (with 

uncertainty spanning perhaps an order 

of magnitude) of a continuous 

inhalation exposure to the human 

population (including sensitive 

subgroups) that is likely to be without 

an appreciable risk of deleterious effects 

during a lifetime,’’ or, in cases where an 

RfC is not available, the Agency for 

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

(ATSDR) chronic Minimal Risk Level 

(MRL) or the CalEPA Chronic Reference 

Exposure Level (REL). Notably, the REL 

is defined as ‘‘the concentration level at 

or below which no adverse health 

effects are anticipated for a specified 

exposure duration.’’ 

Worst-case screening estimates of 

acute exposures and risks were also 

evaluated for each of the HAP at the 

point of highest off-site exposure for 

each facility (i.e., not just the census 

block centroids) assuming that a person 

was located at this spot at a time when 

both the peak (hourly) emissions rate 

and worst-case hourly dispersion 

conditions occurred. In general, acute 

HQ values were calculated using best 

available, short-term dose-response 

values. These acute dose-response 

values include REL, Acute Exposure 

Guideline Levels (AEGL), and 

Emergency Response Planning 

Guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure 

durations. Notably, for HAP emitted 

from this source category, REL values 

were the only such dose-response 

values available. As discussed below, 

we used conservative assumptions for 

emissions rates, meteorology, and 

exposure location for our acute analysis. 

As described in the CalEPA’s Air 

Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk 

Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The 

Determination of Acute Reference 

Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, 

an acute REL value (http:// 

www.oehha.ca.gov/air/pdf/acuterel.pdf) 

is defined as ‘‘the concentration level at 

or below which no adverse health 

effects are anticipated for a specified 

exposure duration.’’ REL values are 

based on the most sensitive, relevant, 

adverse health effect reported in the 

medical and toxicological literature. 

REL values are designed to protect the 

most sensitive individuals in the 

population by the inclusion of margins 

of safety. Since margins of safety are 

incorporated to address data gaps and 

uncertainties, exceeding the REL does 

not automatically indicate an adverse 

health impact. 

To develop screening estimates of 

acute exposures, we first developed 

estimates of maximum hourly emissions 

rates by multiplying the average actual 

annual hourly emissions rates by a 

factor to cover routinely variable 

emissions. We chose the factor to use 

based on process knowledge and 

engineering judgment and with 

awareness of a Texas study of short-term 

emissions variability, which showed 

that most peak emissions events, in a 

heavily-industrialized 4-county area 

(Harris, Galveston, Chambers, and 

Brazoria Counties, Texas) were less than 

twice the annual average hourly 

emissions rate. The highest peak 

emissions event was 74 times the 

annual average hourly emissions rate, 

and the 99th percentile ratio of peak 

hourly emissions rate to the annual 

average hourly emissions rate was 9.8

This analysis is provided in Appendix 

4 of the Draft Residual Risk Assessment 

for Secondary Lead Smelting that is 

available in the docket for this action. 

Considering this analysis, unless 

specific process knowledge or data are 

available to provide an alternate value, 

to account for more than 99 percent of 

the peak hourly emissions, we generally 

apply the assumption to most source 

categories that the maximum one-hour 

emissions rate from any source other 

than those resulting in fugitive dust 

emissions are 10 times the average 

annual hourly emissions rate for that 

source. We use a factor other than 10 in 

some cases if we have information that 

indicates that a different factor is 

appropriate for a particular source 

category. Moreover, the factor of 10 is 

not applied to fugitive dust sources 

because these emissions are minimized 

during the meteorological conditions 

associated with the worst-case shortterm impacts (i.e., during low-wind, 

stable atmospheric conditions) in these 

acute exposure screening assessments. 

In cases where all worst-case acute 

HQ values from the screening step were 

less than or equal to 1, acute impacts 

were deemed negligible and no further 

analysis was performed. In the cases 

where any worst-case acute HQ from the 

screening step was greater than 1, 

additional site-specific data were 

considered to develop a more refined 

estimate of the potential for acute 

impacts of concern. Ideally, we would 

prefer to have continuous measurements 

over time to see how the emissions vary 

by each hour over an entire year. Having 

a frequency distribution of hourly 

emissions rates over a year would allow 

us to perform a probabilistic analysis to 

estimate potential threshold 

exceedances and their frequency of 

occurrence. Such an evaluation could 

include a more complete statistical 

treatment of the key parameters and 

elements adopted in this screening 

analysis. However, we recognize that 

having this level of data is rare, hence 

our use of the multiplier (i.e., factor of 

10) approach in our screening analysis. 

In the case of this source category, we 

had no further information on peak-tomean emissions which could be used to 

refine the estimates. The only 

refinement that was made to the acute 

screening assessments was to ensure 

that the estimated worst-case HQ was 

not calculated at a location within the 

facility boundaries. 

4. Conducting Multipathway Exposure 

and Risk Modeling 

EPA evaluated the potential for 

significant human health risks due to 

exposures via routes other than 

inhalation (i.e., multipathway 

exposures) and the potential for adverse 

environmental impacts in a three-step 

process. In the first step, we determined 

whether any facilities emitted any HAP 

known to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment 

(PB–HAP). There are 14 PB–HAP 

compounds or compound classes 

identified for this screening in EPA’s Air 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29041 

9Most of the emissions test results for mercury 

emissions for this industry were below detection 

limit. The emissions estimates used in the risk 

assessment are based on the assumption that all the 

non-detect test values were at the level of the 

detection limit. Therefore, these estimated 

emissions for mercury are clear overestimates. We 

conclude that the true amounts of emissions of 

mercury from this source category are much lower 

than shown in this assessment, but we are not able 

to quantify precisely how much lower. 

10 In both scenarios, exposure via drinking water 

was not considered because it is unlikely that 

humans would use surface waters as a drinking 

water source. Groundwater, which is a likely source 

of drinking water, also was not included in the 

exposure scenarios because contamination of 

groundwater aquifers by air deposition sources was 

not expected to be significant. For dioxin, exposure 

via breast milk was considered in the farming 

scenario as well as the recreational fishing scenario, 

but not for the three recreational fishing 

subpopulations (Hispanic, Laotian, and Vietnamese 

descent) since subpopulation ingestion rates were 

only applicable to adult males. The breast milk 

pathway was not considered with respect to 

mercury exposure due to a current lack of data 

regarding this pathway. 

Toxics Risk Assessment Library 

(available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

fera/risk_atra_vol1.html). 

Emissions of five PB–HAP were 

identified in the emissions dataset for 

the Secondary Lead Smelting source 

category, as follows: Lead compounds, 

cadmium compounds, POM, dioxin and 

furans, and mercury.9 The dataset is 

described in the emissions technical 

document (Draft Development of the 

RTR Emissions Dataset for the 

Secondary Lead Smelting Source 

Category) which is available in the 

docket for this action. As described in 

that document, lead emissions estimates 

are based on multiple emission stack 

tests conducted over multiple years, 

cadmium and dioxin and furans are 

based on emissions tests conducted in 

2010. Mercury emissions estimates are 

based on test results in 2010 which 

included a large number of non-detects 

and conservative assumptions about 

non-detects, and the estimates for POM 

are based on reported estimates from the 

NEI or estimates provided by the 

companies in the ICR responses in 2010. 

Emissions of cadmium compounds, 

POM, dioxin and furans and mercury 

were evaluated for potential noninhalation risks and adverse 

environmental impacts using our 

recently developed screening scenario 

that was developed for use with the 

Total Risk Integrated Methodology 

(TRIM.FaTE) model. This screening 

scenario uses environmental media 

outputs from the peer-reviewed 

TRIM.FaTE to estimate the maximum 

potential ingestion risks for any 

specified emissions scenario by using a 

generic farming/fishing exposure 

scenario that simulates a subsistence 

environment. The screening scenario 

retains many of the ingestion and 

scenario inputs developed for EPA’s 

Human Health Risk Assessment 

Protocols (HHRAP) for hazardous waste 

combustion facilities. In the 

development of the screening scenario, 

a sensitivity analysis was conducted to 

ensure that its key design parameters 

were established such that 

environmental media concentrations 

were not underestimated, and to also 

minimize the occurrence of false 

positives for human health endpoints. 

See Appendix 3 of the risk assessment 

document for a complete discussion of 

the development and testing of the 

screening scenario, as well as for the 

values of facility-level de minimis 

emissions rates developed for screening 

potentially significant multipathway 

impacts. For the purpose of developing 

de minimis emissions rates for our 

multipathway screening, we derived 

emissions levels at which the maximum 

human health risk could be 1-in-1 

million for lifetime cancer risk, or 

exposures could potentially be above 

the reference dose for non-cancer 

effects, based on a conservative model 

plant analysis described in Appendix 3 

of the risk assessment document. 

For the secondary lead smelting 

source category, there were exceedances 

of de minimis emissions rates at 

multiple facilities for multiple PB–HAP, 

and thus a multipathway analysis was 

performed. Two facilities were chosen 

as case study analyses to assess 

potential multipathway risks for 

mercury, cadmium, POM, and dioxins 

and furans. The selection criteria for 

modeling these two facilities included 

emissions rates of PB–HAPs, proximity 

to water bodies, proximity to farmland, 

average rainfall, average wind speed and 

direction, smelting furnace type, local 

change in elevation, and geographic 

representativeness of sites throughout 

the U.S. As a result of our selection 

process, we believe the multipathway 

risks associated with these two facilities 

are in the upper end of the potential for 

multipathway risks from the source 

category. Since the modeling used in 

these case study assessments utilize site 

specific parameters to describe naturally 

occurring physical, chemical and 

biological processes, we believe that the 

multimedia concentrations of PB–HAPs 

generated in this analysis are unbiased 

estimates of the true impacts. 

In general, results of this assessment 

were designed to characterize 

multipathway risks associated with high 

end consumption of PB–HAP 

predominantly from contaminated food 

sources. Thus, multipathway exposure 

and risk estimates were calculated for 

two basic scenarios, both of which are 

expected to give rise to high-end 

exposures and risks. The farmer 

scenario involves an individual living 

on a farm homestead in the vicinity of 

a PB–HAP source who consumes 

contaminated produce grown on the 

farm, as well as contaminated meat and 

animal products raised on the farm. The 

farming scenario also accounts for 

incidental ingestion of contaminated 

surface soil at the location of the farm 

homestead. The recreational fisher 

scenario involves an individual who 

regularly consumes fish caught in 

freshwater lakes in the vicinity of a PB– 

HAP source. In the fishing scenario, in 

addition to the characterization of 

exposure and risks across the broad 

population of recreational anglers, 

exposures were also calculated for three 

subpopulations of recreational anglers 

(Hispanic, Laotian, and Vietnamese 

descent) who have higher rates of fish 

consumption.10 Furthermore, in order to 

more fully characterize the modeled 

potential multipathway risks that may 

be associated with high-end 

consumption of PB–HAP contaminated 

food, we present results based on two 

ingestion exposure scenarios: (1) A 

reasonable maximum exposure (RME) 

scenario that, for example, utilizes 90th 

percentile ingestion rates for farmers, 

recreational anglers, and the three 

subpopulations of recreational anglers 

(e.g., ingestion rates specific to Laotian 

recreational anglers); and (2) a central 

tendency exposure (CTE) scenario that, 

for example, utilizes mean ingestion 

rates for the groups just described. We 

provide results from both scenarios to 

illustrate the range of potential modeled 

exposures and risks that may exist in 

the high-end of the complete 

distribution of potential multipathway 

risks for this source category. 

In evaluating the potential air-related 

multipathway risks from the emissions 

of lead compounds, rather than 

developing a de minimis emissions rate, 

we compared its maximum modeled 

3-month average atmospheric lead 

concentration at any off-site location 

with the current primary National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

for lead (promulgated in 2008), which is 

set at a level of 0.15 micrograms per 

cubic meter (μg/m3) based on rolling 

3-month periods with a not-to-beexceeded level for any 3-month rolling 

average, and which will require 

attainment by 2016 (73 FR 66964). 

Notably, in making these comparisons, 

we estimated maximum rolling 3-month 

ambient lead concentrations taking into 

account all of the elements of the 

NAAQS for lead. That is, our estimated 

3-month lead concentrations are 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29042 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

11Risk and Technology Review—Analysis of 

Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living 

Near Primary Lead Smelting Operations. 

calculated in a manner that is consistent 

with the indicator, averaging time, and 

form of the lead NAAQS, and those 

estimates are compared to the level of 

the lead NAAQS (0.15 μg/m3). 

The NAAQS value, a public health 

policy judgment, incorporated the 

Agency’s most recent health evaluation 

of air effects of lead exposure for the 

purposes of setting a national standard. 

In setting this value, the Administrator 

promulgated a standard that was 

requisite to protect public health with 

an adequate margin of safety. That 

standard applies everywhere, under all 

circumstances, regardless of an 

individual’s location, exposure patterns, 

or health circumstances. We consider 

values below the level of the primary 

NAAQS to protect against multipathway 

risks because, as mentioned above, the 

primary NAAQS is set so as to protect 

public health with an adequate margin 

of safety. However, ambient air lead 

concentrations above the NAAQS are 

considered to pose the potential for 

increased risk to public health. We 

consider this assessment—comparing 

modeled concentrations to the level of 

the NAAQS—to be a refined analysis 

given: (1) The numerous health studies, 

detailed risk and exposure analyses, and 

level of external peer and public review 

that went into the development of the 

primary NAAQS for lead, combined 

with: (2) the site-specific dispersion 

modeling performed in the risk 

assessment to develop ambient 

concentration estimates from the 14 

secondary lead smelter facilities 

addressed in this proposed rule. It 

should be noted, however, that this 

comparison to the NAAQS for lead does 

not account for possible population 

exposures to lead from sources other 

than the one being modeled; for 

example, via consumption of water from 

contaminated local sources or ingestion 

of contaminated locally grown food. 

Nevertheless, the Administrator judged 

that the primary NAAQS would protect, 

with an adequate margin of safety, the 

health of children and other at-risk 

populations against an array of adverse 

health effects, most notably including 

neurological effects, particularly 

neurobehavioral and neurocognitive 

effects, in children (73 FR 67007). The 

Administrator, in setting the standard, 

also recognized that no evidence of a 

risk-based bright line indicated a single 

appropriate level. Instead, a collection 

of scientific evidence and other 

information was used to select the 

standard from a range of reasonable 

values (73 FR 67006). 

We further note that comparing 

ambient lead concentrations to the 

NAAQS for lead, considering the level, 

averaging time, form and indicator of 

the lead NAAQS, also informs whether 

there is the potential for adverse 

environmental effects. This is because 

the secondary lead NAAQS, which has 

the same averaging time, form, and level 

as the primary standard, was set to 

protect the public welfare which 

includes among other things soils, 

water, crops, vegetation and wildlife 

(CAA section 302(h)). Thus, ambient 

lead concentrations above the NAAQS 

for lead also indicate the potential for 

adverse environmental effects (73 FR 

67007 to 67012). For additional 

information on the multipathway 

analysis approach, see the residual risk 

documentation as referenced in Section 

III.A of this preamble. EPA solicits 

comment generally on the modeling 

approach used herein to assess airrelated lead risks, and specifically on 

the use of the lead NAAQS in this 

analytical construct. 

5. Assessing Risks Considering 

Emissions Control Options 

In addition to assessing baseline 

inhalation risks and screening for 

potential multipathway risks, we also 

estimated risks considering the potential 

emissions reductions that would be 

achieved by the main control options 

under consideration. The expected 

emissions reductions were applied to 

the specific HAP and emissions points 

in the source category dataset to develop 

corresponding estimates of risk 

reductions. More information regarding 

the risks after control can be found in 

the risk assessment document: Draft 

Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Secondary Lead Smelting Source 

Category, which is available in the 

docket for this action. 

6. Conducting Other Risk-Related 

Analyses, Including Facility-Wide 

Assessments and Demographic Analyses 

a. Facility-Wide Risk 

To put the source category risks in 

context, for our residual risk review, we 

also examine the risks from the entire 

‘‘facility,’’ where the facility includes all 

HAP-emitting operations within a 

contiguous area and under common 

control. In other words, we examine the 

HAP emissions not only from the source 

category of interest, but also emissions 

of HAP from all other emissions sources 

at the facility. In this rulemaking, for the 

Secondary Lead Smelting source 

category, there are no other significant 

HAP emissions sources present. Thus, 

there was no need to perform a separate 

facility wide risk assessment. 

b. Demographic Analysis 

To identify specific groups that may 

be affected by this rulemaking, EPA 

conducted demographic analyses. These 

analyses provide information about the 

percentages of different social, 

demographic, and economic groups 

within the populations subjected to 

potential HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the facilities in this 

source category. 

For the demographic analyses, we 

focus on the populations within 50 km 

of any facility with emissions sources 

subject to the MACT standard (identical 

to the risk assessment). Based on the 

emissions for the source category or the 

facility, we then identified the 

populations that are estimated to have 

exposures to HAP which result in: (1) 

Cancer risks of 1-in-1 million or greater; 

(2) non-cancer HI of 1 or greater; and/ 

or (3) ambient lead concentrations above 

the level of the NAAQS for lead. We 

compare the percentages of particular 

demographic groups within the focused 

populations to the total percentages of 

those demographic groups nationwide. 

The results, including other risk 

metrics, such as average risks for the 

exposed populations, are documented 

in a technical report in the docket for 

the source category covered in this 

proposal.11

The basis for the risk estimates used 

in the demographic analyses for this 

source category was the modeling 

results based on actual emissions levels 

obtained from the HEM–3 model 

described above. The risk estimates for 

each census block were linked to a 

database of information from the 2000 

decennial census that includes data on 

race and ethnicity, age distributions, 

poverty status, household incomes, and 

education level. The Census Department 

Landview® database was the source of 

the data on race and ethnicity, and the 

data on age distributions, poverty status, 

household incomes, and education level 

were obtained from the 2000 Census of 

Population and Housing Summary File 

3 (SF3) Long Form. While race and 

ethnicity census data are available at the 

census block level, the age and income 

census data are only available at the 

census block group level (which 

includes an average of 26 blocks or an 

average of 1,350 people). Where census 

data are available at the block group 

level but not the block level, we 

assumed that all census blocks within 

the block group have the same 

distribution of ages and incomes as the 

block group. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29043 

As noted above, we focused the 

analysis on those census blocks where 

source category risk results show: (1) 

Estimated lifetime inhalation cancer 

risks above 1-in-1 million; (2) chronic 

non-cancer indices above 1; and/or (3) 

census blocks where estimated ambient 

lead concentrations were above the level 

of the lead NAAQS. For each of these 

cases, we determined the relative 

percentage of different racial and ethnic 

groups, different age groups, adults with 

and without a high school diploma, 

people living in households below the 

national median income, and people 

living below the poverty line within 

those census blocks. 

The specific census population 

categories included: 

• Total population 

• White 

• African American (or Black) 

• Native Americans 

• Other races and multiracial 

• Hispanic or Latino 

• People living below the poverty line 

• Children 18 years of age and under 

• Adults 19 to 64 years of age 

• Adults 65 years of age and over 

• Adults without a high school 

diploma. 

It should be noted that these 

categories overlap in some instances, 

resulting in some populations being 

counted in more than one category (e.g., 

other races and multiracial and 

Hispanic). In addition, while not a 

specific census population category, we 

also examined risks to ‘‘Minorities,’’ a 

classification that is defined for these 

purposes as all race population 

categories except white. 

The methodology and the results of 

the demographic analyses for this 

source category are included in the 

technical report available in the docket 

for this action (Risk and Technology 

Review—Analysis of Socio-Economic 

Factors for Populations Living near 

Secondary Lead Smelting Operations). 

7. Considering Uncertainties in Risk 

Assessment 

Uncertainty and the potential for bias 

are inherent in all risk assessments, 

including those performed for the 

source category addressed in this 

proposal. Although uncertainty exists, 

we believe the approach that we took, 

which used conservative tools and 

assumptions to bridge data gaps, 

ensures that our decisions are healthprotective. A brief discussion of the 

uncertainties in the emissions dataset, 

dispersion modeling, inhalation 

exposure estimates, dose-response 

relationships, multipathway and 

environmental impacts analyses, and 

demographics analysis follows below. A 

more thorough discussion of these 

uncertainties is included in the risk 

assessment documentation (Draft 

Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Secondary Lead Smelting Category) 

available in the docket for this action. 

a. Uncertainties in the Emissions 

Dataset 

Although the development of the RTR 

dataset involved quality assurance/ 

quality control processes, the accuracy 

of emissions values will vary depending 

on the source of the data, the degree to 

which data are incomplete or missing, 

the degree to which assumptions made 

to complete the datasets are accurate, 

whether and to what extent errors were 

made in estimating emissions values, 

and other factors. The estimates of stack 

emissions are largely based on actual 

emissions test data, and, therefore, we 

have a relatively high degree of 

confidence in those estimates. With 

regard to fugitive emissions, those 

estimates are largely based on 

engineering calculations and 

application of various assumptions, and 

are therefore considered less certain 

relative to the stack emissions estimates. 

Nevertheless, we believe the fugitive 

estimates we derived for these facilities 

and used in our analyses are reasonable 

estimates of the actual fugitive 

emissions from these facilities partly 

due to the findings that the available 

ambient monitoring data (which are 

described in the document Draft 

Summary of the Ambient Lead 

Monitoring Data near Secondary Lead 

Smelting Facilities, available in the 

docket) indicate that measured levels of 

lead in ambient air near these facilities 

are generally similar in magnitude (e.g., 

generally within a factor of 2) to the 

modeled estimates (which are shown in 

the Draft Residual Risk Assessment for 

the Secondary Lead Smelting Source 

Category, which is available in the 

docket). 

The emissions estimates for stacks 

considered in this analysis are hourly 

emissions rates primarily extracted from 

test reports and extrapolated to an 

annual total based on the hours of 

operation of each facility and may not 

reflect short-term fluctuations during 

the course of a year or variations from 

year to year. The estimates of peak 

hourly emissions rates from stacks for 

the acute effects screening assessment 

were based on multiplication factors 

applied to the hourly emissions rates 

(the default factor of 10 was used for 

Secondary Lead Smelting for sources 

other than fugitive dust) which are 

intended to account for emissions 

fluctuations due to normal facility 

operations. 

There is an unquantified level of 

uncertainty regarding the emissions 

estimates for acute impacts of fugitive 

dusts. The current set of assumptions 

used in deriving the worst-case acute 

impact estimate for fugitive dusts 

assumes the average hourly emission 

level (annual emissions divided by 8760 

hours per year) to occur at the default 

worst-case meteorological conditions 

(low winds with a stable atmosphere). It 

is acknowledged that the combination of 

average emissions during low winds 

would be an overestimate of the fugitive 

dust emission rate during those low 

wind periods. Therefore, for fugitive 

dusts, the worst case meteorology may 

not be the same as for other process 

emissions, and the level of hourly 

fugitive dust emissions during this 

alternate worst-case condition is 

unknown. 

We further note that there is 

additional uncertainty with respect to 

emissions of mercury. As previously 

noted, most of the mercury emissions 

test results for this industry were below 

detection limit. The emissions estimates 

utilized in the risk assessment are based 

on the health-protective assumption that 

all the non-detect test values were at the 

level of the detection limit. Therefore, 

these estimated emissions for mercury 

are clear overestimates. We conclude 

that the true amounts of emissions of 

mercury from this source category are 

much lower than those provided in the 

technical documents supporting today’s 

proposed rule, but we are not able to 

quantify precisely how much lower. 

b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling 

Although the analysis employed 

EPA’s recommended regulatory 

dispersion model, AERMOD, we 

recognize that there is uncertainty in 

ambient concentration estimates 

associated with any model, including 

AERMOD. In circumstances where we 

had to choose between various model 

options, where possible, we selected 

model options (e.g., rural/urban, plume 

depletion, chemistry) that provided an 

overestimate of ambient concentrations 

of the HAP rather than an 

underestimate. However, because of 

practicality and data limitation reasons, 

some factors (e.g., building downwash) 

have the potential in some situations to 

overestimate or underestimate ambient 

impacts. Despite these uncertainties, we 

believe that at off-site locations and 

census block centroids, the approach 

considered in the dispersion modeling 

analysis should generally yield 

overestimates of ambient HAP 

concentrations. 

Furthermore, as noted previously, 

there is a level of uncertainty in the 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29044 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

12Short-term mobility is movement from one 

microenvironment to another over the course of 

hours or days. Long-term mobility is movement 

from one residence to another over the course of a 

lifetime. 

13U.S. EPA. National-Scale Air Toxics 

Assessment for 1996. (EPA 453/R–01–003; January 

2001; page 85.) 

14 IRIS glossary (http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/ 

help_gloss.htm). 

15An exception to this is the URE for benzene, 

which is considered to cover a range of values, each 

end of which is considered to be equally plausible, 

and which is based on maximum likelihood 

estimates. 

16According to the NRC report, Science and 

Judgment in Risk Assessment (NRC, 1994) ‘‘[Default] 

options are generic approaches, based on general 

scientific knowledge and policy judgment, that are 

applied to various elements of the risk assessment 

process when the correct scientific model is 

unknown or uncertain.’’ The 1983 NRC report, Risk 

Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing 

conditions leading to worst-case 

emissions for fugitive dusts. However, 

in the absence of better information 

regarding actual short-term impacts 

from fugitive dust sources, the 

combination of average hourly emission 

level and worst-case meteorology was 

assumed to be useful for deriving 

protective acute impact estimates. 

c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure 

The effects of human mobility on 

exposures were not included in the 

assessment. Specifically, short-term 

mobility and long-term mobility 

between census blocks in the modeling 

domain were not considered.12 As a 

result, this simplification will likely 

bias the assessment toward 

overestimating the highest exposures. In 

addition, the assessment predicted the 

chronic exposures at the centroid of 

each populated census block as 

surrogates for the exposure 

concentrations for all people living in 

that block. Using the census block 

centroid to predict chronic exposures 

tends to over-predict exposures for 

people in the census block who live 

farther from the facility and underpredict exposures for people in the 

census block who live closer to the 

facility. Thus, using the census block 

centroid to predict chronic exposures 

may lead to a potential understatement 

or overstatement of the true maximum 

impact for any one individual, but is an 

unbiased estimate of average risk and 

incidence. 

The assessments evaluate the 

projected cancer inhalation risks 

associated with pollutant exposures 

over a 70-year period, which is the 

assumed lifetime of an individual. In 

reality, both the length of time that 

modeled emissions sources at facilities 

actually operate (i.e., more or less than 

70 years), and the domestic growth or 

decline of the modeled industry (i.e., the 

increase or decrease in the number or 

size of United States facilities), will 

influence the future risks posed by a 

given source or source category. 

Depending on the characteristics of the 

industry, these factors will, in most 

cases, result in an overestimate both in 

individual risk levels and in the total 

estimated number of cancer cases. 

However, in rare cases, where a facility 

maintains or increases its emissions 

levels beyond 70 years, residents live 

beyond 70 years at the same location, 

and the residents spend most of their 

days at that location, then the risks 

could potentially be underestimated. 

Annual cancer incidence estimates from 

exposures to emissions from these 

sources would not be affected by 

uncertainty in the length of time 

emissions sources operate. 

The exposure estimates used in these 

analyses assume chronic exposures to 

ambient levels of pollutants. Because 

most people spend the majority of their 

time indoors, actual exposures may not 

be as high, depending on the 

characteristics of the pollutants 

modeled. For many of the HAP, indoor 

levels are roughly equivalent to ambient 

levels, but for very reactive pollutants or 

larger particles, these levels are 

typically lower. This factor has the 

potential to result in an overstatement of 

25 to 30 percent of exposures for some 

HAP.13

In addition to the uncertainties 

highlighted above, there are several 

factors specific to the acute exposure 

assessment that should be highlighted. 

The accuracy of an acute inhalation 

exposure assessment depends on the 

simultaneous occurrence of 

independent factors that may vary 

greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, 

meteorology, and human activity 

patterns. In this assessment, we assume 

that individuals remain for 1 hour at the 

point of maximum ambient 

concentration as determined by the cooccurrence of peak emissions and worstcase meteorological conditions. These 

assumptions would tend to be worstcase actual exposures since it is unlikely 

that a person would be located at the 

point of maximum exposure during the 

time of worst-case impact. 

d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response 

Relationships 

There are uncertainties inherent in 

the development of the dose-response 

values used in our risk assessments for 

cancer effects from chronic exposures 

and non-cancer effects from both 

chronic and acute exposures. Some 

uncertainties may be considered 

quantitatively, and others generally are 

expressed in qualitative terms. We note 

as a preface to this discussion a point on 

dose-response uncertainty that is 

brought out in EPA’s 2005 Cancer 

Guidelines; namely, that ‘‘the primary 

goal of EPA actions is protection of 

human health; accordingly, as an 

Agency policy, risk assessment 

procedures, including default options 

that are used in the absence of scientific 

data to the contrary, should be health 

protective’’ (EPA 2005 Cancer 

Guidelines, pages 1–7). This is the 

approach followed here as summarized 

in the next several paragraphs. A 

complete detailed discussion of 

uncertainties and variability in doseresponse relationships is given in the 

residual risk documentation which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

Cancer URE values used in our risk 

assessments are those that have been 

developed to generally provide an upper 

bound estimate of risk. That is, they 

represent a ‘‘plausible upper limit to the 

true value of a quantity’’ (although this 

is usually not a true statistical 

confidence limit).14 In some 

circumstances, the true risk could be as 

low as zero; however, in other 

circumstances the risk could be 

greater.15 When developing an upper 

bound estimate of risk and to provide 

risk values that do not underestimate 

risk, health-protective default 

approaches are generally used. To err on 

the side of ensuring adequate health 

protection, EPA typically uses the upper 

bound estimates rather than lower 

bound or central tendency estimates in 

our risk assessments, an approach that 

may have limitations for other uses (e.g., 

priority-setting or expected benefits 

analysis). 

Chronic non-cancer reference (RfC 

and RfD) values represent chronic 

exposure levels that are intended to be 

health-protective levels. Specifically, 

these values provide an estimate (with 

uncertainty spanning perhaps an order 

of magnitude) of a continuous 

inhalation exposure (RfC) or a daily oral 

exposure (RfD) to the human population 

(including sensitive subgroups) that is 

likely to be without an appreciable risk 

of deleterious effects during a lifetime. 

To derive values that are intended to be 

‘‘without appreciable risk,’’ the 

methodology relies upon an uncertainty 

factor (UF) approach (U.S. EPA, 1993, 

1994) which considers uncertainty, 

variability and gaps in the available 

data. The UF are applied to derive 

reference values that are intended to 

protect against appreciable risk of 

deleterious effects. The UF are 

commonly default values,16 e.g., factors 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29045 

the Process, defined default option as ‘‘the option 

chosen on the basis of risk assessment policy that 

appears to be the best choice in the absence of data 

to the contrary’’ (NRC, 1983a, p. 63). Therefore, 

default options are not rules that bind the Agency; 

rather, the Agency may depart from them in 

evaluating the risks posed by a specific substance 

when it believes this to be appropriate. In keeping 

with EPA’s goal of protecting public health and the 

environment, default assumptions are used to 

ensure that risk to chemicals is not underestimated 

(although defaults are not intended to overtly 

overestimate risk). See EPA, 2004, An Examination 

of EPA Risk Assessment Principles and Practices, 

EPA/100/B–04/001 available at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/ratf-final.pdf. 

of 10 or 3, used in the absence of 

compound-specific data; where data are 

available, UF may also be developed 

using compound-specific information. 

When data are limited, more 

assumptions are needed and more UF 

are used. Thus, there may be a greater 

tendency to overestimate risk in the 

sense that further study might support 

development of reference values that are 

higher (i.e., less potent) because fewer 

default assumptions are needed. 

However, for some pollutants, it is 

possible that risks may be 

underestimated. 

While collectively termed ‘‘UF,’’ these 

factors account for a number of different 

quantitative considerations when using 

observed animal (usually rodent) or 

human toxicity data in the development 

of the RfC. The UF are intended to 

account for: (1) Variation in 

susceptibility among the members of the 

human population (i.e., inter-individual 

variability); (2) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from experimental animal 

data to humans (i.e., interspecies 

differences); (3) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from data obtained in a 

study with less-than-lifetime exposure 

(i.e., extrapolating from sub-chronic to 

chronic exposure); (4) uncertainty in 

extrapolating the observed data to 

obtain an estimate of the exposure 

associated with no adverse effects; and 

(5) uncertainty when the database is 

incomplete or there are problems with 

the applicability of available studies. 

Many of the UF used to account for 

variability and uncertainty in the 

development of acute reference values 

are quite similar to those developed for 

chronic durations, but they more often 

use individual UF values that may be 

less than 10. UF are applied based on 

chemical-specific or health effectspecific information (e.g., simple 

irritation effects do not vary appreciably 

between human individuals, hence a 

value of 3 is typically used), or based on 

the purpose for the reference value (see 

the following paragraph). The UF 

applied in acute reference value 

derivation include: (1) Heterogeneity 

among humans; (2) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from animals to humans; 

(3) uncertainty in lowest observed 

adverse effect (exposure) level to no 

observed adverse effect (exposure) level 

adjustments; and (4) uncertainty in 

accounting for an incomplete database 

on toxic effects of potential concern. 

Additional adjustments are often 

applied to account for uncertainty in 

extrapolation from observations at one 

exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to 

derive an acute reference value at 

another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). 

As further discussed below, there is 

no RfD or other comparable chronic 

health benchmark value for lead 

compounds. Thus, to address 

multipathway human health and 

environmental risks associated with 

emissions of lead from this facility, 

ambient lead concentrations were 

compared to the NAAQS for lead. In 

developing the NAAQS for lead, EPA 

considered human health evidence 

reporting adverse health effects 

associated with lead exposure, as well 

as an EPA-conducted multipathway risk 

assessment that applied models to 

estimate human exposures to air-related 

lead and the associated risk (73 FR 

66979). EPA also explicitly considered 

the uncertainties associated with both 

the human health evidence and the 

exposure and risk analyses when 

developing the NAAQS for lead. For 

example, EPA considered uncertainties 

in the relationship between ambient air 

lead and blood lead levels (73 FR 

66974), as well as uncertainties between 

blood lead levels and loss of IQ points 

in children (73 FR 66981). 

In considering the evidence and risk 

analyses and their associated 

uncertainties, EPA found that there is 

no evidence- or risk-based bright line 

that indicates a single appropriate level. 

EPA noted there is a collection of 

scientific evidence and judgments and 

other information, including 

information about the uncertainties 

inherent in many relevant factors, 

which needs to be considered together 

in making the public health policy 

judgment and in selecting a standard 

level from a range of reasonable values 

(73 FR 66998). In so doing, EPA decided 

that a level for the primary lead 

standard of 0.15 μg/m3, in combination 

with the specified choice of indicator, 

averaging time, and form, is requisite to 

protect public health, including the 

health of sensitive groups, with an 

adequate margin of safety (73 FR 67006). 

A thorough discussion of the health 

evidence, risk and exposure analyses, 

and their associated uncertainties can be 

found in EPA’s final rule revising the 

lead NAAQS (73 FR 66970–66981, 

November 12, 2008). 

We also note the uncertainties 

associated with the health-based (i.e., 

primary) NAAQS are likely less than the 

uncertainties associated with doseresponse values developed for many of 

the other HAP, particularly those HAP 

for which no human health data exist. 

We also note that because of the 

multipathway, multi-media impacts of 

lead, the risk assessment supporting the 

NAAQS considered direct inhalation 

exposures and indirect air-related 

multipathway exposures from industrial 

sources like primary and secondary lead 

smelting operations. It also considered 

background lead exposures from other 

sources (like contaminated drinking 

water and exposure to lead-based 

paints). In revising the NAAQS for lead, 

EPA placed more weight on the 

evidence-based framework and less 

weight on the results from the risk 

assessment, although the risk estimates 

were found to be roughly consistent 

with and generally supportive of the 

evidence-based framework applied in 

the NAAQS determination (73 FR 

67004). Thus, when revising the 

NAAQS for lead to protect public health 

with an adequate margin of safety, EPA 

considered both the health evidence and 

the risk assessment, albeit to different 

extents. 

In addition to the uncertainties 

discussed above with respect to chronic, 

cancer, and the lead NAAQS reference 

values, there are also uncertainties 

associated with acute reference values. 

Not all acute reference values are 

developed for the same purpose, and 

care must be taken when interpreting 

the results of an acute assessment of 

human health effects relative to the 

reference value or values being 

exceeded. Where relevant to the 

estimated exposures, the lack of shortterm dose-response values at different 

levels of severity should be factored into 

the risk characterization as potential 

uncertainties. 

Although every effort is made to 

identify peer-reviewed reference values 

for cancer and non-cancer effects for all 

pollutants emitted by the sources 

included in this assessment, some 

hazardous air pollutants continue to 

have no peer-reviewed reference values 

for cancer or chronic non-cancer or 

acute effects. Since exposures to these 

pollutants cannot be included in a 

quantitative risk estimate, an 

understatement of risk for these 

pollutants at environmental exposure 

levels is possible. 

Additionally, chronic reference values 

for several of the compounds included 

in this assessment are currently under 

EPA IRIS review (e.g., cadmium and 

nickel), and revised assessments may 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29046 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

17 Data for the general U.S. population of 

recreational anglers was obtained from: EPA 2002, 

‘‘Estimated Per Capita Fish Consumption in the 

United States, Office of Water, Office of Science and 

Technology, Washington, DC, EPA–821–C–02–003. 

August 2002. 

18Shilling, et al. 2010 is available in the docket 

for this rulemaking. 

19Although defined as ‘‘maximum individual 

risk,’’ MIR refers only to cancer risk. MIR, one 

metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated 

risk were an individual exposed to the maximum 

level of a pollutant for a lifetime. 

determine that these pollutants are more 

or less potent than the current value. We 

may re-evaluate residual risks for the 

final rulemaking if, as a result of these 

reviews, a dose-response metric changes 

enough to indicate that the risk 

assessment supporting this notice may 

significantly understate or overstate 

human health risk. 

e. Uncertainties in the Multipathway 

and Environmental Impacts Assessment 

For the secondary lead smelting 

source category, two facilities were 

chosen as case study analyses to assess 

potential multipathway risks for 

mercury, cadmium, POM, and dioxins 

and furans. The selection criteria for 

modeling these two facilities included 

emissions rates of PB–HAPs, proximity 

to water bodies, proximity to farmland, 

average rainfall, average wind speed and 

direction, smelting furnace type, local 

change in elevation, and geographic 

representativeness of sites throughout 

the U.S. However, there is uncertainty 

as to whether these two facilities 

represent the highest potential for 

multipathway human health risks from 

the source category. 

Since the modeling used in these case 

study assessments utilize site specific 

parameters to describe naturally 

occurring physical, chemical and 

biological processes, we believe that the 

multimedia concentrations of PB–HAPs 

generated in this analysis are unbiased 

estimates of the true impacts. 

With respect to the risk estimates 

generated from this analysis, we present 

results based on two ingestion exposure 

scenarios: the RME and CTE scenarios. 

As noted above, we believe that these 

scenarios illustrate the range of 

potential modeled exposures and risks 

that may exist in the high-end of the 

complete distribution of potential 

multipathway risks for this source 

category. 

We further note that high-end fisher 

populations could display considerable 

variability both in terms of the degree to 

which they frequent specific water 

bodies or watersheds and the degree to 

which they target specific types of fish 

(or at least sizes of fish). Both of these 

factors can impact estimates of 

exposure. If a fisher population 

distributes their activity across a range 

of water bodies and harvests a variety of 

fish species (and sizes) than the 

distribution of exposure and risk across 

that population will be smaller 

compared with a population that 

focuses activity at individual water 

bodies and tends to focus on larger fish. 

To estimate potential high-end 

multipathway exposures and risks, in 

addition to utilizing fish consumption 

rate data for the general U.S. population 

of recreational anglers,17 we used fish 

consumption information for distinct 

fisher subpopulations that are known to 

have higher fish consumption rates. The 

data were obtained from Shilling, et al. 

(2010).18 In this publication, the authors 

provide fish consumption information 

for different ethnic groups including 

Hispanics, Laotians, and Vietnamese 

surveyed in California’s Central Valley 

Delta based on sample sizes of 45, 33, 

and 30, respectively. We note that there 

is uncertainty based on the limited 

sample sizes and in the extrapolation of 

these fish consumption rates to other 

parts of the United States. Further 

discussion of these values is provided in 

the risk assessment supporting 

documents. We request comment on the 

use of these data to support the RME 

analysis. 

A more detailed discussion of the 

multipathway analysis and its 

associated uncertainties is presented in 

section 5.3 of the document Human 

Health Multipathway Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Secondary Lead 

Smelting Source Category, which can be 

found in the docket for the proposed 

rule. 

f. Uncertainties in the Demographic 

Analysis 

Our analysis of the distribution of 

risks across various demographic groups 

is subject to uncertainty associated with 

the extrapolation of census-block group 

data (e.g., income level and education 

level) down to the census block level. 

C. How did we consider the risk results 

in making decisions for this proposal? 

In evaluating and developing 

standards under section 112(f)(2), as 

discussed in Section I.A of this 

preamble, we apply a two-step process 

to address residual risk. In the first step, 

EPA determines whether risks are 

acceptable. This determination 

‘‘considers all health information, 

including risk estimation uncertainty, 

and includes a presumptive limit on 

maximum individual lifetime [cancer] 

risk (MIR) 19 of approximately 1-in-10 

thousand [i.e., 100-in-1 million]’’ (54 FR 

38045). In the second step of the 

process, EPA sets the standard at a level 

that provides an ample margin of safety 

‘‘in consideration of all health 

information, including the number of 

persons at risk levels higher than 

approximately 1-in-1 million, as well as 

other relevant factors, including costs 

and economic impacts, technological 

feasibility, and other factors relevant to 

each particular decision’’ (Id.) 

In past residual risk actions, EPA has 

presented and considered a number of 

human health risk metrics associated 

with emissions from the category under 

review, including: The MIR; the 

numbers of persons in various risk 

ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum 

non-cancer hazard index (HI); and the 

maximum acute non-cancer hazard (72 

FR 25138, May 3, 2007; 71 FR 42724, 

July 27, 2006). In our most recent 

proposals (75 FR 65068, October 21, 

2010 and 75 FR 80220, December 21, 

2010), EPA also presented and 

considered additional measures of 

health information, such as estimates of 

the risks associated with the maximum 

level of emissions which might be 

allowed by the current MACT standards 

(see, e.g., 75 FR 65068, October 21, 2010 

and 75 FR 80220, December 21, 2010). 

EPA also discussed and considered risk 

estimation uncertainties. EPA is 

providing this same type of information 

in support of the proposed actions 

described in this Federal Register 

notice. 

The Agency is considering all 

available health information to inform 

our determinations of risk acceptability 

and ample margin of safety under CAA 

section 112(f). Specifically, as explained 

in the Benzene NESHAP, ‘‘the first step 

judgment on acceptability cannot be 

reduced to any single factor’’ and thus 

‘‘[t]he Administrator believes that the 

acceptability of risk under [previous] 

section 112 is best judged on the basis 

of a broad set of health risk measures 

and information’’ (54 FR 38046). 

Similarly, with regard to making the 

ample margin of safety determination, 

as stated in the Benzene NESHAP ‘‘[in 

the ample margin decision, the Agency 

again considers all of the health risk and 

other health information considered in 

the first step. Beyond that information, 

additional factors relating to the 

appropriate level of control will also be 

considered, including cost and 

economic impacts of controls, 

technological feasibility, uncertainties, 

and any other relevant factors.’’ Id. 

The Agency acknowledges that the 

Benzene NESHAP provides flexibility 

regarding what factors EPA might 

consider in making determinations and 

how these factors might be weighed for 

each source category. In responding to 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29047 

20EPA’s responses to this and all other key 

recommendations of the SAB’s advisory on RTR 

risk assessment methodologies (which is available 

at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ 

4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf) are outlined in a memo 

to this rulemaking docket from David Guinnup 

entitled, EPA’s Actions in Response to the Key 

Recommendations of the SAB Review of RTR Risk 

Assessment Methodologies. 

comment on our policy under the 

Benzene NESHAP, EPA explained that: 

‘‘The policy chosen by the 

Administrator permits consideration of 

multiple measures of health risk. Not 

only can the MIR figure be considered, 

but also incidence, the presence of noncancer health effects, and the 

uncertainties of the risk estimates. In 

this way, the effect on the most exposed 

individuals can be reviewed as well as 

the impact on the general public. These 

factors can then be weighed in each 

individual case. This approach complies 

with the Vinyl Chloride mandate that 

the Administrator ascertain an 

acceptable level of risk to the public by 

employing [her] expertise to assess 

available data. It also complies with the 

Congressional intent behind the CAA, 

which did not exclude the use of any 

particular measure of public health risk 

from the EPA’s consideration with 

respect to CAA section 112 regulations, 

and, thereby, implicitly permits 

consideration of any and all measures of 

health risk which the Administrator, in 

[her] judgment, believes are appropriate 

to determining what will ‘protect the 

public health’ ’’ (54 FR at 38057). 

Thus, the level of the MIR is only one 

factor to be weighed in determining 

acceptability of risks. The Benzene 

NESHAP explained that ‘‘an MIR of 

approximately 1-in-10 thousand should 

ordinarily be the upper end of the range 

of acceptability. As risks increase above 

this benchmark, they become 

presumptively less acceptable under 

CAA section 112, and would be 

weighed with the other health risk 

measures and information in making an 

overall judgment on acceptability. Or, 

the Agency may find, in a particular 

case, that a risk that includes MIR less 

than the presumptively acceptable level 

is unacceptable in the light of other 

health risk factors’’ (Id. at 38045). 

Similarly, with regard to the ample 

margin of safety analysis, EPA stated in 

the Benzene NESHAP that: ‘‘* * * EPA 

believes the relative weight of the many 

factors that can be considered in 

selecting an ample margin of safety can 

only be determined for each specific 

source category. This occurs mainly 

because technological and economic 

factors (along with the health-related 

factors) vary from source category to 

source category’’ (Id. at 38061). 

EPA wishes to point out that certain 

health information has not been 

considered to date in making residual 

risk determinations. In assessing risks to 

populations in the vicinity of the 

facilities in each category, we present 

estimates of risk associated with HAP 

emissions from the source category 

alone (source category risk estimates), 

and generally we have also assessed 

risks due to HAP emissions from the 

entire facility at which the covered 

source category is located (facility-wide 

risk estimates). We have not attempted 

to characterize the risks associated with 

all HAP emissions impacting the 

populations living near the sources in 

these categories. That is, at this time, we 

do not attempt to quantify those HAP 

risks that may be associated with 

emissions from other facilities that do 

not include the source categories in 

question, mobile source emissions, 

natural source emissions, persistent 

environmental pollution, or 

atmospheric transformation in the 

vicinity of the sources in these 

categories. 

The Agency understands the potential 

importance of considering an 

individual’s total exposure to HAP in 

addition to considering exposure to 

HAP emissions from the source category 

and facility. This is particularly 

important when assessing non-cancer 

risks, where pollutant-specific exposure 

health reference levels (e.g., Reference 

Concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the 

assumption that thresholds exist for 

adverse health effects. For example, the 

Agency recognizes that, although 

exposures attributable to emissions from 

a source category or facility alone may 

not indicate the potential for increased 

risk of adverse non-cancer health effects 

in a population, the exposures resulting 

from emissions from the facility in 

combination with emissions from all of 

the other sources (e.g., other facilities) to 

which an individual is exposed may be 

sufficient to result in increased risk of 

adverse non-cancer health effects. In 

May 2010, the EPA SAB advised us 

‘‘* * * that RTR assessments will be 

most useful to decision makers and 

communities if results are presented in 

the broader context of aggregate and 

cumulative risks, including background 

concentrations and contributions from 

other sources in the area.’’ 20

Although we are interested in placing 

source category and facility-wide HAP 

risks in the context of total HAP risks 

from all sources combined in the 

vicinity of each source, we are 

concerned about the uncertainties of 

doing so. At this point, we believe that 

such estimates of total HAP risks will 

have significantly greater associated 

uncertainties than for the source 

category or facility-wide estimates, and 

hence would compound the uncertainty 

in any such comparison. This is because 

we have not conducted a detailed 

technical review of HAP emissions data 

for source categories and facilities that 

have not previously undergone an RTR 

review or are not currently undergoing 

such review. We are requesting 

comment on whether and how best to 

estimate and evaluate total HAP 

exposure in our assessments, and, in 

particular, on whether and how it might 

be appropriate to use information from 

EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment 

(NATA) to support such estimates. We 

are also seeking comment on how best 

to consider various types and scales of 

risk estimates when making our 

acceptability and ample margin of safety 

determinations under CAA section 

112(f). Additionally, we are seeking 

comments and recommendations for 

any other comparative measures that 

may be useful in the assessment of the 

distribution of HAP risks across 

potentially affected demographic 

groups. 

D. How did we perform the technology 

review? 

Our technology review focused on the 

identification and evaluation of 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies that have 

occurred since the 1997 NESHAP was 

promulgated. In cases where the 

technology review identified such 

developments, we conducted an 

analysis of the technical feasibility of 

applying these developments, along 

with the estimated impacts (costs, 

emissions reductions, risk reductions, 

etc.) of applying these developments. 

We then made decisions on whether it 

is necessary to propose amendments to 

the regulation to require any of the 

identified developments. 

Based on our analyses of the data and 

information collected by the ICR and 

our general understanding of the 

industry and other available information 

on potential controls for this industry, 

we identified several potential 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies. For the 

purpose of this exercise, we considered 

any of the following to be a 

‘‘development’’: 

• Any add-on control technology or 

other equipment that was not identified 

and considered during development of 

the 1997 NESHAP. 

• Any improvements in add-on 

control technology or other equipment 

(that were identified and considered 

during development of the 1997 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29048 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

NESHAP) that could result in significant 

additional emissions reduction. 

• Any work practice or operational 

procedure that was not identified or 

considered during development of the 

1997 NESHAP. 

• Any process change or pollution 

prevention alternative that could be 

broadly applied to the industry and that 

was not identified or considered during 

development of the 1997 NESHAP. 

In addition to reviewing the practices, 

processes, or control technologies that 

were not considered at the time we 

developed the 1997 NESHAP, we 

reviewed a variety of data sources in our 

evaluation of whether there were 

additional practices, processes, or 

controls to consider for the secondary 

lead smelting industry. Among the data 

sources we reviewed were the NESHAP 

for various industries that were 

promulgated after the 1997 NESHAP. 

We reviewed the regulatory 

requirements and/or technical analyses 

associated with these regulatory actions 

to identify any practices, processes, and 

control technologies considered in these 

efforts that could possibly be applied to 

emissions sources in the Secondary 

Lead Smelting source category, as well 

as the costs, non-air impacts, and energy 

implications associated with the use of 

these technologies. 

We also consulted EPA’s RACT/ 

BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC) to 

identify potential technology advances. 

Control technologies, classified as RACT 

(Reasonably Available Control 

Technology), BACT (Best Available 

Control Technology), or LAER (Lowest 

Achievable Emissions Rate) apply to 

stationary sources depending on 

whether the sources are existing or new, 

and on the size, age, and location of the 

facility. BACT and LAER (and 

sometimes RACT) are determined on a 

case-by-case basis, usually by State or 

local permitting agencies. EPA 

established the RBLC to provide a 

central database of air pollution 

technology information (including 

technologies required in source-specific 

permits) to promote the sharing of 

information among permitting agencies 

and to aid in identifying future possible 

control technology options that might 

apply broadly to numerous sources 

within a category or apply only on a 

source-by-source basis. The RBLC 

contains over 5,000 air pollution control 

permit determinations that can help 

identify appropriate technologies to 

mitigate many air pollutant emissions 

streams. We searched this database to 

determine whether it contained any 

practices, processes, or control 

technologies for the types of processes 

covered by the Secondary Lead 

Smelting MACT. 

Additionally, we requested 

information from facilities regarding 

developments in practices, processes, or 

control technology. Finally, we 

reviewed other information sources, 

such as State or local permitting agency 

databases and industry-supported 

databases. 

E. What other issues are we addressing 

in this proposal? 

In addition to the analyses described 

above, we also reviewed other aspects of 

the MACT standards for possible 

revision as appropriate and necessary. 

Based on this review we have identified 

aspects of the MACT standards that we 

believe need revision. 

This includes proposing revisions to 

the startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

(SSM) provisions of the MACT rule in 

order to ensure that they are consistent 

with a recent court decision in Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 

2008). In addition, we are proposing 

other various minor changes with 

regards to editorial errors and other 

revisions to promote the use of plain 

language. The analyses and proposed 

decisions for these actions are presented 

in Section IV.E of this preamble. 

IV. Analyses Results and Proposed 

Decisions 

This section of the preamble provides 

the results of our RTR for the Secondary 

Lead Smelting source category and our 

proposed decisions concerning changes 

to the 1997 NESHAP. 

A. What are the results of our analyses 

and proposed decisions regarding 

unregulated emissions sources? 

1. Organic HAP 

As discussed in Section III.A of this 

preamble, we evaluated emissions limits 

for organic HAP for reverberatory 

furnaces not collocated with blast 

furnaces, rotary furnaces, and electric 

furnaces. Section 112(d)(3)(B) of the 

CAA requires that the MACT standards 

for existing sources be at least as 

stringent as the average emissions 

limitation achieved by the best 

performing five sources (for which the 

Administrator has or could reasonably 

obtain emissions information) in a 

category with fewer than 30 sources. 

The Secondary Lead Smelting source 

category consists of fewer than 30 

sources. Where, as here, there are less 

than 30 sources, we base the MACT 

floor limit on the average emissions 

limitation achieved by those sources for 

which we have data. 

EPA must exercise its judgment, 

based on an evaluation of the relevant 

factors and available data, to determine 

the level of emissions control that has 

been achieved by the best performing 

sources under variable conditions. It is 

recognized in the case law that EPA may 

consider variability in estimating the 

degree of emissions reduction achieved 

by best-performing sources and in 

setting MACT floors. See Mossville 

Envt’l Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 

1232, 1241–42 (DC Cir 2004) (holding 

EPA may consider emissions variability 

in estimating performance achieved by 

best-performing sources and may set the 

floor at a level that a best-performing 

source can expect to meet ‘‘every day 

and under all operating conditions’’). 

More details on how we calculate 

MACT floors and how we account for 

variability are described in the Draft 

MACT Floor Analysis for the Secondary 

Lead Smelting Source Category which is 

available in the docket for this proposed 

action. 

With regard to the evaluation of 

potential MACT limits for organic HAP 

from this source category, consistent 

with the explanation presented in the 

proposal of the 1997 NESHAP (NESHAP 

for Secondary Lead Smelting, Proposed 

Rule, June 9, 1994, 59 FR 63941) for this 

source category describing the 

appropriateness of THC as a surrogate 

for organic HAP, we continue to 

consider THC as an appropriate 

surrogate for non-dioxin organic HAP in 

the proposed amendments to the 

NESHAP in today’s action. Based on our 

data, there are currently only two 

reverberatory furnaces not collocated 

with a blast furnace, one rotary furnace, 

and two reverberatory furnaces mixed 

with electric furnaces (i.e., two 

reverberatory furnaces whose exhaust 

are mixed with the exhaust of an 

electric furnace prior to atmospheric 

release) operating in this source 

category. Based on analysis of emissions 

data and furnace operating 

characteristics (as discussed further 

below), we believe it is appropriate to 

set one THC limit that will apply to 

reverberatory furnaces not collocated 

with a blast furnace and reverberatory 

furnaces mixed with electric furnaces, 

because of generally similar (and low) 

potential for organic HAP emissions 

from both furnace types. We are 

proposing a separate THC emissions 

limit for rotary furnaces. 

We received THC emissions data for 

one reverberatory furnace not collocated 

with a blast furnace and one 

reverberatory furnace mixed with an 

electric furnace, and one rotary furnace. 

Therefore, for each of these furnace 

configurations, we have emissions data 

from at least half the units. We are 

soliciting emissions data for the 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29049 

operating affected sources for which we 

don’t have data. Based on the data that 

we have, we conducted a MACT Floor 

analysis. 

As discussed above, the MACT floor 

limit is calculated based on the average 

performance of the units plus an 

amount to account for these units’ 

variability. To account for variability in 

the operation and emissions, the stack 

test data were used to calculate the 99 

percent upper predictive limit (UPL) for 

reverberatory furnaces not collocated 

with a blast furnace and reverberatory 

furnaces mixed with electric furnaces. 

For rotary furnaces, because we have 

only one test with two successful test 

runs, we considered both the 99 percent 

UPL and the 99 percent upper limit (UL) 

to account for variability in the 

emissions data. Our consideration of 

variability is explained in more detail in 

the technical document for this action: 

Draft MACT Floor Analysis for the 

Secondary Lead Smelting Source 

Category, which is available in the 

docket for this action. 

The 99 percent UPL for exhaust THC 

concentrations from existing 

reverberatory furnaces not collocated 

with a blast furnace and reverberatory 

furnaces mixed with electric furnaces is 

12 ppmv (expressed as propane) 

corrected to 4 percent CO2 to account 

for dilution. Consistent with CAA 

section 112(d)(3), the MACT floor for 

new sources cannot be less stringent 

than the emissions control that is 

achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source. The 99 

percent UPL for exhaust THC 

concentrations from the best-performing 

affected source was calculated as 12 

ppmv (expressed as propane) corrected 

to 4 percent CO2. 

We are also proposing a THC MACT 

limit for rotary furnaces. As mentioned 

previously, there is only one operating 

rotary furnace in the U.S. We received 

test data for this unit; however, it 

included only two successful test runs. 

The average of the two emissions test 

runs was 257 ppmv (expressed as 

propane and adjusted to 4 percent CO2), 

and the highest of the two test runs was 

292 ppmv (expressed as propane and 

adjusted to 4 percent CO2). Using the 99 

percent UPL approach, we calculated a 

MACT floor of 1700 ppmv, which is 6.6 

times higher than the average. By using 

the 99 percent UL approach, we 

calculated a MACT floor of 610 ppmv 

(expressed as propane and adjusted to 4 

percent CO2) applicable to new and 

existing affected sources, which is 2.4 

times higher than the average. Because 

of very limited emissions data, our 

statistical analysis does not clearly 

indicate whether the UPL or UL is a 

better measure of the typical variability 

in performance of the unit. However, 

because the 99 percent UL approach 

resulted in a MACT floor that is more 

within the range of typical variability 

we expect when calculating MACT 

floors for various source categories and 

emissions points, the emissions limit 

calculated using the 99 percent UL was 

chosen as the proposed THC MACT 

floor for rotary furnaces in this action. 

However, we seek comments on this 

issue. 

We considered beyond-the-floor 

options for THC standards for all of 

these furnace configurations, as required 

by section 112(d)(2) of the Act. 

However, we decided not to propose 

any limits based on the beyond the floor 

analyses for THC because of the costs, 

potential disadvantages of these 

additional controls (including increases 

in CO2 and NOX emissions), and non-air 

environmental impacts and adverse 

energy implications associated with use 

of these additional controls. The 

beyond-the-floor analysis is presented 

in the technical documentation for this 

action (Draft MACT Floor Analysis for 

the Secondary Lead Smelting Source 

Category). In summary, we are 

proposing that new and existing 

reverberatory furnaces not collocated 

with a blast furnace and reverberatory 

furnaces mixed with electric furnaces be 

subject to a THC concentration limit of 

12 ppmv (expressed as propane) 

corrected to 4 percent CO2. 

Additionally, we are proposing that 

both new and existing rotary furnaces be 

subject to a THC concentration limit of 

610 ppmv (expressed as propane) 

corrected to 4 percent CO2. 

We propose that compliance with all 

the proposed THC limits will be 

demonstrated by annual performance 

tests, and that continuous monitoring of 

temperatures of control devices (e.g., 

afterburners) and/or furnaces (e.g., 

reverberatory furnaces) will be required 

as parametric monitoring to ensure 

continuous compliance with the THC 

limits. 

No changes are being considered in 

this action for the THC limits for blast 

and collocated blast and reverberatory 

furnaces established in the 1997 

NESHAP. 

2. Dioxin and Furans 

As mentioned previously, the 1997 

NESHAP does not include emissions 

limits for dioxins and furans. Therefore, 

pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(3), we 

are proposing to revise the 1997 

NESHAP to include emission limits for 

dioxins and furans. The form of these 

proposed standards are in the form of 

toxic equivalency quotient (TEQ) 

concentration limits (i.e., prorating the 

amount of total dioxins and furans 

allowed to the most toxic species of 

dioxin). For more information on the 

TEQ approach to calculating dioxin and 

furan emissions see the dioxin 

emissions guidance available at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/raf/hhtefguidance/. 

Because the formation of dioxins and 

furans is highly temperature dependent, 

and because the potential for dioxin and 

furan emissions varies considerably 

among different furnace types and 

configurations, EPA is proposing 

separate limits for each of the following 

furnace configurations: (1) 

Reverberatory furnaces not collocated 

with blast furnaces and reverberatory 

furnaces where the exhaust gases are 

mixed with the exhaust from electric 

furnaces; (2) blast furnaces; (3) 

collocated blast and reverberatory 

furnaces; and (4) rotary furnaces. A 

detailed analysis and documentation of 

the MACT floor calculations can be 

found in the technical document for this 

action: Draft MACT Floor Analysis for 

the Secondary Lead Smelting Source 

Category. 

Based on the emissions data and 

furnace operating temperatures reported 

in ICR surveys, EPA is proposing a 

single TEQ emissions limit that will 

apply to reverberatory furnaces not 

collocated with a blast furnace and to 

reverberatory furnaces where the 

exhaust gases are mixed with electric 

furnaces. There are seven sources of this 

type in the industry. We received 

emissions data for two such affected 

sources. We are soliciting data for the 

affected sources of this type for which 

we don’t have emissions data. The 

MACT floor emissions limit for this 

affected source was calculated based on 

the average of the two emissions tests 

plus variability (based on the 99 percent 

UPL). The 99 percent UPL for exhaust 

TEQ concentrations from the affected 

sources is 0.20 nanograms per dry 

standard cubic meter (ng/dscm) of TEQ 

corrected to 7 percent oxygen (O2) to 

account for dilution. The 99 percent 

UPL calculated for new affected sources 

is 0.10 ng/dscm corrected to 7 percent 

O2. 

With regard to blast furnaces, there 

are nine sources of this type in the 

industry. We received dioxin and furan 

emissions data for two affected sources. 

Using the data from these two sources, 

we calculated that the 99 percent UPL 

for exhaust TEQ concentrations from 

blast furnaces is 170 ng/dscm at 7 

percent O2. For new blast furnaces, the 

99 percent UPL is 10 ng/dscm at 7 

percent O2. We acknowledge the large 

difference between the performance of 

the two affected sources for which we 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29050 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

have data but have not identified a 

technical basis for the difference. We are 

soliciting information that may explain 

these differences and other comments 

on this topic, including comments 

regarding the calculation of MACT floor 

limits for these sources. Additionally, 

we are soliciting data for the seven 

affected sources of this type for which 

we don’t have emissions test data. 

There are five collocated blast and 

reverberatory furnaces in the industry. 

We received emissions test data for one 

of the affected sources. The calculated 

99 percent UPL is 0.5 ng/dscm at 7 

percent O2 and would apply to both 

new and existing collocated blast and 

reverberatory furnaces. We are soliciting 

data for the remaining four affected 

sources for which we don’t have 

emissions data. 

As previously noted, there is only one 

rotary furnace currently in operation 

and we received emissions data for this 

source. Similar to THC emissions, we 

have only two emissions test runs for 

this unit. For the same reasons 

explained above for THC, we developed 

a MACT floor limit of 1.0 ng/dscm of 

TEQ corrected to 7 percent O2 based on 

the 99 percent UL, as opposed to the 

UPL. Thus, an emissions limit based on 

the MACT floor for existing and new 

rotary furnaces would be 1.0 ng/dscm of 

TEQ corrected to 7 percent O2. 

We then considered beyond-the-floor 

options to further reduce emissions of 

dioxins and furans, especially from blast 

furnaces since blast furnaces have 

higher emissions compared to the other 

furnace types. The options considered, 

included an option based on setting a 

MACT limit for existing sources based 

on the performance of the best 

performing source (i.e., based upon the 

test data used to calculate the MACT 

floor for new sources) such that the 

MACT limit for existing sources would 

be the same as the MACT limit for new 

sources (i.e., 10 ng/dscm). However, 

since we are uncertain about the 

performance of the other blast furnaces 

and whether it would be feasible for 

them to meet a limit of 10 ng/dscm and 

what the costs would be, we are not 

proposing MACT limits for existing 

blast furnaces based on this one set of 

data in today’s action. We do have data 

for two other blast furnaces that are not 

controlled with reverberatory furnaces, 

but because of the configuration of the 

stacks (blast furnace off-gas is mixed 

with reverberatory furnace off-gas), we 

were unable to determine the amount of 

dioxin that originated from the blast 

furnace alone compared to the dioxin 

that was due to the reverberatory 

furnace. Therefore, these data were not 

used in the calculation of the blast 

furnace MACT limits. However, we note 

that the dioxin concentrations emitted 

from these sources was in the range of 

the better performing of the two blast 

furnaces that were used in the 

calculations of the MACT Floor. 

Nevertheless, we are seeking comments 

as to whether it would be appropriate to 

establish a MACT limit based upon the 

data from the one better performing 

blast furnace or if it would be 

appropriate to use the data from the 

mixed sources to determine a MACT 

limit for Blast furnaces. A MACT limit 

based upon the data from the one better 

performing blast furnace (using the 3 

test results and applying the 99 percent 

UPL) would be 10 ng/dscm. We are 

seeking comments on whether this 

limit, or some other limit, would be 

appropriate for Blast Furnaces. 

The key conditions typically 

associated with determining the extent 

of dioxin and furan formation are 

combustion efficiency, complex organic 

fuels, particulate concentration in the 

flue gas, time in a critical temperature 

window of approximately 250 to 450 

degrees C, and the amount of chlorine 

present. Increased chlorine 

concentrations in the furnace feed can 

increase the dioxin formation. The blast 

furnaces tested have higher emissions of 

dioxins and furans than other furnace 

types. We believe this is because these 

furnaces are designed to operate at 

lower temperatures, and these operating 

temperatures can lead to dioxin 

formation. Controls for dioxins and 

furans once they have formed include a 

high temperature oxidation with quick 

quenching of the off-gases, or activated 

carbon injection followed by fabric 

filtration. Fabric filtration alone has also 

been demonstrated to provide 

significant control of dioxins and 

furans, and because improvements are 

expected in the performance of fabric 

filters as a result of standards being 

proposed for lead in today’s action, it is 

anticipated that some additional 

reduction in dioxin emissions may 

occur as a co-benefit of the proposed 

lower limits for lead. Nevertheless, we 

are seeking data and information on 

dioxin emissions from blast furnaces, 

possible control options, factors that 

affect dioxin formation and other related 

information to inform the development 

of appropriate standards for dioxin and 

furan emissions from these sources. 

As described below, we are also 

proposing a work practice standard to 

prevent plastics (which are complex 

organics and may contain chlorine) from 

entering furnaces as a beyond-the-floor 

option. We also considered an option 

that involves installation of additional 

afterburner capacity at the facilities 

operating blast furnaces. This option 

would include operating the currently 

installed afterburners at high 

temperatures and with sufficient 

residence time to destroy dioxins, or 

installation of new or additional 

afterburner capacity with this 

capability. Based on the current level of 

performance identified in the ICR 

surveys, we believe that this option 

would require four facilities to install 

afterburner capacity at their facility in 

order to operate the units at these 

conditions. The estimated total capital 

cost for the additional controls is 

$5.9 million, with a total annualized 

cost of $2.9 million. We estimate that 

TEQ emissions would be reduced by 

roughly 28 grams per year (and organic 

HAP emissions by 200 tons per year) 

resulting in a total estimated cost 

effectiveness of $103,600 per gram of 

dioxin TEQ and $14,500 per ton organic 

HAP (see: Draft MACT Floor Analysis 

for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source 

Category for more details). 

In light of the costs of these additional 

controls and since these controls would 

have some disadvantages, including 

causing increases in CO2 and NOX

(oxides of nitrogen) emissions and 

increased fuel use, and given the 

uncertainties regarding how effective 

these controls would be, we are not 

proposing more stringent numerical 

emissions limits based on this beyondthe-floor analysis. Nevertheless, we are 

seeking data and information on dioxin 

and furan emissions from blast furnaces 

and the costs and feasibility of 

additional controls and emissions 

reductions, including the beyond-thefloor options described above. 

Based on all the analyses described 

above, under CAA section 112(d)(3), we 

are proposing to revise the 1997 

NESHAP for this source category to 

include the following emissions limits 

for dioxins and furans: 

• For reverberatory furnaces not collocated 

with blast furnaces and reverberatory 

furnaces where the exhaust gases are mixed 

with electric furnaces, we are proposing 

emissions limits of 0.20 ng/dscm at 7 percent 

O2 and 0.1 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2 for 

existing and new affected sources, 

respectively. 

• For blast furnaces, we are proposing 

emissions limits of 170 ng/dscm at 7 percent 

O2 and 10 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2 for 

existing and new sources, respectively. 

• For collocated blast and reverberatory 

furnaces, we are proposing an emissions 

limit of 0.5 ng/dscm at 7 percent O2 for both 

new and existing sources. 

• For rotary furnaces, we are proposing an 

emissions limit of 1.0 ng/dscm at 7 percent 

O2 for both new and existing sources. 

Compliance with the TEQ limits will 

be demonstrated through an initial 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29051 

compliance test followed by a 

compliance test at least once every 

5 years. The TEQ emissions will be 

calculated using the toxic equivalency 

factors (TEF) outlined by the World 

Health Organization (WHO) in 2005 

(available at Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/raf/hhtefguidance/). 

Additionally, we are proposing that 

facilities must establish limits for the 

furnace exhaust temperature or 

afterburner operating temperature 

during the initial performance test. 

These temperatures must be maintained 

and monitored continuously between 

compliance tests to ensure that the 

controls are working properly to limit 

dioxin and furan emissions. 

In addition to the emissions limits 

described above, we are proposing that 

each facility must operate a process to 

separate plastic battery casing material 

prior to introducing feed into a blast 

furnace. Separation of plastic materials 

prior to the furnace will limit the 

organic component in the feed material, 

minimizing the formation of organic 

HAP, including dioxins and furans. It is 

our understanding that all facilities 

currently have a plastics separation 

process (that they implement on a 

voluntary basis) so this proposed 

requirement results in very minimal 

additional costs to the industry, if any. 

We are proposing this as a requirement 

(i.e., propose to convert this from a 

voluntary activity to a regulatory 

requirement) to ensure that facilities 

continue to implement the separation 

process to help minimize formation of 

dioxins and furans. Moreover, we 

considered proposing a minimum 

percent of plastics separation 

requirement (such as ensuring that a 

minimum of 95 percent of total plastics 

are separated from the scrap materials 

before being fed to furnaces). However, 

we did not have sufficient data to 

determine an appropriate specific 

percent. Nevertheless, we are seeking 

data and comments regarding the 

percent separation that can be achieved 

by the available processes and the 

potential to establish such a minimum 

percent separation requirement. 

Moreover, we are seeking information 

and comments on the various types of 

plastics separation processes and 

equipment used, and the relative 

feasibility and effectiveness of those 

processes and equipment. We are also 

seeking comments and information on 

potential methods to improve overall 

plastics separation, or methods to 

improve separation of certain types of 

plastics that may have higher potential 

for dioxin formation (e.g., chlorinated 

plastics). Finally, we are seeking 

information on appropriate 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for these proposed work 

practices. 

3. Mercury Emissions 

Based on the emissions test data 

received under the ICR, we considered 

proposing an emissions limit for 

mercury under CAA section 112(d)(3). 

However, after careful review of the data 

from the ICR, we have decided not to 

propose a numerical limit for mercury. 

We found that the measured stack 

concentrations of mercury were 

consistently below the detection levels 

of the EPA test methods (52 out of 76 

total test runs for mercury contained 

data below the detection limit, or 

68 percent of the entire data set). 

Consequently, EPA considers it 

impracticable to reliably measure 

mercury emissions from these units. 

We instead considered work practice 

standards under 112(h) for mercury 

emissions from this category. The 

difficulties with accurate measurements 

at the levels encountered from 

secondary lead smelters makes a 

measured standard technologically 

impracticable, and possibly 

economically impracticable as well 

(there appears to be no reliable way to 

measure compliance at such low levels 

even with the most carefully conducted 

tests). Given the factors described above, 

we conclude it is appropriate to 

consider work practice standards under 

112(h) for mercury rather than 

numerical emissions limits under 

Section 112(d)(3). 

Therefore, we considered establishing 

work practice standards under CAA 

section 112(h) to minimize the potential 

for mercury emissions. Based on 

information submitted under the ICR, 

all facilities have baghouses to control 

lead and other particulate matter (PM) 

emissions. These control devices are 

very effective at controlling non-volatile 

HAP metals (e.g., a well performing 

baghouse captures more than 99 percent 

of lead emissions). These devices do not 

capture mercury as efficiently as the 

non-volatile metals. However, available 

data from other industries (such as coalfired power plants) indicate that 

baghouses do provide some level of 

mercury control. For example, 

emissions data from coal-fired power 

plants suggest that baghouses can 

capture approximately 50 to 90 percent 

of mercury emissions depending on the 

speciation of the mercury compounds 

and other factors. (Reference: ‘‘Control of 

Mercury Emissions from Coal Fired 

Electric Utility Boilers: An Update.’’ 

National Risk Management Research 

Laboratory, Office of Research and 

Development, U.S. EPA. February 18, 

2005, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/atw/utility/utiltoxpg.html). 

Therefore, we are proposing that 

facilities must have continuous 

operation of a BLDS with a detection 

level of 1.0 mg/dscm for PM to ensure 

their baghouses are working properly as 

a work practice to limit mercury 

emissions. This is the same requirement 

proposed for lead emissions monitoring 

in this rulemaking under CAA sections 

112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6), and will 

therefore pose no additional burden to 

the industry. Further, the proposed 

stack standards for lead will also 

adequately control mercury such that no 

further standard is necessary. The 

standard would be implemented 

continuously for all metals by the BLDS 

measurement. 

Nevertheless, we also investigated the 

feasibility of additional work practices 

to determine if there were other costeffective pollution prevention measures 

that could be applied to this industry to 

further minimize mercury emissions 

such as source separation approaches. 

Based on available information, 

analyses, and discussion with industry, 

we understand that the vast majority of 

input materials have very low mercury 

content (e.g., lead acid batteries). 

However, we also understand that other 

types of scrap such as industrial 

batteries, various construction materials, 

and other scrap materials are 

occasionally processed in these furnaces 

materials. To ensure that mercurybearing materials are not included in 

such scrap, we considered proposing 

that facilities inspect their input scrap 

materials daily to ensure that mercurybearing materials are not fed to the 

furnaces. However, we are not aware of 

any identifiable or recoverable sources 

of mercury in the scrap fed to secondary 

lead smelters and we are also concerned 

that such work practices could be 

infeasible. Therefore, we are not 

proposing such a standard in today’s 

action. However, we are soliciting 

comments on the appropriateness and 

feasibility of implementing such a work 

practice standard for mercury. We are 

also interested in information regarding 

any other pollution prevention practices 

for mercury that may be feasible or 

appropriate for this source category. 

B. What are the results of the risk 

assessments and analyses? 

As described above, for the Secondary 

Lead Smelting source category, we 

conducted an inhalation risk assessment 

for all HAP emitted. We also conducted 

multipathway analyses for cadmium, 

dioxins and furans, mercury, and POM, 

as well as air-related multipathway 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29052 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

21 Individual facility acute HQ values for all 

facilities can be found in Appendix 5, Table 3, of 

the risk assessment document that is included in 

the docket for this proposed rulemaking. Acute HQ 

values exceeding a value of 1 were as follows: 2, 

2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 20 and 30. 

analyses for lead. With respect to lead, 

we used the recently promulgated lead 

NAAQS to evaluate the potential for airrelated multipathway and 

environmental effects. Furthermore, we 

conducted a demographic analysis of 

population risks. Details of the risk 

assessments and additional analyses can 

be found in the residual risk 

documentation referenced in Section 

III.B of this preamble, which is available 

in the docket for this action. The 

Agency considered the available health 

information—the MIR; the numbers of 

persons in various risk ranges; cancer 

incidence; the maximum non-cancer 

hazard index (HI); the maximum acute 

non-cancer hazard; the extent of noncancer risks; the potential for adverse 

environmental effects; and distribution 

of risks in the exposed population 

(54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989)—in 

developing the proposed CAA section 

112(f)(2) standards for the Secondary 

Lead source category. 

1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results 

Table 3 of this preamble provides an 

overall summary of the results of the 

inhalation risk assessment. 

TABLE 3—SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Maximum individual cancer risk 

(in 1 million) 1 Estimated 

population 

at increased 

risk of 

cancer ≥1- 

in-1 million 

Estimated 

annual 

cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum chronic 

non-cancer TOSHI 2 Maximum 

screening 

acute 

non-cancer Based on actual emissions level HQ 3

Based on 

allowable 

emissions 

level 

Based on 

actual 

emissions 

level 

Based on 

allowable 

emissions 

level 

50 ..................................................................................... 200 128,000 0.02 0.6 3 30 

1Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category. 

2 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Secondary Lead Smelting source category is the kidney. 

3The maximum HQ acute value of 30, driven by emissions of arsenic, is based on the only available acute dose-response value available for 

arsenic, which is the REL. See Section III.B of this preamble for explanation of acute dose-response values. 

The results of the chronic inhalation 

cancer risk assessment indicate that, 

based on estimates of current actual 

emissions, the maximum individual 

lifetime cancer risk (MIR) could be up 

to 50-in-1 million, with fugitive dust 

emissions of arsenic, and to a lesser 

extent fugitive dust emissions of 

cadmium (see below), driving these 

risks. The total estimated cancer 

incidence from this source category 

based on actual emission levels is 0.02 

excess cancer cases per year or one case 

in every 50 years, with emissions of 

arsenic and cadmium contributing 

73 percent and 15 percent respectively, 

to this cancer incidence. In addition, we 

note that approximately 1,500 people 

are estimated to have cancer risks 

greater than 10-in-1 million, and 

approximately 128,000 people are 

estimated to have risks greater than 

1-in-1 million. When considering the 

risks associated with MACT-allowable 

emissions, the MIR could be up to 

200-in-1 million. 

The maximum modeled chronic noncancer TOSHI value is 0.6 based on 

actual emissions, driven primarily by 

fugitive dust emissions of arsenic. When 

considering MACT allowable emissions, 

the maximum chronic non-cancer 

TOSHI value could be up to 3. 

Based on using the acute REL to 

assess possible acute non-cancer effects 

due to emissions of arsenic, our 

screening analysis estimates that the 

maximum acute HQ value for a facility 

in this source category could be up to 

30. Moreover, this analysis estimates 

that acute HQ values could exceed a 

value of 1 at nine facilities.21 These 

exceedances are mainly due to fugitive 

emissions at most of these nine 

facilities. However, stack emissions, 

while generally not the principle driver 

of maximum acute HQ values greater 

than 1, contribute about 90 percent of 

the risk at the facility which has the 

maximum acute HQ screening value of 

30. We note that the California REL is 

the only acute value available, and we 

request comments on the use of this 

value as well as comments on the 

existence of other peer reviewed values 

that may be used to inform acute risks. 

In summary, the analysis indicates 

that arsenic and cadmium emissions 

pose risks to public health due to 

inhalation exposures resulting from 

both fugitive and stack emissions (see 

above). Lead and dioxin and furan 

emissions also pose risks to public 

health, but these HAP are assessed 

separately as part of multipathway 

assessments described below. Based on 

our risk assessment, no other HAP were 

identified as contributing significant 

risks. 

With respect to the potential for 

adverse environmental effects from non 

PB–HAP, we note that that there is a 

lack of information about specific 

adverse environmental effects occurring 

at a given concentration of HAP for this 

source category. However, given that all 

chronic non-cancer HQ values 

considering actual emissions are less 

than 1 using human health reference 

values, we believe that it is unlikely that 

adverse environmental effects would 

occur at the actual HAP concentrations 

estimated in our human health risk 

assessment. 

2. Multipathway Risk Assessments and 

Results 

As noted above, in evaluating the 

potential for multipathway effects from 

emissions of lead, we compared 

modeled maximum 3-month rolling 

average lead concentrations (based on 

estimates of actual emissions) with the 

lead NAAQS. Results of this analysis 

indicate that, if current emission levels 

continue, the lead NAAQS could be 

exceeded at 12 of the 14 facilities and 

that nine facilities could have ambient 

levels that are at least 2–3 times above 

the NAAQS, largely due to actual 

fugitive dust emissions. Moreover, 

available ambient monitoring data for 

lead confirms that ambient air 

concentrations of lead are well above 

the lead NAAQS near seven of these 

facilities. As described in the technical 

document Draft Summary of Ambient 

Lead Monitoring Data near Secondary 

Lead Smelting Facilities, which is 

available the docket, the measured 

ambient levels (for 3-month maximum 

rolling concentrations) for year 2010 

range from 1.00 to 0.26 μg/m3 for the 

seven facilities, and for year 2008, the 

measured values were up to 2.49 μg/m3. 

When considering actual stack 

emissions only (i.e., in the theoretical 

absence of fugitive dust emissions), we 

estimate that one facility would be 

about 3 times above the NAAQS. 

Moreover, we estimate that the risks 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29053 

22Secondary lead smelting modeled ambient lead 

concentrations for all facilities can be found in 

Table 3.2–3 of the risk assessment document that 

is included in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking. Facilities with modeled ambient lead 

concentrations exceeding the NAAQS did so by 23, 

19, 10, 6, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3, 1.5, 1.4 and 1.3 fold. 

23For facilities in this source category: Cadmium, 

BaP, dioxins and furans, and mercury estimated 

emission rates were up to about 8, 24, 23,000, and 

4 times above their respective de minimis emissions 

rates. 

24 24 As previously noted above, the reasons that 

EPA selected these two facilities for analysis are 

described in detail in section 2.5.1 of the document 

Human Health Multipathway Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Secondary Lead Smelting 

Source Category, which can be found in the docket 

for the proposed rule. The selection criteria for 

modeling these two facilities included emissions 

rates of PB–HAPs, proximity to water bodies, 

proximity to farmland, average rainfall, average 

wind speed and direction, smelting furnace type, 

local change in elevation, and geographic 

representativeness of sites throughout the U.S. 

associated with MACT-allowable stack 

emissions would be significantly higher. 

For example, we estimate that based on 

MACT-allowable emissions from stacks 

alone (not including fugitive dust 

emissions), the ambient lead 

concentrations could be about 10 times 

above the NAAQS at two facilities. 

Considering the results presented 

above, fugitive dust emissions, and to a 

lesser extent emissions from stacks, 

resulted in modeled lead concentrations 

above the NAAQS. We also note when 

considering all emissions (i.e., stack and 

fugitive dust emissions), our analysis 

indicates that maximum off-site 

3-month rolling average lead 

concentrations could be up to 20 times 

the lead NAAQS near one facility’s 

fenceline.22

To evaluate the potential for adverse 

environmental effects from lead, we 

compared modeled maximum 3-month 

rolling average lead ambient air 

concentrations with the current 

secondary lead NAAQS, which is 

identical to the primary, public healthbased standard (see Section III.B.3 of 

this preamble). Thus, our analyses 

discussed above also indicate the 

potential for adverse environmental 

effects from emissions of lead. 

As noted above (section III.B.4), based 

on a multipathway screening analysis 

for emissions of non-lead PB–HAP from 

this source category, emissions of 

cadmium, dioxins and furans, and POM 

were all above the de minimis emissions 

rates that suggest the potential for nonnegligible (i.e., greater than 1-in-1 

million cancer risk or greater than a 

noncancer hazard quotient of 1) risk of 

adverse health effects from 

multipathway exposures.23 With regard 

to mercury, emissions are quite low for 

this category. In fact, most emissions 

tests for mercury for this source category 

were below MDL. Nevertheless, using 

conservative worst-case assumptions 

(e.g., assuming all non-detects for 

mercury were equal to the detection 

limit, as described in Sections IV.A and 

IV.B of this preamble), we estimated 

that mercury emissions could be above 

the de minimis emissions rates 

described above (see Section III.B of this 

preamble). 

As a result of this conservative 

screening analysis, we performed two 

detailed case study multipathway 

analyses for these four PB–HAP in areas 

near the Frisco Recycling (Frisco, TX) 

and Revere Smelting & Refining 

(Middletown, NY) facilities.24

Moreover, as previously mentioned 

above (section III.B.4), in order to more 

fully characterize the potential 

multipathway risks associated with high 

end consumption of PB–HAP 

contaminated food, we present results 

based on RME and CTE scenarios. The 

RME scenario utilizes 90th percentile 

ingestion rates for farmers, recreational 

anglers, and for three subpopulations of 

recreational anglers) who have higher 

rates of fish consumption (Hispanic, 

Laotian, and Vietnamese descent), while 

the CTE scenario utilizes mean 

ingestion rates for each of these groups. 

We provide results from both scenarios 

to illustrate the range of potential 

modeled exposures and risks that may 

exist in the high-end of the complete 

distribution of potential multipathway 

risks for this source category. 

Considering the RME scenario, results 

of this analysis estimate the MIR for 

dioxin to be 30 in a million (based on 

Laotian anglers near the Frisco, TX 

facility). Using the CTE scenario, the 

maximum individual cancer risk from 

dioxins is estimated to be 6 in a million 

(also for Laotian anglers near the Frisco, 

TX facility). We note that, for the entire 

distribution of recreational anglers, the 

individual risk estimates for the CTE 

and RME scenarios ranged from 3 to 7 

in a million. Considering both exposure 

scenarios, the MIR for POM was less 

than 1 in a million. With respect to 

chronic noncancer risk, in both case 

studies, using both exposure scenarios, 

we did not estimate chronic HQ values 

greater than 1 for dioxin, mercury (even 

using the conservative emission 

assumptions just mentioned above) or 

cadmium. Detailed methods and results 

of the multipathway analysis are 

presented in the document Human 

Health Multipathway Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Secondary Lead 

Smelting Source Category, which can be 

found in the docket for the proposed 

rule. 

With respect to the potential for 

adverse environmental effects from the 

non-lead PB–HAP included in the case 

study multipathway assessments 

described above (i.e., multipathway 

assessment for cadmium, dioxins and 

furans, POM, and mercury), similar to 

non PB–HAP, there is a lack of 

information about specific adverse 

environmental effects occurring at a 

given concentration for these pollutants. 

However, given that the multipathway 

assessments for these pollutants 

estimated that all chronic non-cancer 

HQ values are less than 1 using human 

health reference values, we believe that 

it is unlikely that adverse environmental 

effects would occur at the PB–HAP 

concentrations estimated in the 

multipathway assessment. 

3. Facility-Wide Risk Assessment 

Results 

For this source category, there are no 

other significant HAP emissions sources 

present. All significant HAP sources 

have been included in the source 

category risk analysis. Therefore, we 

conclude that the facility-wide risk is 

essentially the same as the source 

category risk and that no separate 

facility-wide analysis is necessary. 

4. Demographic Risk Analysis Results 

To identify specific groups that may 

be affected by this rulemaking, EPA 

conducted demographic analyses. These 

analyses provide information about the 

demographic makeup of populations 

with: (1) Estimated cancer risks at or 

above 1-in-1 million; and (2) estimated 

ambient air lead concentrations above 

the NAAQS for lead. Results are 

summarized in Table 4 of this preamble 

and are based on modeling using 

estimated actual emissions levels for the 

populations living within 50 km of any 

secondary lead smelting facility. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29054 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 4—SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS

Population Nationwide 

Population 

with cancer 

risk greater 

than 1-in-1 

million 

Population 

with ambient 

air lead 

concentrations 

exceeding 

the NAAQS 

Total population ............................................................................................................... 285,000,000 128,000 500 

Race by percent 

White ................................................................................................................................ 75 58 94 

All Other Races ............................................................................................................... 25 42 6 

Race by percent 

White ................................................................................................................................ 75 58 94 

African American ............................................................................................................. 12 7 2 

Native American .............................................................................................................. 0.9 0.8 0.6 

Other and Multiracial ....................................................................................................... 12 34 3 

Ethnicity by percent 

Hispanic ........................................................................................................................... 14 56 5 

Non-Hispanic ................................................................................................................... 86 44 95 

Income by percent 

Below poverty level .......................................................................................................... 13 22 10 

Above poverty level ......................................................................................................... 87 78 90 

Children 

Children, Ages 0–18 ........................................................................................................ 27 32 26 

Results of the cancer risk assessment 

indicate that there are approximately 

128,000 people exposed to a cancer risk 

greater than 1-in-1 million. For 

informational purposes, it can further be 

determined that about 42 percent of this 

population can be classified as a 

minority (listed as ‘‘all Other Races’’ in 

the table), which is above the national 

percentage of 25 percent. More 

specifically, this analysis estimates a 

greater percentage of this population is 

‘‘Hispanic’’ (56 percent) and ‘‘Other and 

Multiracial’’ (34 percent) when 

compared to the corresponding national 

percentages (14 percent and 12 percent, 

respectively). We also note that in the 

cancer demographics analysis there is a 

larger percentage of individuals ‘‘Below 

Poverty Level’’ (22 percent) when 

compared to the national percentage (13 

percent). In contrast, this analysis 

estimates the percentage of those 

classified as ‘‘African American’’ (7 

percent) and ‘‘Native American’’ (0.8 

percent) to be below corresponding 

national percentages (12 and 0.9 

percent, respectively). 

With respect to lead, the risk analysis 

estimates that 500 people are living in 

areas around this source category with 

modeled ambient air lead 

concentrations above the NAAQS for 

lead. The lead demographics analysis 

estimates that about 6 percent of this 

population can be classified as a 

minority (listed as ‘‘all Other Races’’ in 

the table). Moreover, all minority or 

below the poverty level populations 

considered in the demographics 

analysis for lead are below the 

corresponding national percentages for 

these groups. 

Moreover, given the extent to which 

lead may impact children’s health, we 

further note that our demographic 

analysis doesn’t indicate the presence of 

a higher percentage of children than one 

would normally expect around facilities 

in this source category. The national 

percentage of people who are children 

18 years and younger is 27 percent; the 

percentage of people who are children 

18 years or younger living near 

secondary lead smelting facilities who 

are estimated to be exposed to lead 

concentrations above the lead NAAQS 

is 26 percent (see Risk and Technology 

Review—Analysis of Socio-Economic 

Factors for Populations Living Near 

Secondary Lead Smelting Facilities in 

the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking). 

C. What are our proposed decisions 

based on risk acceptability and ample 

margin of safety? 

1. Risk Acceptability 

As noted in Section III.C of this 

preamble, we weigh all health risk 

factors in our risk acceptability 

determination, including cancer risks to 

the individual most exposed, risk 

estimation uncertainty, and other health 

information, including population risks 

and risks for non-cancer health effects. 

The following sections discuss our 

decisions on risk acceptability based on 

three analyses: (1) Comparison of 

modeled ambient lead concentrations 

with the lead NAAQS, (2) the inhalation 

risk assessment, and (3) the 

multipathway risk assessment. 

a. Comparison of Modeled Ambient 

Lead Concentrations With the Lead 

NAAQS 

With regard to lead emissions, 

because ambient air lead concentrations 

resulting from current emissions from 

nine facilities were estimated to be well 

above the lead NAAQS, the risks 

associated with lead emissions from this 

source category are judged to be 

unacceptable. Based on our modeling 

analysis, we estimate that ambient air 

lead concentrations near the facility 

boundary resulting from actual 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29055 

emissions from one of these facilities 

could be as high as 20 times above the 

lead NAAQS, due primarily to fugitive 

dust emissions. Additionally, 

approximately 500 individuals could be 

exposed to three-month-rolling average 

lead concentrations in excess of the 

NAAQS due to emissions from this 

source category. Moreover, we estimate 

that the risks would be significantly 

higher based on MACT-allowable 

emissions of lead from this source 

category. Exposure to levels this much 

in excess of a primary NAAQS raises 

obvious issues of adequacy of protection 

afforded by the current MACT standard. 

Among other things, the lead NAAQS 

was set to ‘‘provide increased protection 

for children and other at-risk 

populations against an array of adverse 

health effects, most notably including 

neurological effects in children, 

including neurocognitive and 

neurobehavioral effects’’ (73 FR 67007). 

EPA is thus proposing that these 

ambient lead levels need to be reduced 

to provide protection to public health 

with an ample margin of safety. 

b. Inhalation Risk Assessment 

Based on the inhalation risk 

assessment, we estimate that the cancer 

risks to the individual most exposed 

could be as high as 50-in-1 million due 

to actual emissions and as high as 200- 

in-1 million due to MACT-allowable 

emissions, mainly due to arsenic stack 

emissions and, to a lesser extent, 

cadmium emissions. We estimate that 

the incidence of cancer based on actual 

emissions is 0.02 excess cancer cases 

per year, or one case every 50 years. 

Based on these results, we conclude that 

the cancer risks due to MACT-allowable 

emissions from this source category are 

unacceptable. The cancer risks due to 

actual emissions are below 100-in-1 

million and population risks are 

relatively low. Therefore, cancer risks 

due to actual emissions are considered 

acceptable. 

With respect to potential acute noncancer health risks, we estimate that, 

based on our screening analysis, the 

worst-case HQ value could be up to 30 

(based on the REL) at one facility, due 

primarily to arsenic emissions. 

Additionally, we estimated that nine 

facilities had potential worst-case HQs 

greater than 1 in our screening analysis, 

also due primarily to arsenic emissions. 

These results suggest that arsenic 

emissions have the potential to cause 

acute non-cancer health effects. 

However, the worst-case nature of our 

acute screening assessment suggests that 

the potential for these effects carries a 

relatively low probability of occurrence. 

Nevertheless, we seek comments 

regarding this conclusion. 

c. Multipathway Risk Assessment 

Based on our multipathway risk 

assessment, we estimate that the MIR for 

cancer using a reasonable maximum or 

a central tendency exposure scenario 

(see above) could be up to 30-in-1 

million and 6-in-1 million respectively, 

due to actual emissions of dioxins and 

furans. Because the MIR is less than the 

100-in-1 million threshold, we conclude 

that the risks due to actual dioxin and 

furan emissions are acceptable. Because 

emissions of other HAP (i.e., cadmium 

and POM) analyzed in the 

multipathway risk assessments did not 

result in MIRs above 1-in-1 million, we 

also conclude that the risks due to 

emissions of these HAP are acceptable. 

d. Summary of Conclusions 

In summary, we conclude that, based 

on our lead NAAQS analysis, the risks 

due to lead emissions under the MACT 

standard for this source category are 

unacceptable. Based on the inhalation 

risk assessment, we conclude that 

cancer risks associated with MACTallowable emissions from this source 

category are unacceptable, primarily 

due to arsenic emissions from stacks, 

and to a lesser extent cadmium 

emissions. The cancer risks associated 

with actual emissions from this source 

category were determined to be 

acceptable, but will be investigated 

further in the ample margin of safety 

analysis because the risks are greater 

than 1-in-1 million, primarily due to 

fugitive emissions of arsenic and 

cadmium. 

We will also evaluate the arsenic 

emissions further under the ample 

margin of safety because of the potential 

for acute non-cancer risks. Lastly, the 

risks from emissions of all HAP 

considered in the multipathway 

assessment are acceptable. Nevertheless, 

as described in section 2 below, we 

evaluate the HAP further under the 

ample margin of safety analysis. 

2. Proposed Controls and Analysis of 

the Resulting Risk 

a. Allowable Stack Emissions 

In order to ensure that the risks 

associated with MACT-allowable stack 

emissions from this source category are 

acceptable, the MIR, resulting primarily 

from allowable stack emissions of 

arsenic, would need to be reduced by at 

least a factor of 2 (i.e., from 200-in-1 

million to 100-in-1 million or lower). 

Also, based on our analyses, MACT 

allowable emissions of lead from stacks 

alone (not including fugitive dust 

emissions) could result in ambient lead 

concentrations about 10 times above the 

NAAQS for two facilities. Because the 

controls for stack emissions of arsenic 

are the same as those for lead, and 

because the relationship between 

emissions and the MIR and ambient air 

lead concentrations is predominantly 

linear, we estimated that the current 

stack lead concentration limit would 

need to be reduced by approximately an 

order of magnitude to ensure acceptable 

risk from MACT-allowable emissions of 

lead and arsenic from this source 

category. Therefore, we considered 

lowering the existing lead concentration 

limit by an order of magnitude (i.e., 

from 2.0 mg/dscm to 0.2 mg/dscm) for 

all stacks. We also considered different 

forms of a revised lead emissions limit 

that would achieve similar reductions in 

MACT-allowable emissions. However, 

based on a combination of data analysis, 

evaluation of each facility’s processes, 

and communication with the industry, 

we have determined that a 

concentration-based limit continues to 

be the most appropriate form for this 

source category. 

We also evaluated an approach that 

would implement a facility-wide, flowweighted average lead concentration 

limit of 0.20 mg/dscm with a maximum 

concentration limit of 1.0 mg/dscm for 

any individual stack. For the 0.2 mg/ 

dscm flow-weighted average limit, 

facilities would assign a weighting 

factor to the measured lead 

concentrations of each stack based on 

the exhaust flow rates of each control 

device. The sum of all the flowweighted concentrations at each stack 

within a facility would then be 

calculated and compared to the 

proposed limit to demonstrate 

compliance. A limit in this form would 

ensure that the risks associated with 

MACT-allowable stack emissions of lead 

and arsenic from this source category 

are acceptable, and that the rule 

provides an ample margin of safety, 

while providing flexibility to the 

facilities in determining the most 

efficient approach to achieve the 

necessary reductions. Proposing a 

maximum concentration limit of 1.0 mg/ 

dscm for any individual stack will also 

ensure that stack emissions of lead from 

any one stack in this source category 

will not result in exceedances of the 

lead NAAQS. Furthermore, our analysis 

of available control technologies, 

presented in Section IV.D of this 

preamble, confirms that this is a 

technologically feasible standard. 

For these reasons, under the authority 

of CAA section 112(f)(2), we are 

proposing a facility-wide, flow-weighted 

average lead concentration limit of 0.20 

mg/dscm to cover all stacks in this 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29056 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

25We do not believe that use of a lead CEM to 

meet the flow-weighted average of 0.2 mg/dscm 

poses issues of feasibility, even though our present 

data for the source data comes from stack tests 

rather than continuous measurements. This is 

because so many sources are achieving levels 

considerably less than 0.2 mg/dscm in their 

performance tests. (See ‘‘Summary of the 

Technology Review for Secondary Lead Smelters’’, 

which is available in the docket.) 

source category. We are also proposing 

a maximum lead concentration limit of 

1.0 mg/dscm to apply to any individual 

stack at existing facilities. For new 

sources, we are proposing that a limit of 

0.20 mg/dscm applies to all individual 

stacks at the facility. As in the existing 

MACT standard, compliance for existing 

sources will be demonstrated by annual 

stack testing and installation and 

operation of BLDSs for both new and 

existing sources. 

We are also proposing that new 

affected sources would be required to 

demonstrate compliance using a lead 

continuous emissions monitoring 

systems (CEMS).25 However, since the 

Agency has not finalized the 

performance specification for the use of 

these instruments, we are deferring the 

effective date of the requirement to 

install, calibrate, maintain and operate 

lead CEMS until these actions can be 

completed. The lead CEMS installation 

deadline will be established through 

future rulemaking, along with other 

pertinent requirements. In the event 

operations commence at a new affected 

source prior to promulgation of the 

performance specification, compliance 

would be demonstrated through annual 

stack testing and installation of a BLDS 

until promulgation of the lead CEMS 

performance specification. With regard 

to existing sources, we considered the 

possibility of proposing CEMs as the 

method to demonstrate compliance with 

the MACT limits. However, since the 

Agency has not yet finalized the 

performance specification for this 

method and since the costs could be 

high for applying this technology to 

multiple stacks, we are not proposing a 

requirement for CEMs for existing 

sources. However, we are allowing the 

option of a CEMS in lieu of annual stack 

tests for lead for existing sources in this 

industry when the technology is 

available and the EPA has established 

performance specifications. We are 

seeking comments and information on 

the feasibility of applying this 

technology for monitoring lead 

emissions from these sources and the 

potential to require CEMs on existing 

sources in this source category. 

Nevertheless, depending on comments 

received and other factors we may 

consider requiring CEMs for existing 

sources in the future, if appropriate. 

b. Fugitive Dust Emissions 

As described in Section IV.C.1 of this 

preamble, we have determined that 

fugitive dust emissions must be reduced 

such that ambient lead concentrations 

near the facility boundaries are below 

the lead NAAQS (i.e., 0.15 mg/dscm). 

Based on our review of information 

submitted in the ICR, we have identified 

a combination of specific fugitive 

control measures that are generally able 

to achieve lead concentrations near the 

boundaries of facilities that are below 

the lead NAAQS (see Draft Technology 

Review for the Secondary Lead Smelting 

Source Category). These controls 

include total enclosure of process 

fugitive emissions sources and material 

storage and handling areas and 

implementation of a list of prescribed 

work practices to further limit the 

formation of fugitive dust in other areas 

of the facilities. Examples of these 

prescribed work practices include: 

Pavement of all grounds on the facility 

or sufficient groundcover to prevent 

wind-blown dust, monthly cleaning of 

building rooftops, timely cleaning of 

any accidental releases, inspection of 

battery storage areas outside of 

enclosures for broken batteries, and 

performance of maintenance on 

equipment that may be contaminated 

with lead inside total enclosures. Our 

analysis indicates that these controls are 

necessary to ensure that three-month 

rolling average lead concentrations near 

the boundaries at all facilities in this 

source category do not exceed the lead 

NAAQS. Furthermore, our analysis of 

available control technologies in Section 

IV.D of this preamble confirms that this 

is a technologically feasible standard for 

this source category. 

For the reasons described above, we 

are proposing under CAA section 

112(f)(2) that each facility must totally 

enclose the following emissions sources 

and operate the total enclosure under 

negative pressure: 

(1) Smelting furnaces; 

(2) Smelting furnace charging areas; 

(3) Lead taps, slag taps, and molds 

during tapping; 

(4) Battery breakers; 

(5) Refining kettles, casting areas; 

(6) Dryers; 

(7) Agglomerating furnaces and 

agglomerating furnace product taps; 

(8) Material handling areas for any 

lead bearing materials (drosses, slag, 

other raw materials), excluding areas 

where unbroken lead acid batteries and 

finished lead products are stored; and 

(9) Areas where dust from fabric 

filters, sweepings or used fabric filters 

are handled or processed. 

The ventilation air from the total 

enclosures must be conveyed to a 

control device. We are also proposing 

that the emissions from the enclosure 

control devices will be subject to the 

proposed stack lead emissions limits 

described in this section. 

In addition, we are proposing that 

facilities must implement the following 

fugitive control work practices: 

Pavement cleaning and vehicle washing; 

cleaning of building rooftops on a 

regular schedule (e.g., at least once per 

month); cleaning of all affected areas 

after accidental releases; inspection of 

the battery storage areas for broken 

batteries; performance of maintenance 

activities inside enclosures; and 

transport of lead bearing material in 

closed systems. Additionally, each 

facility will be required to prepare, and 

at all times operate according to, a SOP 

manual that describes in detail how the 

additional work practices will be 

implemented. 

We acknowledge that there may be 

other control measures and alternative 

approaches that we have not identified 

that are effective in reducing fugitive 

dust emissions at other facilities. 

Therefore, as an alternative to the 

requirement for full enclosure, we are 

proposing under CAA section 112(f)(2) 

that facilities may choose to implement 

the work practices, maintain partial 

enclosures and enclosure hoods as the 

1997 NESHAP requires, prepare an SOP 

as described above and establish an 

ambient air monitoring network to 

ensure that lead concentrations in air 

near the facility boundaries remain at or 

below 0.15 μg/m3 based on 3-month 

rolling averages (the level and averaging 

time of the lead NAAQS). The 

monitoring plan must include a 

minimum of two monitoring sites that 

are placed in locations that are most 

likely to capture measurements of the 

maximum concentrations at or near the 

facility boundaries. For example, at least 

one monitor must be placed in the 

predominant downwind direction from 

main emissions sources based on 

historical weather patterns in the area. 

This alternative regulatory requirement 

based on partial enclosures, work 

practices plus monitoring lead 

concentrations in air would provide 

flexibility to facilities in determining 

the within-facility sources that should 

be enclosed and vented to a control 

device that are most effective for 

reducing fugitive emissions at their 

facilities. These proposed requirements 

will ensure that the risks associated 

with fugitive lead emissions from this 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29057 

26The proposed lead concentration in air 

alternative appears to be an ‘‘emissions standard’’, 

as required by section 112 (f)(2), since it ‘‘limits the 

quantity, rate, or concentration’’ of lead—to the 

level of the NAAQS at a location of maximum 

exposure—albeit compliance with the standard is 

measured by means of ambient monitoring. CAA 

section 302 (k). Nonetheless, EPA solicits comment 

on this issue. 

source category are acceptable. 

Nevertheless, we are seeking comments 

on this proposed alternative 

requirement, including whether two 

monitors would be sufficient or if more 

monitors may be warranted. 

If this alternative approach is chosen 

by the facility, the work practices and 

SOP along with the lead concentration 

in air monitoring would be established 

as the enforceable requirements to 

address fugitive emissions under the 

NESHAP. For both new and existing 

facilities, compliance with the lead 

concentration in air monitoring 

component would be demonstrated 

based on rolling 3-month average 

concentrations as measured by the lead 

compliance monitoring devices, 

consistent with the averaging time of the 

lead NAAQS (see documentation for 

EPA’s Lead NAAQS, available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnnaaqs/ 

standards/pb). We are proposing that 

approval by EPA is required for each 

source electing to comply by means of 

this alternative approach that includes a 

monitoring network plus work practices 

rather than compliance based on full 

enclosure plus work practices. Thus, the 

proposed alternative requires 

development of a monitoring plan for 

approval by the Administrator that 

includes the minimum sampling and 

analysis methods and compliance 

demonstration criteria. Under this 

alternative, facilities would also be 

required to provide a work practice SOP 

manual to the Administrator.26

As part of this alternative, we are also 

proposing a provision that would allow 

for reduced monitoring if the facility 

demonstrates ambient lead 

concentrations less than 50 percent of 

the ambient lead concentration limit for 

three consecutive years at each monitor. 

We propose that a revised monitoring 

plan may be submitted (for review and 

possible approval by the Administrator) 

to reduce the sampling and analysis 

frequency if all of the 3-month rolling 

average concentrations at each monitor 

are less than 50 percent of the limit of 

0.15 μg/m3 over a 3-year period. The 

monitoring requirements discussed 

above were designed to allow for 

flexibility, prevention of redundant 

requirements, and also to provide 

consistency with current monitoring 

programs that may be required at some 

of the facilities in this source category. 

c. Risks Considering Proposed Control 

Options 

We conducted an assessment to 

estimate the risks based on a postcontrol scenario reflecting the proposed 

requirements for stack and fugitive 

emissions described above. (Details are 

provided in the Draft Risk Assessment 

report which is available in the docket 

for this action). Based on that modeling 

assessment, we estimated that the 

ambient lead concentrations would be at 

or below the lead NAAQS for all 

facilities once this rule is fully 

implemented, except for possibly one 

facility in California. Our modeling 

analysis indicated that this one facility 

in California may still be above the lead 

NAAQS after controls. Therefore, we 

gathered additional information and did 

further evaluation of this facility. Based 

on communications with the company, 

it is our understanding that the facility 

is currently constructing an additional 

enclosure of certain equipment (e.g., 

baghouse row, abatement equipment, 

and slurry tanks) that we had not 

included in our post-control scenario. 

Moreover, it is our understanding that 

the company has recently implemented, 

or is currently implementing, other 

measures (e.g., repaired asphalt and 

additional cleaning of road surfaces) 

that will significantly reduce their 

fugitive emissions further as part of 

their efforts to comply with a California 

State regulation (reference: based on 

verbal communications during meeting 

with Exide Corporation on February 23, 

2011, in RTP, NC; and a phone 

conversation on April 25, 2011). The 

California regulation has a compliance 

deadline of late 2011 and requires that 

ambient concentrations of lead near this 

facility remain at or below 0.15 μg/m3

per 3-month rolling averages. Therefore, 

we conclude that this facility will 

achieve levels at or below the NAAQS. 

In summary, we are proposing that 

the MACT standard, with the changes 

we are proposing under the CAA section 

112(f)(2) residual risk review, will 

reduce risks from fugitive lead 

emissions to an acceptable level. 

Our analysis indicates that the MIR 

for cancer due to inhalation exposure 

associated with actual emissions from 

this source category would be reduced 

from 50-in-1 million to 10-in-1 million 

as a result of the actions proposed under 

112(f)(2), while the MIR from MACTallowable emissions would be reduced 

from 200-in-1 million to 10-in-1 million. 

The cancer incidence rate will be 

reduced from 0.02 to 0.01. Furthermore, 

the maximum worst-case screening 

acute HQ value will be reduced from 

potentially as high as 30 to less than or 

equal to 5. Based on these metrics, the 

actions proposed above under CAA 

section 112(f)(2) ensure acceptable risks 

from actual and MACT-allowable stack 

emissions of all HAP for this source 

category. 

3. Ample Margin of Safety 

Under the ample margin of safety 

analysis, we evaluate the cost and 

feasibility of available control 

technologies and other measures 

(including the controls, measures and 

costs reviewed under the technology 

review) that could be applied in this 

source category to further reduce the 

risks due to emissions of HAP identified 

in our risk assessment. We estimate that 

the actions proposed under CAA section 

112(f)(2), as described above, will 

reduce the MIR associated with arsenic 

and cadmium from 200-in-1 to 10-in-1 

million for MACT-allowable emissions 

and from 50-in-1 to 10-in-1 million for 

actual emissions. The cancer incidence 

will be reduced from 0.02 to 0.01 and 

the maximum acute HQ value will be 

reduced from potentially up to 30 to less 

than or equal to 5. Although these risks 

are considered acceptable based on the 

100-in-1 million threshold established 

in the Benzene NESHAP, the MIR 

remains greater than 1-in-1 million, due 

primarily to fugitive emissions of 

arsenic and cadmium. Also, the 

maximum acute non-cancer HQ could 

be up to 5. Our ample margin of safety 

analysis is provided below. We have 

performed these analyses for emissions 

sources of the following five groups of 

HAP for which standards were proposed 

in today’s action: (1) Arsenic and 

cadmium, (2) lead compounds, (3) 

dioxins and furans, (4) organic HAP, 

and (5) mercury compounds. The results 

of these analyses are presented in the 

following sections. 

a. Arsenic and Cadmium Emissions 

Because the estimated MIR of 10-in-1 

million remaining after implementation 

of our proposed revisions to the MACT 

standard is driven primarily by fugitive 

emissions of arsenic and cadmium, we 

performed an ample margin of safety 

analysis on these emissions. Based on 

our research and analyses, we have not 

identified any feasible control options 

beyond what we are requiring in our 

proposed standards for fugitive 

emissions sources described above, and 

are therefore not proposing additional 

fugitive controls based on our ample 

margin of safety analysis. Nevertheless, 

we are soliciting comments and 

information regarding additional 

fugitive control measures, work 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29058 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

practices that may be available and their 

feasibility in further reducing fugitive 

emissions of metal HAP, or additional 

monitoring that may be warranted to 

ensure adequate control of fugitive 

emissions. 

We also conducted additional 

analyses to determine whether 

reductions in stack emissions of arsenic 

and cadmium emissions beyond those 

required by our proposed standards are 

appropriate and necessary to provide an 

ample margin of safety. We identified 

one control technology that could 

achieve reductions beyond those that 

will occur due to the actions we are 

proposing under CAA section 112(f)(2), 

which are described above. The device 

is a wet electrostatic precipitator 

(WESP) that provides an estimated lead 

control efficiency of greater than 99 

percent on the outlet of the baghouse. 

The combination of the baghouses with 

the WESP achieves greater than 99.99 

percent control efficiency (see: Wet 

Electrostatic Precipitator (WESP) 

Control for Meeting Metals Emissions 

Standards). This technology is currently 

used at one facility in California. 

However, this control configuration is 

quite expensive. We estimated that 

installing a WESP at the other 13 

facilities would result in total capital 

costs to the industry of $400 million and 

a total annualized cost of $55 million. 

We estimate that the cost-effectiveness 

would be about $4.0 million per ton of 

reductions in metal HAP emissions 

(mainly lead compounds). A detailed 

analysis of the costs associated with the 

WESP unit can be found in the technical 

document for this action available in the 

docket (see Draft Cost Impacts of the 

Revised NESHAP for the Secondary 

Lead Smelting Source Category). Stack 

emissions of arsenic and cadmium do 

not appreciably contribute to the 10-in1 million cancer risks remaining after 

implementation of the proposed 

revisions. Moreover, we conclude that 

the likelihood of significant noncancer 

effects due to arsenic emissions (after 

the proposed controls described above 

are in place) is very low because the 

maximum acute noncancer HQ (which 

could be as high as 5) is based on a very 

conservative analysis using some worst 

case assumptions. Furthermore, the 

costs for these additional controls are 

high. Therefore, we are not proposing a 

requirement for the installation of a 

WESP under this ample margin of safety 

analysis. 

b. Lead Emissions 

With regard to emissions of lead, by 

lowering the facility-wide emissions 

limit to a flow-weighted average of 0.20 

mg/dscm, limiting the emissions from 

any one stack to no more than 1.0 mg/ 

dscm, and requiring facilities to either 

fully enclose their facility and 

implement comprehensive fugitive work 

practices or implement comprehensive 

fugitive work practices and lead air 

monitoring, we conclude that the actual 

and MACT-allowable lead emissions 

from this source category would be 

reduced to the point that they would not 

result in off-site concentrations above 

the NAAQS. Moreover, we have not 

identified any further feasible and costeffective controls. See Section IV.C.2.a 

of this preamble explaining that adding 

a wet electrostatic precipitator as 

supplementary HAP metal control 

would be excessively costly and not 

cost-effective. Moreover, as described 

above, we have not identified other 

measures (beyond those proposed 

above) to further reduce fugitive 

emissions. Thus, we are proposing that 

revisions to the MACT standard that we 

are proposing under CAA section 

112(f)(2), as described above, will 

provide an ample margin of safety with 

regard to emissions of lead from this 

source category. 

c. Dioxin and Furan Emissions 

With regard to dioxin and furan 

emissions, as outlined in Section IV.A 

of this preamble, we are proposing 

various emissions limits under CAA 

section 112(d)(3). Results of the 

multipathway risk assessment indicate 

that the cancer MIR associated with 

dioxin and furan emissions is 30-in-1 

million, less than the acceptability 

threshold of 100-in-1 million. However, 

because the MIR is greater than 1-in-1 

million, we are required to investigate 

whether reductions in emissions of 

dioxins and furans beyond that required 

in the limits we are proposing under 

CAA section 112(d)(3) are needed to 

provide an ample margin of safety to the 

public. 

We identified one option to reduce 

emissions of dioxins and furans beyond 

that required by the limits proposed in 

today’s action. This option is the 

installation of additional afterburner 

capacity at the facilities operating blast 

furnaces. We evaluated this option 

because of the higher potential of 

formation of dioxins and furans in the 

blast furnace exhaust due to its 

relatively cooler exit temperature. This 

option would include operating the 

currently installed afterburners at a 

temperature of 1600 °F with a residence 

time of 2.5 seconds, or installation of 

new or additional afterburner capacity 

with this capability. Based on the 

current level of performance identified 

in the ICR surveys, we believe that this 

option would require four facilities to 

install additional afterburner capacity or 

install new afterburners at their facility 

in order to operate the units at these 

conditions. The estimated total capital 

cost for the additional controls is $5.9 

million, with a total annualized cost of 

$2.9 million. Based on an estimated 

control efficiency of 98 percent, TEQ 

emissions would be reduced by an 

estimated 28 grams per year and organic 

HAP emissions by 200 tons per year (see 

Draft Cost Impacts of the Revised 

NESHAP for the Secondary Lead 

Smelting Source Category for a detailed 

analysis). However, this option would 

result in increases of NOX and CO2

emissions. Considering the costs 

associated with this option, the 

potential for increased emissions of 

NOX and CO2, and the fact that risks 

associated with emissions of dioxins 

and furans are clearly less than 100-in1 million, we are not proposing this 

option as part of our ample margin of 

safety analysis. We also considered 

various beyond the floor options for 

establishing MACT limits for dioxins 

and furans under the Section 112(d)(3) 

review (as described in section IV.A.2), 

but we are not proposing any of those 

options in this action for the reasons 

described in that section. 

d. Organic HAP Emissions 

With regard to organic HAP (other 

than dioxins and furans), we estimate 

that actual emissions do not result in a 

cancer risk above 1-in-1 million at any 

facilities in this source category. Given 

that actual emissions from blast 

furnaces do not result in a cancer risk 

above 1-in-1 million in this source 

category, and that the actual THC 

emissions modeled from blast furnaces 

were at levels close to the allowable 

emissions, we conclude that the cancer 

risk associated with actual and 

allowable emissions of organic HAP 

from all other furnace types are not 

likely to be greater than 1-in-1 million 

since the THC limit for blast furnaces is 

considerably higher than for other 

furnace types. The one exception is for 

rotary furnaces, for which we are 

proposing a THC limit (i.e., 610 ppmv) 

in today’s action that is higher than the 

limit in the 1997 NESHAP for blast 

furnaces (i.e., 360 ppmv). Based on our 

risk assessment, we estimate that the 

highest possible MIR due to allowable 

organic HAP emissions from the one 

rotary furnace in operation today would 

be 2-in-1 million (given the proposed 

emissions limits in today’s action). This 

is based on the conservative assumption 

that this rotary furnace will 

continuously emit THC at exactly 610 

ppmv, which is a highly unlikely 

scenario. Additionally, emissions of 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29059 

27As explained in section C above, we conclude 

that requiring an additional wet electrostatic 

precipitator as a form of supplementary metal 

control at all facilities would be excessively costly 

and not cost effective. 

organic HAP from this source category 

do not appreciably contribute to any 

chronic-non cancer risk. For these 

reasons, we are proposing that the 

MACT standards for organic HAP, as 

proposed in today’s action, provide an 

ample margin of safety. 

e. Mercury Emissions 

Lastly, with regard to mercury 

emissions from this source category, our 

risk assessment indicates that, even 

based on our highly conservative 

estimates of mercury emissions (see 

Section III.B.7 of this preamble for 

further discussion on the conservative 

nature of our mercury emissions 

estimates), emissions of mercury did not 

appreciably contribute to risk based on 

both the inhalation and multipathway 

risk analyses. Given that the work 

practice standard proposed in today’s 

action for mercury is based on actual 

performance of the industry, we are 

proposing that these standards provide 

an ample margin of safety with regards 

to risk from mercury emissions from 

this source category. 

D. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review? 

Based on our technology review, we 

determined that there have been 

advances in emissions control measures 

since the Secondary Lead Smelting 

NESHAP was originally promulgated in 

1997. Since promulgation, we estimate 

that industry-wide metal HAP emissions 

(including lead) from process and 

process fugitive sources have been 

reduced by approximately 80 percent. 

As a result, and due to other factors, 

actual lead emissions from process and 

process fugitive sources at most 

secondary lead smelting facilities are 

significantly lower than are allowed 

under the 1997 NESHAP. 

Based on our technology review, we 

believe that the reductions in metal 

HAP emissions since promulgation of 

the 1997 NESHAP are mainly directly 

related to improvements in two areas: 

(1) Improvements in fabric filter control 

technology (e.g., improved bag 

materials, replacement of older 

baghouses) and (2) total enclosure of 

process fugitive emissions sources and 

raw material storage and handling areas 

and improvements in emissions controls 

and work practices for fugitive dust 

emissions sources. Additional 

reductions have been achieved due to 

the use of a WESP at one facility and 

also HEPA filters in some cases. The 

results of our analyses and our proposed 

decisions for these areas under CAA 

section 112(d)(6) are presented in the 

following sections. Additional details 

regarding these analyses can be found in 

the following technical document for 

this action which is available in the 

docket: Draft Technology Review for the 

Secondary Lead Smelting Source 

Category. 

1. Fabric Filter Improvements 

The improvements in fabric filter 

control technology are reflected in the 

emissions test data collected under the 

ICR. The emissions limit for lead under 

the 1997 NESHAP is a concentrationbased limit of 2.0 mg/dscm applicable to 

all stacks whether they are classified as 

process, process fugitives, or building or 

enclosure ventilation systems. Based on 

our analysis of survey responses and 

test data collected under the ICR, this 

industry primarily uses fabric filters to 

control emissions of lead and other 

metal HAP, and the vast majority of 

sources affected by the current lead 

limit are achieving lead concentrations 

at control device outlets that are far 

below the current limit (see: Draft 

Technology Review for the Secondary 

Lead Smelting Source Category). Several 

facilities have also installed HEPA 

filters downstream of their fabric filters 

that have an estimated 99.97 percent 

add-on control efficiency for particles 

with an aerodynamic diameter of 0.3 

microns. More than 95 percent of all 

sources reported lead concentrations 

(coming out of the stacks after the 

control devices) that are less than half 

of the current limit, with several sources 

achieving lead concentrations that are 

two to three orders of magnitude lower 

than the current limit. Based on the 

available data, the average lead outlet 

concentration of all affected sources in 

this source category is 0.16 mg/dscm, 

with a median of 0.04 mg/dscm. Based 

on these data, we believe that 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies warrant 

revisions to the 1997 NESHAP to reflect 

emissions levels achieved in practice. 

Our analysis of emissions data provided 

in the ICR indicates that stacks 

equipped with a well-performing fabric 

filter can achieve exhaust lead 

concentrations of less than 0.20 mg/ 

dscm (see: Draft Technology Review for 

the Secondary Lead Smelting Source 

Category). In fact, of the 93 stacks 

identified in the ICR that are controlled 

using a baghouse, 74 reported average 

lead concentrations of less than 0.20 

mg/dscm. Based on these data, we 

considered the costs and feasibility of 

revising the emissions limit down to 

0.20 mg/dscm as a facility-wide, flowweighted average, identical to the limit 

proposed under CAA section 112(f)(2) 

in today’s action. We estimate that if we 

proposed such a limit, two of the 14 

facilities would be required to replace 

one of their large old baghouses with a 

newer, more efficient baghouse in order 

to comply. We estimate that this would 

result in about 5.9 tons of reductions of 

metal HAP emissions. We estimate that 

the total capital costs would be about 

$7.6 million with annualized costs of 

$1.7 million and cost-effectiveness of 

$0.3 million per ton of metal HAP (or 

$150 per pound of metal HAP). As a cobenefit to implementation of this 

revised standard, we estimate 

reductions of 56 tons of PM at a costeffectiveness of $30,000 per ton of PM. 

We do not anticipate additional energy 

use associated with this revised limit, as 

only replacement baghouses, as opposed 

to new units, are anticipated. 

Furthermore, we do not anticipate any 

adverse non-air environmental impacts 

associated with the implementation of 

this revised limit.27

For the reasons described above, 

under the authority of CAA section 

112(d)(6), we are proposing a facilitywide, flow-weighted average lead 

concentration limit of 0.20 mg/dscm to 

cover all stacks. Additionally, because 

89 of the 93 stacks identified in the ICR 

that are controlled using a baghouse are 

achieving lead concentrations below 1.0 

mg/dscm, we conclude that this level of 

emissions is technologically feasible 

and demonstrated, therefore we are also 

proposing a maximum lead 

concentration limit of 1.0 mg/dscm to 

apply to any individual stack at existing 

facilities. For new sources, we are 

proposing that the 0.20 mg/dscm limit 

applies to all individual stacks at the 

facility. Consistent with the standards 

proposed under CAA section 112(f)(2) 

in today’s action, compliance for 

existing sources will be demonstrated 

either by annual stack testing and 

installation and operation of BLDS or by 

use of a lead CEMS once performance 

specifications have been promulgated. 

New affected sources would be required 

to demonstrate compliance using a lead 

CEMS, pending promulgation of the 

lead CEMS performance specifications. 

Any new affected sources commencing 

operations prior to promulgation of the 

performance specifications may 

demonstrate compliance through annual 

stack testing and operation of a BLDS 

until the CEMS performance 

specifications are promulgated. 

We believe that these proposed 

revisions, identical to those proposed 

under CAA section 112(f)(2), are costeffective revisions that reflect the level 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29060 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

of control achievable in practice by a 

well performing fabric filter. 

2. Total Enclosure of Process Fugitive 

Sources and Raw Material Storage and 

Handling Areas and Work Practices for 

Fugitive Dust Sources 

Facilities have achieved some of their 

reductions since 1997 through total 

enclosure of process fugitive emissions 

sources and material storage and 

handling areas. Based on responses to 

the ICR survey, the process fugitive 

emissions sources regulated under the 

1997 NESHAP are totally enclosed and 

vented to a control device at seven of 

the 14 existing facilities. Additionally, 

an eighth facility has a current project 

to install total enclosures and associated 

control devices for their process fugitive 

emissions sources. This level of 

enclosure is well beyond the 

requirements of the 1997 NESHAP that 

provides facilities the option of using 

negative pressure hoods to capture 

process fugitive emissions and route 

them to a control device. The other six 

facilities have some degree of enclosure, 

but the extent of enclosure among these 

six facilities varies considerably. With 

regard to material storage and handling 

areas, the ICR surveys indicate that all 

of the facilities with process fugitive 

emissions sources in total enclosures 

have enclosed the storage areas for all 

lead-bearing materials such as processed 

raw materials and slag. 

The information and data collected 

under the ICR also indicate that at least 

four facilities conduct work practices 

beyond those required in the 1997 

NESHAP to further limit the formation 

of fugitive dust from material handling 

operations and re-entrainment of lead 

dust deposited within the facility fence 

line. Examples of these work practices 

include: pavement of all grounds on the 

facility, monthly cleaning of building 

rooftops, timely cleaning of any 

accidental releases, inspection of battery 

storage areas outside of enclosures for 

broken batteries, and performance of 

maintenance on equipment that may be 

contaminated with lead inside total 

enclosures. 

We estimate that for the six facilities 

to implement total enclosures with 

negative pressure ventilation to their 

process fugitive emissions sources, the 

total capital cost would be about $40 

million (about $6.7 million per facility) 

with total annualized costs of about $6.4 

million (or about $1.1 million per 

facility). These controls would achieve 

an estimated 5.3 tons reduction of metal 

HAP (mainly lead compounds, but also 

arsenic, and cadmium). Additionally, as 

a co-benefit, these controls would 

achieve an estimated 58 tons reduction 

of PM at a cost effectiveness of $100,000 

per ton of PM. We do anticipate 

approximately 23 million kilowatt hours 

(KWH) of additional energy use 

associated with the operation of 

additional baghouses controlling the 

building ventilation systems. However, 

we do not anticipate any adverse nonair environmental impacts associated 

with the implementation of these 

potential controls. Additionally, for ten 

facilities to implement the additional 

fugitive control work practices 

mentioned above, we estimate no 

capital cost and a total annualized cost 

of about $3.0 million (about $0.2 million 

per facility). These work practices 

would achieve an estimated 4.2 tons 

reduction of metal HAP (mainly lead, 

arsenic, and cadmium). Additionally, as 

a co-benefit, these work practices would 

achieve an estimated 46 tons reduction 

of PM at a cost-effectiveness of $100,000 

per ton of PM. The total cost 

effectiveness of implementing total 

enclosures with negative pressure 

ventilation as well as additional fugitive 

emissions control work practices is 

estimated at $1.0 million per ton of 

metal HAP (or $500 per pound of metal 

HAP). Because the primary HAP 

reduced are lead compounds, arsenic, 

and cadmium, and given the co-benefit 

PM reductions, we believe that these 

costs and cost-effectiveness values are 

reasonable. 

Therefore, for the reasons described 

above, we are proposing under CAA 

section 112(d)(6) that each facility must 

totally enclose the following emissions 

sources and operate the total enclosure 

under negative pressure: 

(1) Smelting furnaces. 

(2) Smelting furnace charging areas. 

(3) Lead taps, slag taps, and molds 

during tapping. 

(4) Battery breakers. 

(5) Refining kettles, casting areas. 

(6) Dryers. 

(7) Agglomerating furnaces and 

agglomerating furnace product taps. 

(8) Material handling areas for any 

lead bearing materials (drosses, slag, 

other raw materials), excluding areas 

where unbroken lead acid batteries and 

finished lead products are stored. 

(9) Areas where dust from fabric 

filters, sweepings or used fabric filters 

are handled or processed. 

The ventilation air from the total 

enclosures must be conveyed to a 

control device. We are also proposing 

that the emissions from the enclosure 

control devices be subject to the 

proposed stack lead emissions limits 

proposed in Section IV.D.1 of this 

preamble and also previously under 

CAA section 112(f)(2). 

Additionally, we are proposing under 

CAA section 112(d)(6) that each facility 

must implement the following fugitive 

control work practices: pavement 

cleaning and vehicle washing; cleaning 

of building rooftops on a regular (e.g., at 

least once per month) schedule; 

cleaning of all affected areas after 

accidental releases; inspection of the 

battery storage areas for broken 

batteries; performance of maintenance 

activities inside enclosures; and 

transport of lead bearing material in 

closed systems. 

For both new and existing facilities, 

compliance with the total enclosure and 

work practice requirements described 

above would require construction of 

total enclosures (where they do not 

already exist) capable of being operated 

under negative pressure and venting of 

the enclosure exhaust to a control 

device. Additionally, each facility 

would be required to prepare, and at all 

times operate according to, a SOP 

manual that describes in detail how the 

additional work practices will be 

implemented. We believe this standard, 

identical to that proposed under CAA 

section 112(f)(2), is a cost-effective 

control option that reflects the level of 

fugitive control achieved in practice by 

several facilities in this source category. 

3. Alternative Compliance Option for 

Fugitive Dust Emissions Under CAA 

Section 112(d)(6) 

Similar to the previous discussion 

regarding the fugitive emissions limits 

proposed in under CAA section 

112(f)(2), we acknowledge that there 

may be other control measures that we 

have not identified that are effective in 

reducing fugitive dust emissions at 

other facilities. Therefore, as an 

alternative to the requirements for full 

enclosure, we are proposing under CAA 

section 112(d)(6) that facilities may 

choose to implement comprehensive 

fugitive control work practices, 

maintain the partial enclosures and 

enclosure hoods required in the 1997 

NESHAP, plus establish an air 

monitoring network, similar to that 

required in the lead NAAQS, to ensure 

that fugitive emissions are minimized 

and that lead concentrations in air near 

the facility boundaries remain at or 

below 0.15 μg/m3 based on 3-month 

rolling averages. This compliance 

alternative is identical to that proposed 

under CAA section 112(f)(2). The 

implementation of this proposed 

alternative is thus identical and is 

presented in Section IV.C of this 

preamble. 

For facilities that choose the 

alternative compliance option for 

fugitive dust emissions and do not 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29061 

install total enclosures, we are 

proposing to keep the requirements for 

enclosure hoods and partial enclosures 

specified in the 1997 NESHAP in order 

to ensure a level of containment for 

process fugitive emissions. We are 

seeking comment on other control 

measures that should be prescribed for 

facilities that choose the alternative 

compliance option. 

E. What other actions are we proposing? 

1. Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction 

The United States Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit 

vacated portions of two provisions in 

EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations 

governing the emissions of HAP during 

periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction (SSM). Sierra Club v. EPA, 

551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), cert. 

denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). 

Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM 

exemption contained in 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that are 

part of a regulation, commonly referred 

to as the ‘‘General Provisions Rule,’’ that 

EPA promulgated under CAA section 

112. When incorporated into CAA 

section 112(d) regulations for specific 

source categories, these two provisions 

exempt sources from the requirement to 

comply with the otherwise applicable 

CAA section 112(d) emissions standard 

during periods of SSM. 

We are proposing the elimination of 

the SSM exemption in this rule. 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA 

is proposing standards in this rule that 

apply at all times. We are also proposing 

several revisions to Table 1 to subpart 

X of part 63 (the General Provisions 

Applicability table). For example, we 

are proposing to eliminate the 

incorporation of the General Provisions’ 

requirement that the source develop an 

SSM plan. We also are proposing to 

eliminate or revise certain 

recordkeeping and reporting that related 

to the SSM exemption. EPA has 

attempted to ensure that we have not 

included in the proposed regulatory 

language any provisions that are 

inappropriate, unnecessary, or 

redundant in the absence of the SSM 

exemption. We are specifically seeking 

comment on whether there are any such 

provisions that we have inadvertently 

incorporated or overlooked. 

In proposing the standards in this 

rule, EPA has taken into account startup 

and shutdown periods and, for the 

reasons explained below, has not 

proposed different standards for those 

periods. 

Information on periods of startup and 

shutdown received from the industry in 

the ICR indicate that emissions during 

these periods do not increase. Control 

devices such as afterburners for organics 

and dioxin control and baghouses for 

lead and metal HAP particulate control 

are started up before the process units, 

and are operational during the 

shutdown phase of a process. Therefore, 

no increase in emissions is expected 

during these periods. Enclosures and 

work practices for fugitive emissions 

will be in place at all times. Therefore, 

separate standards for periods of startup 

and shutdown are not being proposed. 

Periods of startup, normal operations, 

and shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

However, by contrast, malfunction is 

defined as a ‘‘sudden, infrequent, and 

not reasonably preventable failure of air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner * * *’’ (40 CFR 63.2). EPA has 

determined that CAA section 112 does 

not require that emissions that occur 

during periods of malfunction be 

factored into development of CAA 

section 112 standards. Under CAA 

section 112, emissions standards for 

new sources must be no less stringent 

than the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best 

controlled similar source and for 

existing sources generally must be no 

less stringent than the average emissions 

limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the best 

performing 12 percent of sources in the 

category. There is nothing in CAA 

section 112 that directs the Agency to 

consider malfunctions in determining 

the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best 

performing or best controlled sources 

when setting emissions standards. 

Moreover, while EPA accounts for 

variability in setting emissions 

standards consistent with the CAA 

section 112 case law, nothing in that 

case law requires the Agency to 

consider malfunctions as part of that 

analysis. Section 112 of the CAA uses 

the concept of ‘‘best controlled’’ and 

‘‘best performing’’ unit in defining the 

level of stringency that CAA section 112 

performance standards must meet. 

Applying the concept of ‘‘best 

controlled’’ or ‘‘best performing’’ to a 

unit that is malfunctioning presents 

significant difficulties, as malfunctions 

are sudden and unexpected events. 

Further, accounting for malfunctions 

would be difficult, if not impossible, 

given the myriad different types of 

malfunctions that can occur across all 

sources in the category and given the 

difficulties associated with predicting or 

accounting for the frequency, degree, 

and duration of various malfunctions 

that might occur. As such, the 

performance of units that are 

malfunctioning is not ‘‘reasonably’’ 

foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (DC Cir. 1999) 

(EPA typically has wide latitude in 

determining the extent of data-gathering 

necessary to solve a problem. We 

generally defer to an agency’s decision 

to proceed on the basis of imperfect 

scientific information, rather than to 

‘‘invest the resources to conduct the 

perfect study.’’). See also, Weyerhaeuser 

v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (DC Cir. 

1978) (‘‘In the nature of things, no 

general limit, individual permit, or even 

any upset provision can anticipate all 

upset situations. After a certain point, 

the transgression of regulatory limits 

caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third 

parties,’ such as strikes, sabotage, 

operator intoxication or insanity, and a 

variety of other eventualities, must be a 

matter for the administrative exercise of 

case-by-case enforcement discretion, not 

for specification in advance by 

regulation’’). In addition, the goal of a 

best controlled or best performing 

source is to operate in such a way as to 

avoid malfunctions of the source and 

accounting for malfunctions could lead 

to standards that are significantly less 

stringent than levels that are achieved 

by a well-performing nonmalfunctioning source. EPA’s approach 

to malfunctions is consistent with CAA 

section 112 and is a reasonable 

interpretation of the statute. 

In the event that a source fails to 

comply with the applicable CAA section 

112(d) standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, EPA would 

determine an appropriate response 

based on, among other things, the good 

faith efforts of the source to minimize 

emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses 

to ascertain and rectify excess 

emissions. EPA would also consider 

whether the source’s failure to comply 

with the CAA section 112(d) standard 

was, in fact, ‘‘sudden, infrequent, not 

reasonably preventable’’ and was not 

instead ‘‘caused in part by poor 

maintenance or careless operation’’ 40 

CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction). 

Finally, EPA recognizes that even 

equipment that is properly designed and 

maintained can sometimes fail and that 

such failure can sometimes cause an 

exceedance of the relevant emissions 

standard. (See, e.g., State 

Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding 

Excessive Emissions During 

Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown 

(Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on Excess 

Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, 

Maintenance, and Malfunctions (Feb. 

15, 1983)). EPA is therefore proposing to 

add to the final rule an affirmative 

defense to civil penalties for 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29062 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

exceedances of emissions limits that are 

caused by malfunctions. See 40 CFR 

63.542 (defining ‘‘affirmative defense’’ to 

mean, in the context of an enforcement 

proceeding, a response or defense put 

forward by a defendant, regarding 

which the defendant has the burden of 

proof, and the merits of which are 

independently and objectively 

evaluated in a judicial or administrative 

proceeding). We also are proposing 

other regulatory provisions to specify 

the elements that are necessary to 

establish this affirmative defense; the 

source must prove by a preponderance 

of the evidence that it has met all of the 

elements set forth in 40 CFR 63.552 (40 

CFR 22.24). The criteria ensure that the 

affirmative defense is available only 

where the event that causes an 

exceedance of the emissions limit meets 

the narrow definition of malfunction in 

40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not 

reasonable preventable and not caused 

by poor maintenance and or careless 

operation). For example, to successfully 

assert the affirmative defense, the source 

must prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence that excess emissions ‘‘[w]ere 

caused by a sudden, infrequent, and 

unavoidable failure of air pollution 

control and monitoring equipment, 

process equipment, or a process to 

operate in a normal or usual manner 

***’’ The criteria also are designed to 

ensure that steps are taken to correct the 

malfunction, to minimize emissions in 

accordance with 40 CFR 63.543(j) and to 

prevent future malfunctions. For 

example, the source must prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that 

‘‘[r]epairs were made as expeditiously as 

possible when the applicable emissions 

limitations were being exceeded * * *’’ 

and that ‘‘[a]ll possible steps were taken 

to minimize the impact of the excess 

emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health * * *.’’ 

In any judicial or administrative 

proceeding, the Administrator may 

challenge the assertion of the affirmative 

defense and, if the respondent has not 

met its burden of proving all of the 

requirements in the affirmative defense, 

appropriate penalties may be assessed 

in accordance with CAA section 113 

(see also 40 CFR 22.77). 

Specifically, we are proposing the 

following changes to the rule. 

Added general duty requirements in 

40 CFR 63.543(j) to replace General 

Provision requirements that reference 

vacated SSM provisions. 

Added replacement language that 

eliminates the reference to SSM 

exemptions applicable to performance 

tests in 40 CFR 63.543(i). 

Added paragraphs in 40 CFR 

63.550(d) requiring the reporting of 

malfunctions as part of the affirmative 

defense provisions. 

Added paragraphs in 40 CFR 

63.550(c) requiring the keeping of 

certain records during malfunctions as 

part of the affirmative defense 

provisions. 

Revised Table 1 to subpart X of part 

63 to reflect changes in the applicability 

of the General Provisions to this subpart 

resulting from a court vacatur of certain 

SSM requirements in the General 

Provisions. 

2. Electronic Reporting 

EPA must have performance test data 

to conduct effective reviews of CAA 

sections 112 and 129 standards, as well 

as for many other purposes including 

compliance determinations, emissions 

factor development, and annual 

emissions rate determinations. In 

conducting these required reviews, EPA 

has found it ineffective and time 

consuming, not only for us, but also for 

regulatory agencies and source owners 

and operators, to locate, collect, and 

submit performance test data because of 

varied locations for data storage and 

varied data storage methods. In recent 

years, though, stack testing firms have 

typically collected performance test data 

in electronic format, making it possible 

to move to an electronic data submittal 

system that would increase the ease and 

efficiency of data submittal and improve 

data accessibility. 

Through this proposal EPA is 

presenting a step to increase the ease 

and efficiency of data submittal and 

improve data accessibility. Specifically, 

EPA is proposing that owners and 

operators of Secondary Lead Smelting 

facilities submit electronic copies of 

required performance test reports to 

EPA’s WebFIRE database. The WebFIRE 

database was constructed to store 

performance test data for use in 

developing emissions factors. A 

description of the WebFIRE database is 

available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ 

oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main. 

As proposed above, data entry would 

be through an electronic emissions test 

report structure called the Electronic 

Reporting Tool. The ERT would be able 

to transmit the electronic report through 

EPA’s Central Data Exchange network 

for storage in the WebFIRE database 

making submittal of data very 

straightforward and easy. A description 

of the ERT can be found at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html. 

The proposal to submit performance 

test data electronically to EPA would 

apply only to those performance tests 

conducted using test methods that will 

be supported by the ERT. The ERT 

contains a specific electronic data entry 

form for most of the commonly used 

EPA reference methods. A listing of the 

pollutants and test methods supported 

by the ERT is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html. 

We believe that industry would benefit 

from this proposed approach to 

electronic data submittal. Having these 

data, EPA would be able to develop 

improved emissions factors, make fewer 

information requests, and promulgate 

better regulations. 

One major advantage of the proposed 

submittal of performance test data 

through the ERT is a standardized 

method to compile and store much of 

the documentation required to be 

reported by this rule. Another advantage 

is that the ERT clearly states what 

testing information would be required. 

Another important proposed benefit of 

submitting these data to EPA at the time 

the source test is conducted is that it 

should substantially reduce the effort 

involved in data collection activities in 

the future. When EPA has performance 

test data in hand, there will likely be 

fewer or less substantial data collection 

requests in conjunction with 

prospective required residual risk 

assessments or technology reviews. This 

would result in a reduced burden on 

both affected facilities (in terms of 

reduced manpower to respond to data 

collection requests) and EPA (in terms 

of preparing and distributing data 

collection requests and assessing the 

results). 

State, local, and Tribal agencies could 

also benefit from more streamlined and 

accurate review of electronic data 

submitted to them. The ERT would 

allow for an electronic review process 

rather than a manual data assessment 

making review and evaluation of the 

source provided data and calculations 

easier and more efficient. Finally, 

another benefit of the proposed data 

submittal to WebFIRE electronically is 

that these data would greatly improve 

the overall quality of existing and new 

emissions factors by supplementing the 

pool of emissions test data for 

establishing emissions factors and by 

ensuring that the factors are more 

representative of current industry 

operational procedures. A common 

complaint heard from industry and 

regulators is that emissions factors are 

outdated or not representative of a 

particular source category. With timely 

receipt and incorporation of data from 

most performance tests, EPA would be 

able to ensure that emissions factors, 

when updated, represent the most 

current range of operational practices. In 

summary, in addition to supporting 

regulation development, control strategy 

development, and other air pollution 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29063 

control activities, having an electronic 

database populated with performance 

test data would save industry, state, 

local, Tribal agencies, and EPA 

significant time, money, and effort 

while also improving the quality of 

emissions inventories and, as a result, 

air quality regulations. 

Records must be maintained in a form 

suitable and readily available for 

expeditious review, according to 

63.10(b)(1). Electronic recordkeeping 

and reporting is available for many 

records, and is the form considered 

most suitable for expeditious review if 

available. Electronic recordkeeping and 

reporting is encouraged in this proposal 

and some records and reports are 

required to be kept in electronic format. 

Records required to be maintained 

electronically include the output of 

continuous monitors and the output of 

the bag leak detection systems. 

Additionally, standard operating 

procedures for the bag leak detection 

system and fugitive emissions control 

are required to be submitted to the 

Administrator for approval in electronic 

format. 

3. Other Changes 

The following lists additional minor 

changes to the NESHAP we are 

proposing. This list includes proposed 

rule changes that address editorial 

corrections and plain language 

revisions: 

• Revise the definition for collocated blast 

and reverberatory furnaces to apply to 

systems ‘‘where the vent streams of the 

furnaces are mixed before cooling’’. This 

proposed revision clarifies the intent of the 

original definition which was to establish the 

conditions under which a reverberatory 

furnace stream would control the emissions 

of a blast furnace stream. 

• Add a definition for ‘‘maintenance 

activity.’’ This definition is necessary for the 

proposed work practice requirement 

concerning fugitive emissions during 

maintenance activities that could generate 

lead dust. 

• Delete definitions no longer referenced 

in the proposed NESHAP. 

• Eliminate the exemption for areas used 

exclusively for the storage of blast furnace 

slag from the raw materials storage area 

definition. 

• Change the title of 40 CFR 63.543 

(‘‘Standards for process sources’’) to ‘‘What 

are my standards for atmospheric vents?’’. 

This change is being made to better reflect 

the description of the proposed standards in 

this section. 

• Change the title of 40 CFR 63.544 

(‘‘Standards for process fugitive sources’’) to 

‘‘What are my process enclosure standards?’’ 

to better reflect the description of the 

proposed requirements for enclosure of 

sources of process fugitive emissions. 

• Eliminate the provision in 40 CFR 

63.544(f) allowing up to 24 months to 

conduct a compliance test for lead if the 

previous test was less than 1.0 mg/dscm. We 

do not believe a reduced testing frequency is 

appropriate considering the proposed 

changes to the existing standard, and the 

proposed requirement to calculate a flowweighted average on an annual basis. 

• Add a requirement to conduct a 

performance test for THC on the same 

schedule as the stack test for lead. The 1997 

NESHAP requires an initial test for THC, but 

does not require periodic testing. We are 

proposing that a performance test for total 

hydrocarbon be conducted on the same 

schedule as the stack test for lead. This 

proposed requirement will ensure any 

changes in operation that could affect the 

organic HAP content of the furnace vents are 

monitored on a routine basis. 

• Consolidate the requirements for 

atmospheric vents to be conveyed to a 

control device into one section of the rule 

(40 CFR 63.543(f)). 

• Clarify the requirements for plant 

roadway cleaning in 40 CFR 63.545 to specify 

equipment requirements for the mobile 

vacuum sweeper. 

• Clarify the requirement to wash vehicles 

at the exit of a material storage area by 

specifying that the wash must include 

washing of tires, undercarriage and exterior 

surface of the vehicle followed by an 

inspection. 

• Accompanying edits are being proposed 

for the standard operating procedures for 

baghouses in 40 CFR 63.548 and for control 

of fugitive emissions in 40 CFR 63.545 to 

reflect the proposed changes described for 

baghouses, enclosures and work practices for 

control of fugitive emissions. 

• Update the monitoring requirements for 

building differential pressure to reflect the 

requirements for the pressure monitor to 

have the capability of detecting 0.01 mm Hg 

and to continuously record pressure 

readings. 

• Update the recordkeeping and reporting 

sections to reflect the new monitoring 

requirements and monitoring options 

described above. 

• Update the compliance dates to include 

the anticipated dates the proposed 

requirements will become effective. 

• Added the requirement in 40 CFR 

63.548(l) for new or modified sources to 

install a CEMS for measuring lead emissions 

when performance specifications for lead 

CEMS are promulgated. 

• Included provisions for existing sources 

to use a CEMS instead of operating a BLDS 

and performing annual stack tests. 

F. What is the relationship of the 

Secondary Lead Smelting standards 

proposed in today’s action and 

implementation of the lead NAAQS? 

Although EPA’s obligation to conduct 

technology reviews and risk analyses for 

the secondary lead smelting source 

category is independent of the process 

of developing, revising, and 

implementing the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead, 

EPA is interested in harmonizing these 

separate regulatory processes to the 

extent possible. EPA revised the 

primary NAAQS for lead in 2008. See 

73 FR 66,964 (Nov. 12, 2008); see also 

Coalition of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 

604 F. 3d 613 (DC Cir. 2010) (upholding 

those standards). EPA designated 16 

areas as non-attainment for the lead 

NAAQS, effective December 21, 2010, 

75 FR 71,033 (November 22, 2010). EPA 

intends to complete designations for 

remaining areas of the country for the 

lead NAAQS in October, 2011, effective 

December 31, 2011. States have 18 

months following a nonattainment 

designation for lead to submit a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) 

demonstrating how the area will timely 

attain the NAAQS. See CAA section 

191(a). Accordingly, attainment SIPs for 

lead will be due by July 2012 for areas 

designated in 2010 and July 2013 for 

areas designated in 2011. States are 

required to attain the standard as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than 5 years following a nonattainment 

designation (i.e., Dec. 31, 2015 or 2016, 

respectively). As part of the attainment 

demonstration, SIPs may consider 

regulatory controls which have been 

adopted as of the date the SIP is 

submitted and will achieve timely 

reductions for attaining the standard. 

The standards proposed in this rule 

would likely harmonize with this 

implementation schedule both 

procedurally and substantively. 

Pursuant to consent decree, EPA is 

obligated to promulgate the final 

NESHAP rule by December 31, 2011. 

Assuming EPA adopts the proposed 

standards and the rule is published in 

the Federal Register in early 2012, the 

standards would become effective in 

early 2012, with a compliance date of 

March 2014 (assuming a two year 

compliance date is necessary to allow 

sufficient time for the controls to be 

adopted). This schedule should allow 

for states to take any controls required 

under the NESHAP rule into 

consideration for attainment planning 

purposes. 

As described above, EPA is proposing 

standards either predicated on 

individual sources emitting lead at 

levels that would result in ambient 

concentrations less than the primary 

lead NAAQS (the proposed stack 

standards), or (in the case of the 

alternative to enclosure standards for 

lead) actually demonstrating that source 

emissions do not exceed the primary 

lead NAAQS at a point of maximum 

projected concentration. EPA 

anticipates that, at least in areas where 

nonattainment is attributable to single 

sources that are subject to this rule, if 

the proposed controls are sufficient to 

attain the NAAQS by the attainment 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29064 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

deadline, then adoption of additional 

controls in the SIP for the area would 

not be necessary. 

EPA solicits comments on the 

interplay between implementation of 

the primary lead NAAQS and the 

proposed standards in today’s action 

and steps EPA might permissibly take to 

harmonize the two regulatory processes. 

G. Compliance Dates 

We are proposing that facilities must 

comply with all the requirements in this 

action (which are being proposed under 

CAA sections 112(d)(2), 112(d)(3), 

112(d)(6), 112(f)(2), and 112(h) for all 

affected sources), no later than two 

years after the effective date of this rule. 

Under section 63.6(i)(4)(ii), ‘‘the owner 

or operator of an existing source unable 

to comply with a relevant standard 

established * * * pursuant to section 

112(f) * * * may request that the 

Administrator grant an extension 

allowing the source up to 2 years after 

the standard’s effective date to comply 

with the standard.’’ The rule further 

specifies a written application for such 

a request. Here, EPA is already fully 

aware of the steps needed for each 

source to comply with the proposed 

standards and to reasonably estimate the 

amount of time it will take each source 

to do so. We believe that the two year 

extension would be warranted in all 

cases for sources needing to upgrade 

current practice. This includes the time 

needed to: Construct required 

enclosures and install associated control 

devices for fugitive sources; purchase, 

install and test replacement bags, or if 

the facility decides to replace an 

existing baghouse or add a new 

baghouse in series with an existing 

baghouse, seek bids, select a vendor, 

install and test the new equipment; 

prepare and submit the required 

monitoring plan to monitor lead 

concentrations in air; and, purchase, 

install and conduct quality assurance 

and quality control measures on 

compliance monitoring equipment (see 

Estimated Time Needed to Achieve 

Compliance with The Proposed 

Revisions to the MACT standard for 

Secondary Lead Smelters, which is 

available in the docket for this proposed 

action). EPA believes it reasonable to 

interpret section 63.6(i)(4)(ii) to allow 

this plenary finding, rather than 

utilizing a facility-by-facility application 

process, when the facts are already 

known and a category-wide 

adjudication is therefore possible. In 

addition, utilizing this process allows 

for public comment on the issue which 

would not be possible if a case-by-case 

application process with a 90-day 

window for completion were used. 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, 

and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

We anticipate that the 14 secondary 

lead smelting facilities currently 

operating in the United States will be 

affected by these proposed amendments. 

No new facilities are expected to be 

constructed in the foreseeable future; 

however, one facility is currently 

undergoing an expansion. 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

EPA estimated the emissions 

reductions that are expected to result 

from the proposed amendments to the 

1997 NESHAP compared to the 2009 

baseline emissions estimates. A detailed 

documentation of the analysis can be 

found in: 

Draft Cost Impacts of the Revised 

NESHAP for the Secondary Lead 

Smelting Source Category 

Emissions of lead and arsenic from 

secondary lead smelters have declined 

over the last 15 years as a result of 

Federal rules, state rules and on the 

industry’s own initiative. The current 

proposal would cut lead and arsenic 

emissions by 63 percent from their 

current levels, for a total reduction of 

more than 95% over that last 15 years. 

Under the proposed emissions limit for 

lead, we estimated that the lead 

emissions reductions would be 9,400 lb/ 

yr from process and process fugitive 

sources and 17,200 lb/yr from fugitive 

dust sources. The expected reduction in 

total metal HAP is 11,800 lb/yr from 

process and process fugitive sources and 

19,000 lb/yr from fugitive dust sources. 

We estimate that these controls will also 

reduce emissions of PM by 319,000 lb/ 

yr. 

Based on the emissions data available 

to the EPA, we believe that all facilities 

will be able to comply with the 

proposed emissions limits for THC and 

dioxins and furans without additional 

controls. However, we expect that some 

emissions reductions will occur due to 

increased temperatures of afterburners 

and from improved work practices. 

Nevertheless, it is quite difficult to 

estimate accurate reductions from these 

actions, and therefore, we are not 

providing estimates of reductions for 

THC and dioxin and furans. 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

Under the proposed amendments, 

secondary lead smelting facilities are 

expected to incur capital costs for the 

following types of control measures: 

Replacement of existing baghouses with 

new, higher-performing baghouses, 

replacement of bags in existing 

baghouses with better-performing 

materials, construction of new 

enclosures for processes not currently 

enclosed, modification of partiallyenclosed structures to meet the 

requirements of total enclosure, and 

installation of BLDS on baghouses that 

are not currently equipped with these 

systems. 

The capital costs for each facility were 

estimated based on the number and 

types of upgrades required. Each facility 

was evaluated for its ability to meet the 

proposed limits for lead emissions, THC 

emissions, dioxin and furan emissions, 

and proposed fugitive dust emissions 

requirements. The memorandum Cost 

Impacts of the Revised NESHAP for the 

Secondary Lead Smelting Source 

Category includes a complete 

description of the cost estimate methods 

used for this analysis and is available in 

the docket. 

The majority of the capital costs 

estimated for compliance with the 

amendments proposed in this action are 

for purchasing new enclosures and the 

associated control devices that would be 

required for these enclosures. Although 

the proposed amendments would 

provide the alternative option to install 

monitors at or near the property 

boundary to demonstrate compliance 

with the enclosure requirements, we 

assumed that each facility would need 

to install enclosures for each of the 

processes described in proposed 40 CFR 

63.544 if the facility did not already 

have the required enclosures. For each 

facility, we estimated the square footage 

of new enclosures required based on the 

size of enclosures currently in place 

compared to facilities that we 

considered to be totally enclosed with a 

similar production capacity. We further 

assumed that the facilities that required 

a substantial degree of new enclosure 

would re-configure their facility, 

particularly the storage areas, to reduce 

their footprint. 

Based on our analysis of the facility 

configurations, seven facilities were 

considered to be totally enclosed. 

Another facility is currently installing 

enclosure structures and equipment that 

we anticipate will meet the proposed 

requirements. Consequently, capital 

costs were not estimated for these eight 

facilities. The remaining six facilities 

will require new building installations, 

thereby incurring capital costs. 

Typical enclosure costs were 

estimated using information and 

algorithms from the Permanent Total 

Enclosures chapter in the EPA Air 

Pollution Control Cost Manual. New 

baghouse costs were estimated using a 

model based primarily on the cost 

information for recent baghouse 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29065 

installations submitted by facilities in 

the ICR survey. The total capital cost 

estimate for the enclosures, the 

ductwork system, and control devices at 

the six facilities is approximately $40 

million, at an annualized cost of $6.6 

million in 2009 dollars (an average of 

about $1.1 million per facility). 

We also estimated annual costs for the 

work practices proposed in this action. 

Based on the ICR survey information, 

we estimated that additional costs 

would be required to implement the 

work practices at 10 of the 14 existing 

facilities. The total annual costs to 

implement the proposed fugitive 

emissions work practices are 

approximately $3 million per year. 

For compliance with the stack lead 

concentration limit, we compared each 

stack emissions point’s lead 

concentration (reported under the ICR) 

to the proposed requirement of 1.0 mg/ 

dscm of lead for any one stack. If the 

reported concentration was over 1.0 mg/ 

dscm, we assumed that the 

corresponding facility would either 

upgrade the baghouse with new bags 

and additional maintenance or 

completely replace the baghouse, 

depending on the age of the unit. If the 

baghouse was less than 10 years old and 

the lead concentration in the outlet was 

not appreciably over the proposed 

standard, we assumed that the baghouse 

could be upgraded for minimal capital. 

If the baghouse was more than 10 years 

old and the lead concentration was 

appreciably over the proposed standard, 

we assumed the baghouse would be 

replaced. We then compared each 

facility’s emissions with the proposed 

flow-weighted, facility-wide 

concentration limit of 0.20 mg/dscm 

using the assumption that baghouses 

needing replacement based on the 1.0 

mg/dscm individual stack limit would 

be replaced with units that performed at 

least as well as the average baghouse 

identified in our data set. We estimated 

that three baghouses would need to be 

replaced based on these analyses. To 

estimate costs, we used a model based 

primarily on the cost information 

submitted in the ICR for recent 

baghouse installations in this industry. 

We assumed an increase in maintenance 

cost based on more frequent bag changes 

(from once every 5 years to once every 

2 years). The total capital cost for three 

new baghouses at two facilities is 

estimated to be approximately $7.6 

million, and total annual costs were 

estimated to be approximately $1.7 

million. 

New limits for THC are being 

proposed for reverberatory, electric, and 

rotary furnaces. Dioxin and furan limits 

are being proposed for all furnaces. We 

anticipate all operating affected units 

will be able to meet the proposed limits 

without installing additional controls, 

however, we have estimated additional 

costs of $260,000 per year for facilities 

to increase the temperature of their 

existing afterburners to ensure 

continuous compliance with the 

proposed standards. 

The estimated costs for the proposed 

change to the monitoring requirements 

for baghouses, including installation of 

seven new BLDS for existing baghouses, 

is $230,000 of capital cost and $84,000 

total annualized cost. The capital cost 

estimated for additional differential 

pressure monitors for total enclosures is 

$97,000. The cost for all additional 

monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements, including the baghouse 

monitoring proposed, is estimated at 

$1,016,000. 

The total annualized costs for the 

proposed rule are estimated at $12.6 

million (2009 dollars). Table 5 provides 

a summary of the estimated costs and 

emissions reductions associated with 

the proposed amendments to the 

Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP 

presented in today’s action. 

TABLE 5—ESTIMATED COSTS AND REDUCTIONS FOR THE PROPOSED STANDARDS IN THIS ACTION

Proposed amendment 

Estimated 

capital cost 

($MM) 

Estimated 

annual cost 

($MM) 

Total HAP emissions reductions 

(tons per year) 

Cost effectiveness 

in $ per ton total 

HAP 

reduction 

(and in $ per 

pound) 

Revised stack lead emissions limit ................ 7.6 1.7 5.9 (of metal HAP) ......................................... $0.3 MM per ton. 

($150 per pound). 

Total enclosure of fugitive emissions sources 40 6.6 5.5 (of metal HAP) ......................................... $1.2 MM per ton. 

($600 per pound). 

Fugitive control work practices ....................... 0 3.0 4.0 (of metal HAP) ......................................... $0.8 MM per ton. 

($400 per pound). 

THC and D/F concentration limits .................. 0 0.3 1 30.0 .............................................................. $0.01 MM per ton. 

Additional testing and monitoring ................... 0.3 1.0 N/A ................................................................. N/A. 

1Based on total organic HAP. 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

We performed an economic impact 

analysis for secondary lead consumers 

and producers nationally using the 

annual compliance costs estimated for 

this proposed rule. The impacts to 

producers affected by this proposed rule 

are annualized costs of less than 0.9 

percent of their revenues using the most 

current year available for revenue data. 

Prices and output for secondary lead 

should increase by no more than the 

impact on cost to revenues for 

producers, thus secondary lead prices 

should increase by less than 0.9 percent. 

Hence, the overall economic impact of 

this proposed rule should be low on the 

affected industry and its consumers. For 

more information, please refer to the 

Economic Impact Analysis for this 

proposed rulemaking that is available in 

the public docket. 

E. What are the benefits? 

The estimated reductions in lead 

emissions to meet the 2008 NAAQS 

standards that will be achieved by this 

proposed rule would provide benefits to 

public health, although we have not 

made a detailed quantitative assessment 

of them. For example, as described in 

the EPA’s 2008 Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (RIA) that was completed for 

the lead NAAQS (which is available in 

the docket for this action and also on 

the EPA’s Web site) populations aged 

less than age 7 would receive significant 

benefits from reductions in lead 

exposure (in the form of averted IQ loss 

among children less than 7 years of age). 

As noted in that RIA, there were also 

several other lead-related health effects 

that EPA was unable to quantify— 

particularly among adults. These 

potential impacts included 

hypertension, non-fatal strokes, 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29066 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

reproductive effects and premature 

mortality, among others. 

When viewed in this context, the 

reductions in concentrations of ambient 

lead that would be achieved with this 

proposed RTR for secondary lead 

smelters are expected to provide 

significant benefits to both children and 

adult populations, but these benefits 

cannot be quantified due to resource 

and data limitations. 

In addition to the benefits likely to be 

achieved for lead reductions, we also 

estimate that this proposed RTR rule 

will achieve about 48 to 76 tons 

reductions in PM 2.5 emissions as a cobenefit of the HAP reductions. These 

PM 2.5 reductions would result in an 

average of about $8.6 to $13.6 million in 

benefits per year. Finally, the proposed 

rule will provide human health benefits 

through reductions in arsenic and 

cadmium emissions. We estimate that 

cancer cases from these emissions 

would be reduced from 0.02 per year to 

0.01 per year. 

VI. Request for Comments 

We are soliciting comments on all 

aspects of this proposed action. In 

addition to general comments on this 

proposed action, we are also interested 

in any additional data that may help to 

reduce the uncertainties inherent in the 

risk assessments and other analyses. We 

are specifically interested in receiving 

corrections to the site-specific emissions 

profiles used for risk modeling. Such 

data should include supporting 

documentation in sufficient detail to 

allow characterization of the quality and 

representativeness of the data or 

information. Section VII of this 

preamble provides more information on 

submitting data. 

VII. Submitting Data Corrections 

The site-specific emissions profiles 

used in the source category risk and 

demographic analyses are available for 

download on the RTR Web page at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/ 

rtrpg.html. The data files include 

detailed information for each HAP 

emissions release point for the facility 

included in the source category. 

If you believe that the data are not 

representative or are inaccurate, please 

identify the data in question, provide 

your reason for concern, and provide 

any ‘‘improved’’ data that you have, if 

available. When you submit data, we 

request that you provide documentation 

of the basis for the revised values to 

support your suggested changes. To 

submit comments on the data 

downloaded from the RTR Web page, 

complete the following steps: 

1. Within this downloaded file, enter 

suggested revisions to the data fields 

appropriate for that information. The 

data fields that may be revised include 

the following: 

Data element Definition 

Control Measure ................................................................. Are control measures in place? (yes or no) 

Control Measure Comment ................................................ Select control measure from list provided, and briefly describe the control measure. 

Delete ................................................................................. Indicate here if the facility or record should be deleted. 

Delete Comment ................................................................ Describes the reason for deletion. 

Emissions Calculation Method Code for Revised Emissions.Code description of the method used to derive emissions. For example, CEM, material balance, stack test, etc. 

Emissions Process Group .................................................. Enter the general type of emissions process associated with the specified emissions 

point. 

Fugitive Angle .................................................................... Enter release angle (clockwise from true North); orientation of the y-dimension relative to true North, measured positive for clockwise starting at 0 degrees (maximum 89 degrees). 

Fugitive Length ................................................................... Enter dimension of the source in the east-west (x-) direction, commonly referred to 

as length (ft). 

Fugitive Width .................................................................... Enter dimension of the source in the north-south (y-) direction, commonly referred to 

as width (ft). 

Malfunction Emissions ....................................................... Enter total annual emissions due to malfunctions (tpy). 

Malfunction Emissions Max Hourly .................................... Enter maximum hourly malfunction emissions here (lb/hr). 

North American Datum ...................................................... Enter datum for latitude/longitude coordinates (NAD27 or NAD83); if left blank, 

NAD83 is assumed. 

Process Comment .............................................................. Enter general comments about process sources of emissions. 

REVISED Address ............................................................. Enter revised physical street address for MACT facility here. 

REVISED City .................................................................... Enter revised city name here. 

REVISED County Name .................................................... Enter revised county name here. 

REVISED Emissions Release Point Type ......................... Enter revised Emissions Release Point Type here. 

REVISED End Date ........................................................... Enter revised End Date here. 

REVISED Exit Gas Flow Rate ........................................... Enter revised Exit Gas Flowrate here (ft3/sec). 

REVISED Exit Gas Temperature ....................................... Enter revised Exit Gas Temperature here (F). 

REVISED Exit Gas Velocity ............................................... Enter revised Exit Gas Velocity here (ft/sec). 

REVISED Facility Category Code ...................................... Enter revised Facility Category Code here, which indicates whether facility is a major 

or area source. 

REVISED Facility Name .................................................... Enter revised Facility Name here. 

REVISED Facility Registry Identifier .................................. Enter revised Facility Registry Identifier here, which is an ID assigned by the EPA 

Facility Registry System. 

REVISED HAP Emissions Performance Level Code ........ Enter revised HAP Emissions Performance Level here. 

REVISED Latitude .............................................................. Enter revised Latitude here (decimal degrees). 

REVISED Longitude ........................................................... Enter revised Longitude here (decimal degrees). 

REVISED MACT Code ...................................................... Enter revised MACT Code here. 

REVISED Pollutant Code ................................................... Enter revised Pollutant Code here. 

REVISED Routine Emissions ............................................ Enter revised routine emissions value here (tpy). 

REVISED SCC Code ......................................................... Enter revised SCC Code here. 

REVISED Stack Diameter .................................................. Enter revised Stack Diameter here (ft). 

REVISED Stack Height ...................................................... Enter revised Stack Height here (ft). 

REVISED Start Date .......................................................... Enter revised Start Date here. 

REVISED State .................................................................. Enter revised State here. 

REVISED Tribal Code ........................................................ Enter revised Tribal Code here. 

REVISED Zip Code ............................................................ Enter revised Zip Code here. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29067 

Data element Definition 

Shutdown Emissions .......................................................... Enter total annual emissions due to shutdown events (tpy). 

Shutdown Emissions Max Hourly ...................................... Enter maximum hourly shutdown emissions here (lb/hr). 

Stack Comment .................................................................. Enter general comments about emissions release points. 

Startup Emissions .............................................................. Enter total annual emissions due to startup events (tpy). 

Startup Emissions Max Hourly ........................................... Enter maximum hourly startup emissions here (lb/hr). 

Year Closed ....................................................................... Enter date facility stopped operations. 

2. Fill in the commenter information 

fields for each suggested revision 

(i.e., commenter name, commenter 

organization, commenter e-mail address, 

commenter phone number, and revision 

comments). 

3. Gather documentation for any 

suggested emissions revisions (e.g., 

performance test reports, material 

balance calculations). 

4. Send the entire downloaded file 

with suggested revisions in Microsoft®

Access format and all accompanying 

documentation to Docket ID Number 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344 (through one 

of the methods described in the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble). To 

expedite review of the revisions, it 

would also be helpful if you submitted 

a copy of your revisions to the EPA 

directly at RTR@epa.gov in addition to 

submitting them to the docket. 

5. If you are providing comments on 

a facility, you need only submit one file 

for that facility, which should contain 

all suggested changes for all sources at 

that facility. We request that all data 

revision comments be submitted in the 

form of updated Microsoft® Access files, 

which are provided on the RTR Web 

Page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/ 

rrisk/rtrpg.html. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

significant regulatory action because it 

raises novel legal and policy issues. 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011) and any changes made 

in response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this rule have been 

submitted for approval to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. The Information Collection 

Request (ICR) document prepared by 

EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 

1856.07. The information collection 

requirements are not enforceable 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 emissions standards. 

These recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements are specifically authorized 

by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). 

All information submitted to 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. 

We are proposing new paperwork 

requirements to the Secondary Lead 

Smelting source category in the form of 

increased frequency for stack testing as 

described in 40 CFR 63.540(f)–(h). More 

specifically, we are proposing the 

elimination of the provisions allowing 

reduced stack testing for lead and the 

addition of annual stack testing for THC 

and stack testing every 5 years for 

dioxins and furans. In conjunction with 

setting THC limits for reverberatory, 

electric, and rotary furnaces, additional 

monitoring and recordkeeping is 

required for furnace outlet temperature 

on these units. We believe temperature 

monitors currently exist in these 

locations and that the facilities will not 

incur a capital cost due to this 

requirement. Additionally, increased 

monitoring is required for 

demonstrating negative pressure in all 

total enclosures if this compliance 

option is selected. If the lead 

concentration in air limit is chosen, 

additional monitoring and 

recordkeeping will be required. Bag leak 

detection monitors will be required for 

HEPA filtration systems where no BLDS 

are currently installed. We estimate a 

total of seven new BLDS will be 

required as a result of this proposed rule 

at an estimated capital cost of $230,000. 

For this proposed rule, EPA is adding 

affirmative defense to the estimate of 

burden in the ICR. To provide the 

public with an estimate of the relative 

magnitude of the burden associated 

with an assertion of the affirmative 

defense position adopted by a source, 

EPA has provided administrative 

adjustments to this ICR to show what 

the notification, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements associated with 

the assertion of the affirmative defense 

might entail. EPA’s estimate for the 

required notification, reports and 

records for any individual incident, 

including the root cause analysis, totals 

$3,141 and is based on the time and 

effort required of a source to review 

relevant data, interview plant 

employees, and document the events 

surrounding a malfunction that has 

caused an exceedance of an emissions 

limit. The estimate also includes time to 

produce and retain the record and 

reports for submission to EPA. EPA 

provides this illustrative estimate of this 

burden because these costs are only 

incurred if there has been a violation 

and a source chooses to take advantage 

of the affirmative defense. 

Given the variety of circumstances 

under which malfunctions could occur, 

as well as differences among sources’ 

operation and maintenance practices, 

we cannot reliably predict the severity 

and frequency of malfunction-related 

excess emissions events for a particular 

source. It is important to note that EPA 

has no basis currently for estimating the 

number of malfunctions that would 

qualify for an affirmative defense. 

Current historical records would be an 

inappropriate basis, as source owners or 

operators previously operated their 

facilities in recognition that they were 

exempt from the requirement to comply 

with emissions standards during 

malfunctions. Of the number of excess 

emissions events reported by source 

operators, only a small number would 

be expected to result from a malfunction 

(based on the definition above), and 

only a subset of excess emissions caused 

by malfunctions would result in the 

source choosing to assert the affirmative 

defense. Thus we believe the number of 

instances in which source operators 

might be expected to avail themselves of 

the affirmative defense will be 

extremely small. For this reason, we 

estimate no more than 2 or 3 such 

occurrences for all sources subject to 

subpart X over the 3-year period 

covered by this ICR. We expect to gather 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29068 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

information on such events in the future 

and will revise this estimate as better 

information becomes available. We 

estimate 14 regulated entities are 

currently subject to subpart X and will 

be subject to all proposed standards. 

The annual monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping burden for this collection 

(averaged over the first 3 years after the 

effective date of the standards) for these 

amendments to subpart X (Secondary 

Lead Smelting) is estimated to be $1.01 

million per year. This includes 4,200 

labor hours per year at a total labor cost 

of $330,000 per year, and total non-labor 

capital and operation and maintenance 

(O&M) costs of $690,000 per year. This 

estimate includes performance tests, 

notifications, reporting, and 

recordkeeping associated with the new 

requirements for front-end process vents 

and back-end process operations. The 

total burden for the Federal government 

(averaged over the first 3 years after the 

effective date of the standard) is 

estimated to be 1,300 hours per year at 

a total labor cost of $67,000 per year. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

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 in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When 

these ICRs are approved by OMB, the 

Agency will publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the 

Federal Register to display the OMB 

control numbers for the approved 

information collection requirements 

contained in the final rules. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, EPA has established 

a public docket for this rule, which 

includes this ICR, under Docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to EPA and OMB. See the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice 

for where to submit comments to EPA. 

Send comments to OMB at the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. 

Since OMB is required to make a 

decision concerning the ICR between 30 

and 60 days after May 19, 2011, a 

comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

by June 20, 2011. The final rule will 

respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute 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 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this proposed rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise that is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. For this source 

category, which has the NAICS code 

331419 (i.e., Secondary Smelting and 

Refining of Nonferrous Metal (except 

copper and aluminum)), the SBA small 

business size standard is 750 employees 

according to the SBA small business 

standards definitions. We have 

estimated the cost impacts and have 

determined that the impacts do not 

constitute a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

(see: Small Business Analysis for the 

Secondary Lead Smelting Source 

Category, which is available in the 

docket for this proposed rule). After 

considering the economic impacts of 

today’s proposed rule on small entities, 

I certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

One of the six parent companies 

affected is considered a small entity per 

the definition provided in this section. 

However, we estimate that this 

proposed action will not have a 

significant economic impact on that 

company. The impact of this proposed 

action on this company will be an 

annualized compliance cost of less than 

one percent of its revenues. (See: Small 

Business Analysis for the Secondary 

Lead Smelting Source Category). All 

other affected parent companies are not 

small businesses according to the SBA 

small business size standard for the 

affected NAICS code (NAICS 331419). 

Although this proposed rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the 

impact of this rule on small entities. To 

reduce the impacts, we are proposing an 

alternative option to enclosure 

standards to address fugitive emissions 

in order to allow companies flexibility 

on how best to minimize fugitive 

emissions at their facilities most 

efficiently. Moreover, we are proposing 

stack limits that are based on a weighted 

average approach (as described in 

Sections V.C and V.D of this preamble) 

and have been established at the least 

stringent levels that we estimate will 

still result in acceptable risks to public 

health. Thus, the proposed stack limits 

are based on the least costly approach 

that will still provide an ample margin 

of safety for human health and the 

environment. In addition, the proposed 

compliance testing requirements were 

established in a way that minimizes the 

costs for testing and reporting while still 

providing the Agency the necessary 

information needed to ensure 

continuous compliance with the 

proposed standards. For more 

information, please refer to the small 

business analysis that is in the docket. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed rule does not contain 

a Federal mandate under the provisions 

of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538 for State, local, or Tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

proposed rule would not result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local, and Tribal governments, 

in aggregate, or the private sector in any 

1 year. The proposed rule imposes no 

enforceable duties on any State, local or 

Tribal governments or the private sector. 

Thus, this proposed rule is not subject 

to the requirements of sections 202 or 

205 of the UMRA. 

This proposed rule is also not subject 

to the requirements of section 203 of 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments 

because it contains no requirements that 

apply to such governments nor does it 

impose obligations upon them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29069 

Executive Order 13132. None of the 

facilities subject to this action are 

owned or operated by State 

governments, and, because no new 

requirements are being promulgated, 

nothing in this proposed rule will 

supersede State regulations. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this proposed rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed rule from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

Tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from 

Tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866. However, the 

Agency does believe there is a 

disproportionate risk to children due to 

current emissions of lead from this 

source category. Modeled ambient air 

lead concentrations from about 10 of the 

14 facilities in this source category are 

in excess of the NAAQS for lead, which 

was set to ‘‘provide increased protection 

for children and other at-risk 

populations against an array of adverse 

health effects, most notably including 

neurological effects in children, 

including neurocognitive and 

neurobehavioral effects’’ (73 FR 67007). 

However, the control measures 

proposed in this notice will result in 

lead concentration levels at or below the 

lead NAAQS at all facilities, thereby 

mitigating the risk of adverse health 

effects to children. 

The public is invited to submit 

comments or identify peer-reviewed 

studies and data that assess effects of 

early life exposure to lead, arsenic, or 

cadmium. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is 

not likely to have significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy. This action will not create 

any new requirements and therefore no 

additional costs for sources in the 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

sectors. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, business practices) that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies. NTTAA 

directs EPA to provide Congress, 

through OMB, explanations when the 

Agency decides not to use available and 

applicable VCS. 

This proposed rulemaking involves 

technical standards. EPA proposes to 

use ASME PTC 19.10–1981, ‘‘Flue and 

Exhaust Gas Analyses,’’ for its manual 

methods of measuring the oxygen or 

carbon dioxide content of the exhaust 

gas. These parts of ASME PTC 19.10– 

1981 are acceptable alternatives to EPA 

Method 3B. This standard is available 

from the American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three 

Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016– 

5990 and ASTM D6420–99 (2004) as an 

acceptable alternative to EPA Method 

18. EPA has also decided to use EPA 

Methods 1, 2, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5D, 23, a 

Procedure in Subpart X to measure 

doorway in-draft, and a method for 

measuring lead in ambient air (i.e., 40 

CFR Part 50 Appendix G). Although the 

Agency has identified 16 VCS as being 

potentially applicable to these methods 

cited in this rule, we have decided not 

to use these standards in this proposed 

rulemaking. The use of these VCS 

would have been impractical because 

they do not meet the objectives of the 

standards cited in this rule. The search 

and review results are in the docket for 

this proposed rule. 

EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of this proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially-applicable 

voluntary consensus standards and to 

explain why such standards should be 

used in this regulation. 

Under section 63.7(f) and section 

63.8(f) of Subpart A of the General 

Provisions, a source may apply to EPA 

for permission to use alternative test 

methods or alternative monitoring 

requirements in place of any required 

testing methods, performance 

specifications, or procedures in the 

proposed rule. J. Executive Order 12898: 

Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations. 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

To examine the potential for any 

environmental justice issues that might 

be associated with each source category, 

we evaluated the distributions of HAPrelated cancer and non-cancer risks 

across different social, demographic, 

and economic groups within the 

populations living near the facilities 

where these source categories are 

located. The methods used to conduct 

demographic analyses for this rule are 

described in Section III.B of this 

preamble. The development of 

demographic analyses to inform the 

consideration of environmental justice 

issues in EPA rulemakings is an 

evolving science. EPA offers the 

demographic analyses in today’s 

proposed rulemaking as examples of 

how such analyses might be developed 

to inform such consideration, and 

invites public comment on the 

approaches used and the interpretations 

made from the results, with the hope 

that this will support the refinement 

and improve utility of such analyses. 

In the case of Secondary Lead 

Smelting, we focused on populations 

within 50 km of the 14 facilities in this 

source category with emissions sources 

subject to the MACT standard. More 

specifically, for these populations we 

evaluated exposures to HAP that could 

result in cancer risks of 1-in-1 million 

or greater, or population exposures to 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29070 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

ambient air lead concentrations above 

the level of the NAAQS for lead. We 

compared the percentages of particular 

demographic groups within the focused 

populations to the total percentages of 

those demographic groups nationwide. 

The results of this analysis are 

documented in Section IV of this 

preamble (see Table 4 of this preamble), 

as well as in a technical report located 

in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking. 

As described in Section IV of this 

preamble, with regard to cancer risks, 

there are some potential 

disproportionate impacts to some 

minority populations due to emissions 

of arsenic and cadmium from this 

source category. However, with regard 

to lead, the analysis does not indicate 

significant disproportionate impacts. 

Nevertheless, the proposed actions in 

today’s notice will significantly 

decrease the risks due to HAP emissions 

from this source category and mitigate 

any disproportionate risks due to those 

emissions. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Lead, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: April 29, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, part 63 of title 40, chapter I, 

of the Code of Federal Regulations is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

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 revising 

subpart X to read as follows: 

Subpart X—National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants From 

Secondary Lead Smelting 

Sec. 

63.541 Applicability. 

63.542 Definitions. 

63.543 What are my standards for process 

vents? 

63.544 What are my process enclosure 

standards? 

63.545 What are my standards for fugitive 

dust sources? 

63.546 Compliance dates. 

63.547 Test methods. 

63.548 Monitoring requirements. 

63.549 Notification requirements. 

63.550 Recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

63.551 Implementation and enforcement. 

63.552 Affirmative Defense for Exceedance 

of Emissions Limit During Malfunction. 

Table 1 to Subpart X of Part 63—General 

Provisions Applicability to Subpart X 

Table 2 to Subpart X of Part 63—Emissions 

Limits for Secondary Lead Smelting 

Furnaces 

Table 3 to Subpart X of Part 60—Toxic 

Equivalency Factors 

Subpart X—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

From Secondary Lead Smelting 

§ 63.541 Applicability. 

(a) You are subject to this subpart if 

you own or operate any of the following 

equipment or processes at a secondary 

lead smelter: Blast, reverberatory, rotary, 

and electric furnaces; refining kettles; 

agglomerating furnaces; dryers; process 

fugitive emissions sources; and fugitive 

dust sources. The provisions of this 

subpart do not apply to primary lead 

smelters, lead refiners, or lead remelters. 

(b) Table 1 to this subpart specifies 

the provisions of subpart A of this part 

that apply to owners and operators of 

secondary lead smelters subject to this 

subpart. 

(c) If you are subject to the provisions 

of this subpart, you are also subject to 

title V permitting requirements under 40 

CFR parts 70 or 71, as applicable. 

(d) Emissions standards in this 

subpart apply at all times. 

§ 63.542 Definitions. 

Terms used in this subpart are 

defined in the Clean Air Act, in subpart 

A of this part, or in this section as 

follows: 

Affirmative defense means, in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a 

response or defense put forward by a 

defendant, regarding which the 

defendant has the burden of proof, and 

the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding. 

Agglomerating furnace means a 

furnace used to melt into a solid mass 

flue dust that is collected from a 

baghouse. 

Bag leak detection system means an 

instrument 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. 

Battery breaking area means the plant 

location at which lead-acid batteries are 

broken, crushed, or disassembled and 

separated into components. 

Blast furnace means a smelting 

furnace consisting of a vertical cylinder 

atop a crucible, into which lead-bearing 

charge materials are introduced at the 

top of the furnace and combustion air is 

introduced through tuyeres at the 

bottom of the cylinder, and that uses 

coke as a fuel source and that is 

operated at such a temperature in the 

combustion zone (greater than 980 °C) 

that lead compounds are chemically 

reduced to elemental lead metal. 

Blast furnace charging location means 

the physical opening through which raw 

materials are introduced into a blast 

furnace. 

Collocated blast furnace and 

reverberatory furnace means operation 

at the same location of a blast furnace 

and a reverberatory furnace where the 

vent streams of the furnaces are mixed 

before cooling, with the volumetric flow 

rate discharged from the blast furnace 

being equal to or less than that 

discharged from the reverberatory 

furnace. 

Dryer means a chamber that is heated 

and that is used to remove moisture 

from lead-bearing materials before they 

are charged to a smelting furnace. 

Dryer transition equipment means 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. 

Electric furnace means a smelting 

furnace consisting of a vessel into which 

reverberatory furnace slag is introduced 

and that uses electrical energy to heat 

the reverberatory furnace slag to such a 

temperature (greater than 980 °C) that 

lead compounds are reduced to 

elemental lead metal. 

Enclosure hood means a hood that 

covers a process fugitive emission 

source on the top and on all sides, with 

openings only for access to introduce or 

remove materials to or from the source 

and through which an induced flow of 

air is ventilated. 

Fugitive dust source means a 

stationary source of hazardous air 

pollutant emissions at a secondary lead 

smelter that is not associated with a 

specific process or process fugitive vent 

or stack. Fugitive dust sources include, 

but are not limited to, roadways, storage 

piles, materials handling transfer points, 

materials transport areas, storage areas, 

process areas, and buildings. 

Furnace and refining/casting area 

means any area of a secondary lead 

smelter in which: 

(1) Smelting furnaces are located; or 

(2) Refining operations occur; or 

(3) Casting operations occur. 

Lead alloy means an alloy in which 

the predominant component is lead. 

Maintenance activity means any of 

the following routine maintenance and 

repair activities that generate fugitive 

lead dust: 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29071 

(1) Replacement or repair of 

refractory, filter bags, or any internal or 

external part of equipment used to 

process, handle or control leadcontaining materials. 

(2) Replacement of any duct section 

used to convey lead-containing exhaust. 

(3) Metal cutting or welding that 

penetrates the metal structure of any 

equipment, and its associated 

components, used to process leadcontaining material such that lead dust 

within the internal structure or its 

components can become fugitive lead 

dust. 

(4) Resurfacing, repair or removal of 

ground, pavement, concrete, or asphalt. 

Materials storage and handling area 

means any area of a secondary lead 

smelter in which lead-bearing materials 

(including, but not limited to, broken 

battery components, reverberatory 

furnace slag, flue dust, and dross) are 

stored or handled between process steps 

including, but not limited to, areas in 

which materials are stored in piles, bins, 

or tubs, and areas in which material is 

prepared for charging to a smelting 

furnace. 

Partial enclosure means a structure 

comprised of walls or partitions on at 

least three sides or three-quarters of the 

perimeter surrounding stored materials 

or process equipment to prevent the 

entrainment of particulate matter into 

the air. 

Pavement cleaning means the use of 

vacuum equipment, water sprays, or a 

combination thereof to remove dust or 

other accumulated material from the 

paved areas of a secondary lead smelter. 

Plant roadway means any area of a 

secondary lead smelter that is subject to 

vehicle traffic, including traffic by 

forklifts, front-end loaders, or vehicles 

carrying whole batteries 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. 

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. 

Process fugitive emissions source 

means a source of hazardous air 

pollutant emissions at a secondary lead 

smelter that is associated with lead 

smelting or refining, but is not the 

primary exhaust stream from a smelting 

furnace, and is not a fugitive dust 

source. Process fugitive sources include, 

but are not limited to, smelting furnace 

charging points, smelting furnace lead 

and slag taps, refining kettles, 

agglomerating furnaces, and drying kiln 

transition pieces. 

Process vent means furnace vents, 

dryer vents, agglomeration furnace 

vents, vents from battery breakers, 

building vents, and any ventilation 

system controlling lead emissions. 

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 refining and alloying the 

lead. Included are pot furnaces, 

receiving kettles, and holding kettles. 

Reverberatory furnace means a 

refractory-lined furnace that uses one or 

more flames to heat the walls and roof 

of the furnace and lead-bearing scrap to 

such a temperature (greater than 980 °C) 

that lead compounds are chemically 

reduced to elemental lead metal. 

Rotary furnace (also known as a rotary 

reverberatory furnace) means a furnace 

consisting of a refractory-lined chamber 

that rotates about a horizontal axis and 

that uses one or more flames to heat the 

walls of the furnace and lead-bearing 

scrap to such a temperature (greater 

than 980 °C) that lead compounds are 

chemically reduced to elemental lead 

metal. 

Secondary lead smelter means any 

facility at which lead-bearing scrap 

material, primarily, but not limited to, 

lead-acid batteries, is recycled into 

elemental lead or lead alloys by 

smelting. 

Smelting means the chemical 

reduction of lead compounds to 

elemental lead or lead alloys through 

processing in high-temperature (greater 

than 980 °C) furnaces including, but not 

limited to, blast furnaces, reverberatory 

furnaces, rotary furnaces, and electric 

furnaces. 

Total enclosure means a roofed and 

walled structure with limited openings 

to allow access and egress for people 

and vehicles that meets the 

requirements of § 265.1101(a)(1), 

(a)(2)(i), and (c)(1)(i). 

Vehicle wash means a device for 

removing dust and other accumulated 

material from the wheels, body, and 

underside of a vehicle to prevent the 

inadvertent transfer of lead 

contaminated material to another area of 

a secondary lead smelter or to public 

roadways. 

Wet suppression means the use of 

water, water combined with a chemical 

surfactant, or a chemical binding agent 

to prevent the entrainment of dust into 

the air from fugitive dust sources. 

§ 63.543 What are my standards for 

process vents? 

(a) You must maintain the 

concentration of lead compounds in any 

process vent gas at or below 1.0 

milligrams of lead per dry standard 

cubic meter (0.00043 grains of lead per 

dry standard cubic foot). You must 

maintain the flow-weighted average 

concentration of lead compounds in 

vent gases from a secondary lead facility 

at or below 0.20 milligrams of lead per 

dry standard cubic meter (0.000087 

grains of lead per dry standard cubic 

foot). 

(1) You must demonstrate compliance 

with the flow weighted average 

emissions limit on a 12-month rolling 

average basis, calculated monthly. 

(2) Until 12 monthly weighted average 

emissions rates have been accumulated, 

calculate only the monthly average 

weighted emissions rate. 

(3) You must use Equation 1 of this 

section to calculate the flow-weighted 

average concentration of lead 

compounds from process vents: 

Where: 

CFWA = Flow-weighted average concentration 

of all process vents. 

n = Number of process vents. 

Fi = Flow rate from process vent i in dry 

standard cubic feet per minute, as 

measured during the most recent 

compliance test. 

Ci = Concentration of lead in process vent i, 

as measured during the most recent 

compliance test. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19MY11.000</GPH>
29072 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(4) Each month, you must use the 

concentration of lead and flow rate 

obtained during the most recent 

compliance test performed prior to or 

during that month to perform the 

calculation. 

(5) If a continuous emissions 

monitoring system (CEMS) is used to 

measure the concentration of lead in a 

vent, the monthly average lead 

concentration and monthly average flow 

must be used rather than the most 

recent compliance test data. 

(b) You must meet the applicable 

emissions limits for total hydrocarbons 

and dioxins and furans from furnace 

sources specified in Table 2 of this 

subpart. 

(c) If you combine furnace emissions 

from multiple types of furnaces and 

these furnaces do not meet the 

definition of collocated blast and 

reverberatory furnaces, you must 

calculate your emissions limit for the 

combined furnace stream using 

Equation 2. 

Where: 

CEL = Flow-weighted average emissions limit 

(concentration) of combined furnace 

vents. 

n = Number of furnace vents. 

Fi = Flow rate from furnace vent i in dry 

standard cubic feet per minute. 

CELi = Emissions limit (concentration) of lead 

in furnace vent i as specified in Table 2 

of this subpart. 

(d) If you combine furnace emissions 

with the furnace charging process 

fugitive emissions and discharge them 

to the atmosphere through a common 

emissions point, you must demonstrate 

compliance with the applicable total 

hydrocarbons concentration limit 

specified in paragraph (b) of this section 

at a location downstream from the point 

at which the two emissions streams are 

combined. 

(e) If you do not combine the furnace 

charging process fugitive emissions with 

the furnace process emissions, and 

discharge such emissions to the 

atmosphere through separate emissions 

points, you must maintain the total 

hydrocarbons concentration in the 

exhaust gas at or below 20 parts per 

million by volume, expressed as 

propane. 

(f) Following the initial performance 

or compliance test to demonstrate 

compliance with the lead emissions 

limits specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, you must conduct an annual 

performance test for lead compounds 

from each process vent (no later than 12 

calendar months following the previous 

compliance test), unless you install and 

operate a CEMS and continuous 

emissions rate monitoring system 

meeting the requirements of 

§ 63.548(m). 

(g) Following the initial performance 

or compliance test to demonstrate 

compliance with the total hydrocarbons 

emissions limits in paragraphs (b) and 

(e) of this section, you must conduct an 

annual performance test for total 

hydrocarbons emissions from each 

process vent (no later than 12 calendar 

months following the previous 

compliance test). 

(h) Following the initial performance 

or compliance test to demonstrate 

compliance with the dioxins and furans 

emissions limits specified in paragraph 

(b) of this section, you must conduct a 

performance test for dioxins and furans 

emissions at least once every 5 years 

following the previous compliance test. 

(i) You must conduct the performance 

tests specified in paragraphs (f) through 

(h) of this section under such conditions 

as the Administrator specifies based on 

representative performance of the 

affected source for the period being 

tested. Upon request, you must make 

available to the Administrator such 

records as may be necessary to 

determine the conditions of 

performance tests. 

(j) At all times, you must operate and 

maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, 

in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. Determination of 

whether such operation and 

maintenance procedures are being used 

will be based on information available 

to the Administrator that may include, 

but is not limited to, monitoring results, 

review of operation and maintenance 

procedures, review of operation and 

maintenance records, and inspection of 

the source. 

(k) In addition to complying with the 

applicable emissions limits for dioxins 

and furans listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart, you must operate a process to 

separate plastic battery casing materials 

prior to introducing feed into a blast 

furnace. 

§ 63.544 What are my process enclosure 

standards? 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(d) of this section, you must locate the 

fugitive emissions sources listed in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(9) of this 

section in a total enclosure that is 

maintained at negative pressure at all 

times. The total enclosure must meet the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

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

(1) Smelting furnaces. 

(2) Smelting furnace charging areas. 

(3) Lead taps, slag taps, and molds 

during tapping. 

(4) Battery breakers. 

(5) Refining kettles, casting areas. 

(6) Dryers. 

(7) Agglomerating furnaces and 

agglomerating furnace product taps. 

(8) Material handling areas for any 

lead bearing materials (drosses, slag, 

other raw materials), excluding areas 

where unbroken lead acid batteries and 

finished lead products are stored. 

(9) Areas where dust from fabric 

filters, sweepings or used fabric filters 

are handled or processed. 

(b) You must construct and operate 

total enclosures for the sources listed in 

paragraph (a) of this section as specified 

in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this 

section. 

(1) You must ventilate the total 

enclosure continuously to ensure 

negative pressure values of at least 0.02 

mm of mercury (0.011 inches of water). 

(2) You must maintain the in-draft 

velocity of the total enclosure at greater 

than or equal to 300 feet per minute at 

any opening including, but not limited 

to, vents, windows, passages, doorways, 

bay doors and roll-ups doors. 

(c) You must inspect enclosures and 

facility structures that contain any leadbearing materials at least once per 

month. You must repair any gaps, 

breaks, separations, leak points or other 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19MY11.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29073 

possible routes for emissions of lead to 

the atmosphere within 72 hours of 

identification unless you obtain 

approval for an extension from the 

Administrator before the repair period is 

exceeded. 

(d) As an alternative to the 

requirements specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (c) of this section, you can elect 

to demonstrate compliance by meeting 

the requirements of (d)(1) through (d)(4) 

of this section. 

(1) You must install compliance 

monitors on or near the plant property 

boundary, at locations approved by the 

Administrator, to demonstrate that the 

lead concentration in air is at all times 

maintained below a 3-month rolling 

average value of 0.15 μg/m3 at each 

monitor. This must include at least two 

such monitors and at least one of these 

monitors must be in a location that is 

expected to have the highest air 

concentrations at or near the facility 

boundary based on ambient dispersion 

modeling or other methods approved by 

the Administrator. 

(2) You must control the process 

fugitive emission sources listed in 

paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (d)(2)(vi) of 

this section in accordance with the 

equipment and operational standards 

presented in paragraphs (d)(3) through 

(d)(8) of this section. 

(i) Smelting furnace and dryer 

charging hoppers, chutes, and skip 

hoists. 

(ii) Smelting furnace lead taps, and 

molds during tapping. 

(iii) Smelting furnace slag taps, and 

molds during tapping. 

(iv) Refining kettles. 

(v) Dryer transition pieces. 

(vi) Agglomerating furnace product 

taps. 

(3) Process fugitive emission sources 

must be equipped with an enclosure 

hood meeting the requirements of 

(d)(3)(i), (d)(3)(ii), or (d)(3)(iii) of this 

section. 

(i) All process fugitive enclosure 

hoods except those specified for refining 

kettles and dryer transition pieces must 

be ventilated to maintain a face velocity 

of at least 90 meters per minute (300 feet 

per minute) at all hood openings. 

(ii) Process fugitive enclosure hoods 

required for refining kettles must be 

ventilated to maintain a face velocity of 

at least 75 meters per minute (250 feet 

per minute). 

(iii) Process fugitive enclosure hoods 

required over dryer transition pieces 

must be ventilated to maintain a face 

velocity of at least 110 meters per 

minute (350 feet per minute). 

(iv) Ventilation air from all enclosure 

hoods must be conveyed to a control 

device meeting the applicable 

requirements of § 63.543. 

(4) As an alternative to paragraph 

(d)(3)(iii) of this section, you may elect 

to control the process fugitive emissions 

from dryer transition pieces by 

installing and operating pressurized 

dryer breaching seals at each transition 

piece. 

(5) For the battery breaking area, 

partial enclosure of storage piles, wet 

suppression applied to storage piles 

with sufficient frequency and quantity 

to prevent the formation of dust, and 

pavement cleaning twice per day. 

(6) For the furnace area, partial 

enclosure and pavement cleaning twice 

per day. 

(7) For the refining and casting area, 

partial enclosure and pavement cleaning 

twice per day. 

(8) For the materials storage and 

handling area, partial enclosure of 

storage piles, wet suppression applied 

to storage piles with sufficient 

frequency and quantity to prevent the 

formation of dust. 

§ 63.545 What are my standards for 

fugitive dust sources? 

(a) You must 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 and implemented to 

control the fugitive dust emissions from 

the sources listed in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (a)(8) of this section. 

(1) Plant roadways. 

(2) Plant buildings. 

(3) Plant building exteriors. 

(4) Accidental releases. 

(5) Battery storage area. 

(6) Equipment maintenance areas. 

(7) Material storage areas. 

(8) Material handling areas. 

(b) You must submit the standard 

operating procedures manual to the 

Administrator or delegated authority for 

review and approval. 

(c) The controls specified in the 

standard operating procedures manual 

must at a minimum include the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (c)(8) of this section, 

unless you satisfy the requirements 

specified in paragraph (f) of this section. 

(1) Cleaning. Where a cleaning 

practice is specified, you must clean by 

wet wash or a vacuum equipped with a 

filter rated by the manufacturer to 

achieve 99.97 percent capture efficiency 

for 0.3 micron particles in a manner that 

does not generate fugitive lead dust. 

(2) Plant roadways and paved areas. 

You must pave all areas subject to 

vehicle traffic and you must clean the 

pavement twice per day, except on days 

when natural precipitation makes 

cleaning unnecessary or when sand or a 

similar material has been spread on 

plant roadways to provide traction on 

ice or snow. If you use a mobile vacuum 

sweeper for pavement cleaning, the 

sweeper must meet the requirements 

specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) or 

(c)(2)(ii) of this section. 

(i) If the vacuum sweeper uses water 

flushing followed by sweeping, the 

water flush must use a minimum 

application of 0.48 gallons of water per 

square yard of pavement cleaned. 

(ii) The vacuum sweeper must be 

equipped with a filter rated by the 

manufacturer to achieve a capture 

efficiency of 99.97 for 0.3 micron 

particles. 

(3) Plant building exterior. For all 

buildings that house areas associated 

with storage, handling, or processing of 

lead bearing materials, you must 

perform a monthly cleaning of building 

rooftops on structures that are less than 

45 feet in height and quarterly cleaning 

of buildings that are greater than 45 feet 

in height. 

(4) Accidental releases. You must 

initiate cleaning of all affected areas 

within one hour after any accidental 

release of lead dust. 

(5) Battery storage areas. You must 

inspect any unenclosed battery storage 

areas twice each day and immediately 

move any broken batteries identified to 

an enclosure. You must clean residue 

from broken batteries within one hour of 

identification. 

(6) Materials storage and handling 

areas. You must wash each vehicle at 

each exit of the material storage and 

handling areas. The vehicle wash must 

include washing of tires, undercarriage 

and exterior surface of the vehicle 

followed by vehicle inspection. You 

must collect all wash water and store 

the wash water in a container that is not 

open to the atmosphere if the wash 

water is not immediately sent to 

treatment. 

(7) Equipment maintenance. You 

must perform all maintenance activities 

for any equipment potentially 

contaminated with lead bearing material 

or lead dust inside an enclosure 

maintained at negative pressure. You 

must conduct any maintenance activity 

that cannot be conducted in a negative 

pressure enclosure due to physical 

constraints or safety issues inside a 

partial or temporary enclosure and use 

wet suppression and/or a vacuum 

system equipped with a filter rated by 

the manufacturer to achieve a capture 

efficiency of 99.97 percent for 0.3 

micron particles. 

(8) Material transport. You must 

transport all lead bearing materials 

including, but not limited to, furnace 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29074 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

charging material, baghouse dust, slag 

and any material generated from 

cleaning activities, capable of generating 

any amount of fugitive lead dust within 

closed conveyor systems or in sealed, 

leak-proof containers unless the 

transport activities are contained within 

an enclosure. 

(d) Your standard operating 

procedures manual must specify that 

records be maintained of all pavement 

cleaning, vehicle washing, wet 

suppression, exterior building cleaning, 

and battery storage inspection activities 

performed to control fugitive dust 

emissions. 

(e) You must pave all grounds on the 

facility or plant groundcover sufficient 

to prevent wind-blown dust. You may 

use dust suppressants on unpaved areas 

that will not support a groundcover 

(e.g., roadway shoulders, steep slopes). 

(f) As an alternative to the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (c)(8) of this section, you 

can demonstrate to the Administrator 

(or delegated State, local, or Tribal 

authority) that an alternative measure(s) 

is equivalent or better than a practice(s) 

described in paragraphs (c)(1) through 

(c)(8) of this section. 

§ 63.546 Compliance dates. 

(a) For affected sources that 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction on or before May 19, 

2011, you must demonstrate compliance 

with the requirements of this subpart no 

later than [DATE TWO YEARS AFTER 

THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. 

(b) For affected sources that 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction after May 19, 2011, you 

must demonstrate compliance with the 

requirements of this subpart by [DATE 

TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or upon 

startup of operations, whichever is later. 

§ 63.547 Test methods. 

(a) You must use the test methods 

from appendix A of part 60 as listed in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this 

section to determine compliance with 

the emissions standards for lead 

compounds specified in § 63.543(a). 

(1) EPA Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–1 to select the sampling 

port location and the number of traverse 

points. 

(2) EPA Method 2 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–1 or EPA Method 5D at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–3, section 8.3 

for positive pressure fabric filters, to 

measure volumetric flow rate. 

(3) EPA Method 3, 3A, or 3B at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–2 to determine 

the dry molecular weight of the stack 

gas. 

(4) EPA Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3 to determine moisture 

content of the stack gas. 

(5) EPA Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8 to determine compliance 

with the lead compound emissions 

standards. The minimum sample 

volume must be 2.0 dry standard cubic 

meters (70 dry standard cubic feet) for 

each run. You must perform three test 

runs and you must determine 

compliance using the average of the 

three runs. 

(b) You must use the following test 

methods in appendix A of part 60 listed 

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

this section, as specified, to determine 

compliance with the emissions 

standards for total hydrocarbons 

specified in § 63.543(b) and (e). 

(1) EPA Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–1 to select the sampling 

port location and number of traverse 

points. 

(2) The Single Point Integrated 

Sampling and Analytical Procedure of 

Method 3B to measure the carbon 

dioxide content of the stack gases when 

using either EPA Method 3A or 3B at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–2. 

(3) EPA Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3 to measure moisture 

content of the stack gases. 

(4) EPA Method 25A at 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–7 to measure total 

hydrocarbons emissions. The minimum 

sampling time must be 

1 hour for each run. You must perform 

a minimum of three test runs. You must 

calculate a 1-hour average total 

hydrocarbons concentration for each 

run and use the average of the three 1- 

hour averages to determine compliance. 

(c) You must correct the measured 

total hydrocarbons concentrations to 4 

percent carbon dioxide as specified in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this 

section. 

(1) If the measured percent carbon 

dioxide is greater than 0.4 percent in 

each compliance test, you must 

determine the correction factor using 

Equation (2) of this section. 

Where: 

F = Correction factor (no units). 

CO2 = Percent carbon dioxide measured 

using EPA Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–2, where the 

measured carbon dioxide is greater than 

0.4 percent. 

(2) If the measured percent carbon 

dioxide is equal to or less than 0.4 

percent, you must use a correction 

factor (F) of 10. 

(3) You must determine the corrected 

total hydrocarbons concentration by 

multiplying the measured total 

hydrocarbons concentration by the 

correction factor (F) determined for each 

compliance test. 

(d) You must use the following test 

methods in appendix A of part 60 listed 

in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(5) of 

this section, as specified, to determine 

compliance with the emissions 

standards for dioxins and furans 

specified in § 63.543(b). 

(1) EPA Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–1 to select the sampling 

port location and the number of traverse 

points. 

(2) EPA Method 2 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–1 or EPA Method 5D at 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A–3, section 8.3 

for positive pressure fabric filters to 

measure volumetric flow rate. 

(3) EPA Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–2 to determine the 

oxygen and carbon dioxide 

concentrations of the stack gas. 

(4) EPA Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3 to determine moisture 

content of the stack gas. 

(5) EPA Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–7 to determine the dioxins 

and furans concentration. 

(e) You must determine the dioxins 

and furans toxic equivalency by 

following the procedures in paragraphs 

(e)(1) through (e)(3) of this section. 

(1) Measure the concentration of each 

dioxins and furans congener shown in 

Table 3 of this subpart using EPA 

Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–7. You must correct the concentration 

of dioxins and furans in terms of toxic 

equivalency to 7 percent O2 using 

Equation (3) of this section. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19MY11.002</GPH> EP19MY11.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29075 

Where: 

Cadj = Dioxins and furans concentration 

adjusted to 7 percent oxygen. 

Cmeas = Dioxins and furans concentration 

measured in nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter. 

(20.9 ¥ 7) = 20.9 percent oxygen ¥ 7 percent 

oxygen (defined oxygen correction 

basis). 

20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent. 

%O2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a 

dry basis, percent. 

(2) For each dioxins and furans 

congener measured as specified in 

paragraph (e)(1) of this section, multiply 

the congener concentration by its 

corresponding toxic equivalency factor 

specified in Table 3 to this subpart. 

(3) Sum the values calculated as 

specified in paragraph (e)(2) of this 

section to obtain the total concentration 

of dioxins and furans emitted in terms 

of toxic equivalency. 

(f) You must determine compliance 

with the doorway in-draft requirement 

for enclosed buildings in § 63.544(b) 

using the procedures specified in 

paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(3) of this 

section. 

(1) You must use a propeller 

anemometer or equivalent device 

meeting the requirements of paragraphs 

(f)(1)(i) through (f)(1)(iii) of this section. 

(i) The propeller of the anemometer 

must be made of a material of uniform 

density and must be properly balanced 

to optimize performance. 

(ii) The measurement range of the 

anemometer must extend to at least 300 

meters per minute (1,000 feet per 

minute). 

(iii) A known relationship must exist 

between the anemometer signal output 

and air velocity, and the anemometer 

must be equipped with a suitable 

readout system. 

(2) You must determine the doorway 

in-draft by placing the anemometer in 

the plane of the doorway opening near 

its center. 

(3) You must demonstrate the 

doorway in-draft for each doorway that 

is open during normal operation with 

all other doorways remaining in the 

position they are in during normal 

operation. 

(g) If you comply with the 

requirements specified in § 63.544(d)(1), 

you must use the EPA method at 40 CFR 

part 50, appendix G to measure the 

concentration of lead in air. 

(h) If you comply with the 

requirements specified in § 63.544(d)(2) 

and (d)(3) for enclosure hoods, you must 

determine compliance with the face 

velocity requirements by using the test 

methods in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of 

this section. 

(1) Calculate face velocity using the 

procedures in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) 

through (h)(1)(iv) of this section. 

(i) Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–1 must be used to select the 

sampling port location in the duct 

leading from the process fugitive 

enclosure hood to the control device. 

(ii) Method 2 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–1 must be used to measure 

the volumetric flow rate in the duct 

from the process fugitive enclosure 

hood to the control device. 

(iii) The face area of the hood must be 

determined from measurement of the 

hood. If the hood has access doors, then 

the face area must be determined with 

the access doors in the position they are 

in during normal operating conditions. 

(iv) Face velocity must be determined 

by dividing the volumetric flow rate as 

determined in paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this 

section by the total face area for the 

hood determined in paragraph (h)(2)(iii) 

of this section. 

(2) The face velocity may be measured 

directly using the procedures in 

paragraphs (h)(2)(i) through (h)(2)(v) of 

this section. 

(i) A propeller anemometer or 

equivalent device must be used to 

measure hood face velocity. 

(ii) The propeller of the anemometer 

must be made of a material of uniform 

density and must be properly balanced 

to optimize performance. 

(iii) The measurement range of the 

anemometer must extend to at least 300 

meters per minute (1,000 feet per 

minute). 

(iv) A known relationship must exist 

between the anemometer signal output 

and air velocity, and the anemometer 

must be equipped with a suitable 

readout system. 

(v) Hood face velocity must be 

determined for each hood open during 

normal operation by placing the 

anemometer in the plane of the hood 

opening. Access doors must be 

positioned consistent with normal 

operation. 

§ 63.548 Monitoring requirements. 

(a) You must prepare, and at all times 

operate according to, a standard 

operating procedures manual that 

describes in detail procedures for 

inspection, maintenance, and bag leak 

detection and corrective action plans for 

all baghouses (fabric filters or cartridge 

filters) that are used to control process 

vents, process fugitive, or fugitive dust 

emissions from any source subject to the 

lead emissions standards in §§ 63.543, 

63.544, and 63.545, including those 

used to control emissions from building 

ventilation. 

(b) You must submit the standard 

operating procedures manual for 

baghouses required by paragraph (a) of 

this section to the Administrator or 

delegated authority for review and 

approval. 

(c) The procedures that you specify in 

the standard operating procedures 

manual for inspections and routine 

maintenance must, at a minimum, 

include the requirements of paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (c)(9) of this section. 

(1) Daily monitoring of pressure drop 

across each baghouse cell. 

(2) Weekly confirmation that dust is 

being removed from hoppers through 

visual inspection, or equivalent means 

of ensuring the proper functioning of 

removal mechanisms. 

(3) Daily check of compressed air 

supply for pulse-jet baghouses. 

(4) An appropriate methodology for 

monitoring cleaning cycles to ensure 

proper operation. 

(5) Monthly check of bag cleaning 

mechanisms for proper functioning 

through visual inspection or equivalent 

means. 

(6) Monthly check of bag tension on 

reverse air and shaker-type baghouses. 

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

(spring loaded) devices. 

(7) Quarterly confirmation of the 

physical integrity of the baghouse 

through visual inspection of the 

baghouse interior for air leaks. 

(8) Quarterly inspection of fans for 

wear, material buildup, and corrosion 

through visual inspection, vibration 

detectors, or equivalent means. 

(9) Continuous operation of a bag leak 

detection system, unless a system 

meeting the requirements of paragraph 

(m) of this section, for a CEMS and 

continuous emissions rate monitoring 

system is installed for monitoring the 

concentration of lead. 

(d) The procedures you specified in 

the standard operating procedures 

manual for baghouse maintenance must 

include, at a minimum, 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, must meet the specification and 

requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) 

through (e)(8) of this section. 

(1) The bag leak detection system 

must be certified by the manufacturer to 

be capable of detecting particulate 

matter emissions at concentrations of 

1.0 milligram per actual cubic meter 

(0.00044 grains per actual cubic foot) or 

less. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29076 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(2) The bag leak detection system 

sensor must provide output of relative 

particulate matter loadings. 

(3) The bag leak detection system 

must be equipped with an alarm system 

that will alarm when an increase in 

relative particulate loadings is detected 

over a preset level. 

(4) You must install and operate the 

bag leak detection system in a manner 

consistent with the guidance provided 

in ‘‘Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag 

Leak Detection Guidance’’ EPA–454/R– 

98–015, September 1997 (incorporated 

by reference) and the manufacturer’s 

written specifications and 

recommendations for installation, 

operation, and adjustment of the system. 

(5) The initial adjustment of the 

system must, 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, you 

must not adjust the sensitivity or range, 

averaging period, alarm set points, or 

alarm delay time, except as detailed in 

the approved standard operating 

procedures manual required under 

paragraph (a) of this section. You cannot 

increase the sensitivity by more than 

100 percent or decrease the sensitivity 

by more than 50 percent over a 365 day 

period unless such adjustment follows a 

complete baghouse inspection that 

demonstrates that the baghouse is in 

good operating condition. 

(7) For negative pressure, induced air 

baghouses, and positive pressure 

baghouses that are discharged to the 

atmosphere through a stack, you must 

install the bag leak detector 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) You must include in the standard 

operating procedures manual required 

by paragraph (a) of this section a 

corrective action plan that specifies the 

procedures to be followed in the case of 

a bag leak detection system alarm. The 

corrective action plan must include, at 

a minimum, the procedures that you 

will use to determine and record the 

time and cause of the alarm as well as 

the corrective actions taken to minimize 

emissions as specified in paragraphs 

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

(1) The procedures used to determine 

the cause of the alarm must be initiated 

within 30 minutes of the alarm. 

(2) The cause of the alarm must be 

alleviated by taking the necessary 

corrective action(s) that may include, 

but not be limited to, those listed in 

paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (f)(2)(vi) of 

this section. 

(i) Inspecting the baghouse for air 

leaks, torn or broken filter elements, or 

any other malfunction that may cause 

an increase in emissions. 

(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter 

media. 

(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter 

media, or otherwise repairing the 

control device. 

(iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse 

compartment. 

(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection 

system probe, or otherwise repairing the 

bag leak detection system. 

(vi) Shutting down the process 

producing the particulate emissions. 

(g) If you use a wet scrubber to control 

particulate matter and metal hazardous 

air pollutant emissions from an affected 

source to demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the emissions 

standards, you must monitor and record 

the pressure drop and water flow rate of 

the wet scrubber during the initial 

performance or compliance test 

conducted to demonstrate compliance 

with the lead emissions limit under 

§ 63.543(a). Thereafter, you must 

monitor and record the pressure drop 

and water flow rate values at least once 

every hour and you must maintain the 

pressure drop and water flow rate at 

levels no lower than 30 percent below 

the pressure drop and water flow rate 

measured during the initial performance 

or compliance test. 

(h) You must comply with the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(h)(1) through (h)(5) of this section to 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with the total hydrocarbons and dioxins 

and furans emissions standards. 

(1) Continuous temperature 

monitoring. You must install, calibrate, 

maintain, and continuously operate a 

device to monitor and record the 

temperature of the afterburner or 

furnace exhaust streams consistent with 

the requirements for continuous 

monitoring systems in subpart A of this 

part. 

(2) Prior to or in conjunction with the 

initial performance or compliance test 

to determine compliance with 

§ 63.543(b), you must conduct a 

performance evaluation for the 

temperature monitoring device 

according to § 63.8(e). The definitions, 

installation specifications, test 

procedures, and data reduction 

procedures for determining calibration 

drift, relative accuracy, and reporting 

described in Performance Specification 

2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, sections 

2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 must be used to 

conduct the evaluation. The 

temperature monitoring device must 

meet the following performance and 

equipment specifications: 

(i) The recorder response range must 

include zero and 1.5 times the average 

temperature identified in paragraph 

(h)(3) of this section. 

(ii) The monitoring system calibration 

drift must not exceed 2 percent of 1.5 

times the average temperature identified 

in paragraph (h)(3) of this section. 

(iii) The monitoring system relative 

accuracy must not exceed 20 percent. 

(iv) The reference method must be a 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology calibrated reference 

thermocouple-potentiometer system or 

an alternate reference, subject to the 

approval of the Administrator. 

(3) You must monitor and record the 

temperature of the afterburner or the 

furnace exhaust streams every 15 

minutes during the initial performance 

or compliance test for total 

hydrocarbons and dioxins and furans 

and determine an arithmetic average for 

the recorded temperature 

measurements. 

(4) To demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the standards for total 

hydrocarbons and dioxins and furans, 

you must maintain an afterburner or 

exhaust temperature such that the 

average temperature in any 3-hour 

period does not fall more than 28 °C 

(50 °F) below the average established in 

paragraph (h)(3) of this section. 

(i) You must install, operate, and 

maintain a digital differential pressure 

monitoring system to continuously 

monitor each total enclosure as 

described in paragraphs (i)(1) through 

(i)(6) of this section. 

(1) You must install and maintain a 

minimum of one building digital 

differential pressure monitoring system 

at each of the following three walls in 

each total enclosure that has a total 

ground surface area of 10,000 square 

feet or more: 

(i) The leeward wall. 

(ii) The windward wall. 

(iii) An exterior wall that connects the 

leeward and windward wall at a 

location defined by the intersection of a 

perpendicular line between a point on 

the connecting wall and a point on its 

furthest opposite exterior wall, and 

intersecting within plus or minus ten 

meters of the midpoint of a straight line 

between the two other monitors 

specified. The midpoint monitor must 

not be located on the same wall as either 

of the other two monitors. 

(2) You must install and maintain a 

minimum of one building digital 

differential pressure monitoring system 

at the leeward wall of each total 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29077 

enclosure that has a total ground surface 

area of less than 10,000 square feet. 

(3) The digital differential pressure 

monitoring systems must be certified by 

the manufacturer to be capable of 

measuring and displaying negative 

pressure in the range of 0.01 to 0.2 mm 

mercury (0.005 to 0.11 inches of water) 

with a minimum accuracy of plus or 

minus 0.001 mm mercury (0.0005 

inches of water). 

(4) You must equip each digital 

differential pressure monitoring system 

with a continuous recorder. 

(5) You must calibrate each digital 

differential pressure monitoring system 

in accordance with manufacturer’s 

specifications at least once every 12 

calendar months or more frequently if 

recommended by the manufacturer. 

(6) You must equip the digital 

differential pressure monitoring system 

with a backup, uninterruptible power 

supply to ensure continuous operation 

of the monitoring system during a 

power outage. 

(j) You must monitor the doorway indraft velocity at each building opening 

once per day to demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the in-draft 

requirements in § 63.544(b)(2). 

(k) If you comply with the 

requirements specified in § 63.544(d), 

you must comply with the requirements 

specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through 

(3) of this section. 

(1) You must install, operate and 

maintain a continuous monitoring 

system for the measurement of lead 

compound concentrations in air as 

specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(i) through 

(k)(1)(v) of this section. 

(i) You must operate a minimum of 

two compliance monitors sufficient in 

location and frequency of sample 

collection to detect expected maximum 

concentrations of lead compounds in air 

due to emissions from the affected 

source(s) in accordance with a written 

plan as described in paragraph (k)(1)(ii) 

of this section and approved by the 

Administrator. The plan must include 

descriptions of the sampling and 

analytical methods used. The plan may 

take into consideration existing 

monitoring being conducted under a 

State monitoring plan in accordance 

with 40 CFR part 58. At least one 24- 

hour sample must be collected from 

each monitor every 6 days except during 

periods or seasons exempted by the 

Administrator. 

(ii) You must submit a written plan 

describing and explaining the basis for 

the design and adequacy of the 

compliance monitoring network, the 

sampling, analytical, and quality 

assurance procedures, and any other 

related procedures, and the justification 

for any seasonal, background, or other 

data adjustments within 45 days after 

the effective date of this subpart. 

(iii) The Administrator at any time 

may require changes in, or expansion of, 

the monitoring program, including 

additional sampling and, more frequent 

sampling, revisions to the analytical 

protocols and network design. 

(iv) If all rolling 3-month average 

concentrations of lead in air measured 

by the compliance monitoring system 

are less than 50 percent of the lead 

concentration limits specified in 

§ 63.544(d)(1) for 3 consecutive years, 

you may submit a proposed revised plan 

to reduce the monitoring sampling and 

analysis frequency to the Administrator 

for review. If approved by the 

Administrator, you may adjust your 

monitoring accordingly. 

(v) For any subsequent period, if any 

rolling 3-month average lead 

concentration in air measured at any 

monitor in the monitoring system 

exceeds 50 percent of the concentration 

limits specified in § 63.544(d)(1), you 

must resume monitoring pursuant to 

paragraph (k)(1)(i) of this section at all 

monitors until another 3 consecutive 

years of lead concentration 

measurements is demonstrated to be 

less than 50 percent of the lead 

concentration limits specified in 

§ 63.544(d)(1). 

(2) You must monitor the enclosure 

hood face velocity at each hood once 

per week to demonstrate continuous 

compliance with the in-draft 

requirements in § 63.544(d)(3). 

(3) If you use pressurized dryer 

breaching seals in order to comply with 

the requirements of § 63.544(d)(4), you 

must equip each seal with an alarm that 

will ‘‘sound’’ or ‘‘go off’’ if the 

pressurized dryer breaching seal 

malfunctions. 

(l) All new or modified sources 

subject to the requirements under 

§ 63.543 must install, calibrate, 

maintain, and operate a CEMS for 

measuring lead emissions and a 

continuous emissions rate monitoring 

system subject to Performance 

Specification 6 of appendix B to part 60 

of this chapter. You must comply with 

the requirements for CEMS and 

continuous emissions rate monitoring 

system specified in paragraph (m) of 

this section. 

(1) Sources subject to the emissions 

limits for lead compounds under 

§ 63.543(a) must install a CEMS for 

measuring lead emissions within 180 

days of promulgation of performance 

specifications for lead CEMS. 

(2) Prior to promulgation of 

performance specifications for CEMS 

used to measure lead concentrations, 

you must use the procedure described 

in § 63.543(a)(1) through (a)(4) to 

determine compliance. 

(m) If a CEMS is used to measure lead 

emissions, you must install a 

continuous emissions rate monitoring 

system with a sensor in a location that 

provides representative measurement of 

the exhaust gas flow rate at the sampling 

location of the CEMS used to measure 

lead emissions, taking into account the 

manufacturer’s recommendations. The 

flow rate sensor is that portion of the 

system that senses the volumetric flow 

rate and generates an output 

proportional to that flow rate. 

(1) The continuous emissions rate 

monitoring system must be designed to 

measure the exhaust gas flow rate over 

a range that extends from a value of at 

least 20 percent less than the lowest 

expected exhaust flow rate to a value of 

at least 20 percent greater than the 

highest expected exhaust gas flow rate. 

(2) The continuous emissions rate 

monitoring system must be equipped 

with a data acquisition and recording 

system that is capable of recording 

values over the entire range specified in 

paragraph (m)(1) of this section. 

(3) You must perform an initial 

relative accuracy test of the continuous 

emissions rate monitoring system in 

accordance with the applicable 

Performance Specification in appendix 

B to part 60 of this chapter. 

(4) You must operate the continuous 

emissions rate monitoring system and 

record data during all periods of 

operation of the affected facility 

including periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction, except for periods of 

monitoring system malfunctions, repairs 

associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions, and required monitoring 

system quality assurance or quality 

control activities including, as 

applicable, calibration checks and 

required zero and span adjustments. 

(5) You must calculate the average 

lead concentration and flow rate 

monthly to determine compliance with 

§ 63.543(a). 

(6) When the continuous emissions 

rate monitoring system is unable to 

provide quality assured data, the 

following apply: 

(i) When data are not available for 

periods of up to 48 hours, the highest 

recorded hourly emissions rate from the 

previous 24 hours must be used. 

(ii) When data are not available for 48 

or more hours, the maximum daily 

emissions rate based on the previous 30 

days must be used. 

§ 63.549 Notification requirements. 

(a) You must comply with all of the 

notification requirements of § 63.9 of 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29078 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

subpart A, General Provisions. 

Electronic notifications are encouraged 

when possible. 

(b) You must submit the fugitive dust 

control standard operating procedures 

manual required under § 63.545(a) and 

the standard operating procedures 

manual for baghouses required under 

§ 63.548(a) to the Administrator or 

delegated authority along with a 

notification that the smelter is seeking 

review and approval of these plans and 

procedures. You must submit this 

notification no later than [DATE ONE 

YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. For sources that 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction after [INSERT THE DATE 

OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 

you must submit this notification no 

later than 180 days before startup of the 

constructed or reconstructed secondary 

lead smelter, but no sooner than [DATE 

OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

For an affected source that has received 

a construction permit from the 

Administrator or delegated authority on 

or before [INSERT DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must 

submit this notification no later than 

[DATE ONE YEAR AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

§ 63.550 Recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

(a) You must comply with all of the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements specified in § 63.10 of the 

General Provisions that are referenced 

in Table 1 to this subpart. 

(1) Records must be maintained in a 

form suitable and readily available for 

expeditious review, according to 

§ 63.10(b)(1). However, electronic 

recordkeeping and reporting is 

encouraged, and required for some 

records and reports. 

(2) Records must be kept on site for 

at least 2 years after the date of 

occurrence, measurement, maintenance, 

corrective action, report, or record, 

according to § 63.10(b)(1). 

(b) The standard operating procedures 

manuals required in § 63.545(a) and 

§ 63.548(a) must be submitted to the 

Administrator in electronic format for 

review and approval of the initial 

submittal and whenever an update is 

made to the procedure. 

(c) You must maintain for a period of 

5 years, records of the information listed 

in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(15) of 

this section. 

(1) Electronic records of the bag leak 

detection system output. 

(2) 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 corrective actions 

taken, and the date and time the cause 

of the alarm was corrected. 

(3) All records of inspections and 

maintenance activities required under 

§ 63.548(c) as part of the practices 

described in the standard operating 

procedures manual for baghouses 

required under § 63.548(a). 

(4) Electronic records of the pressure 

drop and water flow rate values for wet 

scrubbers used to control metal 

hazardous air pollutant emissions from 

process fugitive sources as required in 

§ 63.548(g). 

(5) Electronic records of the output 

from the continuous temperature 

monitor required in § 63.548(h)(1), and 

an identification of periods when the 

3-hour average temperature fell below 

the minimum established under 

§ 63.548(h)(3), and an explanation of the 

corrective actions taken. 

(6) Electronic records of the 

continuous pressure monitors for total 

enclosures required in § 63.548(i), and 

an identification of periods when the 

pressure was not maintained as required 

in § 63.544(b)(1). 

(7) Records of the daily measurements 

of doorway in-draft velocity required in 

§ 63.548(j), and an identification of the 

periods when the velocity was not 

maintained as required in § 63.544(b)(2). 

(8) Records of the inspections of 

facility enclosures required in 

§ 63.544(c). 

(9) Records of all cleaning and 

inspections required as part of the 

practices described in the standard 

operating procedures manual required 

under § 63.545(a) for the control of 

fugitive dust emissions. 

(10) Records of the compliance 

monitoring required in § 63.548(k)(1), if 

applicable. 

(11) Records of the face velocity 

measurements required in 

§ 63.548(k)(2), if applicable, and an 

identification of periods when the face 

velocity was not maintained as required 

in § 63.544(d)(2) and (d)(3). 

(12) Records of the dryer breaching 

seal alarms required in § 63.548(k)(3). 

(13) Electronic records of the output 

of any CEMS installed to monitor lead 

emissions meeting the requirements of 

§ 63.548(m). 

(14) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of each malfunction of 

operation (i.e., process equipment) or 

the air pollution control equipment and 

monitoring equipment. 

(15) Records of actions taken during 

periods of malfunction to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.543(j), including corrective actions 

to restore malfunctioning process and 

air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment to its normal or usual 

manner of operation. 

(d) You must comply with all of the 

reporting requirements specified in 

§ 63.10 of the General Provisions that 

are referenced in Table 1 to this subpart. 

(1) You must submit reports no less 

frequent than specified under 

§ 63.10(e)(3) of the General Provisions. 

(2) Once a source reports a violation 

of the standard or excess emissions, you 

must follow the reporting format 

required under § 63.10(e)(3) until a 

request to reduce reporting frequency is 

approved by the Administrator. 

(e) In addition to the information 

required under the applicable sections 

of § 63.10, you must include in the 

reports required under paragraph (d) of 

this section the information specified in 

paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(14) of this 

section. 

(1) Records of the concentration of 

lead in each process vent, and records 

of the rolling 12-month flow-weighted 

average concentration of lead 

compounds in vent gases calculated 

monthly as required in § 63.543(a). 

(2) Records of all alarms from the bag 

leak detection system specified in 

§ 63.548. 

(3) A description of the procedures 

taken following each bag leak detection 

system alarm pursuant to § 63.548(f)(1) 

and (2). 

(4) A summary of the records 

maintained as part of the practices 

described in the standard operating 

procedures manual for baghouses 

required under § 63.548(a), including an 

explanation of the periods when the 

procedures were not followed and the 

corrective actions taken. 

(5) An identification of the periods 

when the pressure drop and water flow 

rate of wet scrubbers used to control 

process fugitive sources dropped below 

the levels established in § 63.548(g), and 

an explanation of the corrective actions 

taken. 

(6) Records of the temperature 

monitor output, in 3-hour block 

averages, for those periods when the 

temperature monitored pursuant to 

§ 63.548(h) fell below the level 

established in § 63.548(h)(4). 

(7) Certification that the plastic 

separation process for battery breakers 

required in § 63.543(k) was operated at 

all times the battery breaker was in 

service. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29079 

(8) Records of periods when the 

pressure was not maintained as required 

in § 63.544(b)(1), or the in-draft velocity 

was not maintained as required in 

§ 63.544(b)(2). 

(9) If a malfunction occurred during 

the reporting period, the report must 

include the number, duration, and a 

brief description for each type of 

malfunction that occurred during the 

reporting period and caused or may 

have caused any applicable emissions 

limitation to be exceeded. The report 

must also include a description of 

actions taken by an owner or operator 

during a malfunction of an affected 

source to minimize emissions in 

accordance with § 63.543(j), including 

actions taken to correct a malfunction. 

(10) A summary of the fugitive dust 

control measures performed during the 

required reporting period, including an 

explanation of the periods when the 

procedures outlined in the standard 

operating procedures manual pursuant 

to § 63.545(a) were not followed and the 

corrective actions taken. The reports 

must not contain copies of the daily 

records required to demonstrate 

compliance with the requirements of the 

standard operating procedures manuals 

required under § 63.545(a). 

(11) If you comply with the 

requirements in § 63.544(d)(1), you must 

provide records of all results of air 

monitoring required in § 63.548(k)(1). 

(12) Records of periods when the 

enclosure hood face velocity was not 

maintained as required in § 63.544(d)(3). 

(13) Records of the dryer seal 

breaching alarms required in 

§ 63.548(k)(3). 

(14) You must submit records 

pursuant to paragraphs (e)(14)(i) 

through (iii) of this section. 

(i) As of January 1, 2012 and within 

60 days after the date of completing 

each performance test, as defined in 

§ 63.2 and as required in this subpart, 

you must submit performance test data, 

except opacity data, electronically to 

EPA’s Central Data Exchange by using 

the Electronic Reporting Tool (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ 

ert_tool.html/). Only data collected 

using test methods compatible with the 

Electronic Reporting Tool are subject to 

this requirement to be submitted 

electronically into EPA’s WebFIRE 

database. 

(ii) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each CEMS performance 

evaluation test, as defined in § 63.2 and 

required by this subpart, you must 

submit the relative accuracy test audit 

data electronically into EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange by using the Electronic 

Reporting Tool as mentioned in 

paragraph (e)(14)(i) of this section. Only 

data collected using test methods 

compatible with the Electronic 

Reporting Tool are subject to this 

requirement to be submitted 

electronically into EPA’s WebFIRE 

database. 

(iii) All reports required by this 

subpart not subject to the requirements 

in paragraphs (e)(14)(i) and (ii) of this 

section must be sent to the 

Administrator at the appropriate 

address listed in § 63.13. The 

Administrator or the delegated authority 

may request a report in any form 

suitable for the specific case (e.g., by 

electronic media such as Excel 

spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy). The 

Administrator retains the right to 

require submittal of reports subject to 

paragraphs (e)(14)(i) and (ii) of this 

section in paper format. 

§ 63.551 Implementation and enforcement. 

(a) This subpart can be implemented 

and enforced by the U.S. EPA, or a 

delegated authority such as the 

applicable State, local, or Tribal agency. 

If the U.S. EPA Administrator has 

delegated authority to a State, local, or 

Tribal agency, then that agency, in 

addition to the U.S. EPA, has the 

authority to implement and enforce this 

subpart. Contact the applicable U.S. 

EPA Regional Office to find out if this 

subpart is delegated to a State, local, or 

Tribal agency. 

(b) In delegating implementation and 

enforcement authority of this subpart to 

a State, local, or Tribal agency under 

subpart E of this part, the authorities 

contained in paragraph (c) of this 

section are retained by the 

Administrator of U.S. EPA and cannot 

be transferred to the State, local, or 

Tribal agency. 

(c) The authorities that cannot be 

delegated to State, local, or Tribal 

agencies are as specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section. 

(1) Approval of alternatives to the 

requirements in §§ 63.541, 63.543 

through 63.544, § 63.545, and § 63.546. 

(2) Approval of major alternatives to 

test methods for under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) 

and (f), as defined in § 63.90, and as 

required in this subpart. 

(3) Approval of major alternatives to 

monitoring under § 63.8(f), as defined in 

§ 63.90, and as required in this subpart. 

(4) Approval of major alternatives to 

recordkeeping and reporting under 

§ 63.10(f), as defined in § 63.90, and as 

required in this subpart. 

§ 63.552 Affirmative defense for 

exceedance of emissions limit during 

malfunction. 

In response to an action to enforce the 

standards set forth in this subpart, you 

may assert an affirmative defense to a 

claim for civil penalties for exceedances 

of such standards that are caused by 

malfunction, as defined at § 63.2. 

Appropriate penalties may be assessed, 

however, if you fail to meet your burden 

of proving all of the requirements in the 

affirmative defense. The affirmative 

defense shall not be available for claims 

for injunctive relief. 

(a) Affirmative defense. To establish 

the affirmative defense in any action to 

enforce such a limit, you must timely 

meet the notification requirements in 

paragraph (b) of this section, and must 

prove by a preponderance of evidence 

that: 

(1) The excess emissions: 

(i) Were caused by a sudden, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 

air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner. 

(ii) Could not have been prevented 

through careful planning, proper design 

or better operation and maintenance 

practices. 

(iii) Did not stem from any activity or 

event that could have been foreseen and 

avoided, or planned for. 

(iv) Were not part of a recurring 

pattern indicative of inadequate design, 

operation, or maintenance. 

(2) Repairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when the 

applicable emissions limitations were 

being exceeded. Off-shift and overtime 

labor were used, to the extent 

practicable to make these repairs. 

(3) The frequency, amount and 

duration of the excess emissions 

(including any bypass) were minimized 

to the maximum extent practicable 

during periods of such emissions. 

(4) If the excess emissions resulted 

from a bypass of control equipment or 

a process, then the bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 

personal injury, or severe property 

damage. 

(5) All possible steps were taken to 

minimize the impact of the excess 

emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health. 

(6) All emissions monitoring and 

control systems were kept in operation 

if at all possible, consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices. 

(7) All of the actions in response to 

the excess emissions were documented 

by properly signed, contemporaneous 

operating logs. 

(8) At all times, the affected source 

was operated in a manner consistent 

with good practices for minimizing 

emissions. 

(9) A written root cause analysis has 

been prepared, the purpose of which is 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
29080 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

to determine, correct, and eliminate the 

primary causes of the malfunction and 

the excess emissions resulting from the 

malfunction event at issue. The analysis 

shall also specify, using best monitoring 

methods and engineering judgment, the 

amount of excess emissions that were 

the result of the malfunction. 

(b) Notification. The owner or 

operator of the affected source 

experiencing an exceedance of its 

emissions limit(s) during a malfunction, 

shall notify the Administrator by 

telephone or facsimile transmission as 

soon as possible, but no later than two 

business days after the initial 

occurrence of the malfunction, it wishes 

to avail itself of an affirmative defense 

to civil penalties for that malfunction. 

The owner or operator seeking to assert 

an affirmative defense, shall also submit 

a written report to the Administrator 

within 45 days of the initial occurrence 

of the exceedance of the standard in this 

subpart to demonstrate, with all 

necessary supporting documentation, 

that it has met the requirements set forth 

in paragraph (a) of this section. The 

owner or operator may seek an 

extension of this deadline for up to 30 

additional days by submitting a written 

request to the Administrator before the 

expiration of the 45 day period. Until a 

request for an extension has been 

approved by the Administrator, the 

owner or operator is subject to the 

requirement to submit such report 

within 45 days of the initial occurrence 

of the exceedance. 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART X OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART X 

Reference Applies to subpart X Comment 

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

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

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

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

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

63.6(a), (b), (c) ................................ Yes. 

63.6(d) ............................................. No .................................................. Section reserved. 

63.6(e)(1)(i) ..................................... No .................................................. See 63.543(j) for general duty requirement. 

63.6(e)(1)(ii) ..................................... No. 

63.6(e)(1)(iii) .................................... Yes. 

63.6(e)(2) ......................................... No .................................................. Section reserved. 

63.6(e)(3) ......................................... No. 

63.6(f)(1) .......................................... No. 

63.6(g) ............................................. Yes. 

63.6(h) ............................................. No .................................................. No opacity limits in rule. 

63.6(i) .............................................. Yes. 

63.6(j) .............................................. Yes. 

§ 63.7(a)–(d) .................................... Yes. 

§ 63.7(e)(1) ...................................... No .................................................. See 63.543(i). 

§ 63.7(e)(2)–(e)(4) ........................... Yes. 

63.7(f), (g), (h) ................................. Yes. 

63.8(a)–(b) ....................................... Yes. 

63.8(c)(1)(i) ...................................... No .................................................. See 63.543(j) for general duty requirement. 

63.8(c)(1)(ii) ..................................... Yes. 

63.8(c)(1)(iii) .................................... No. 

63.8(c)(2)–(d)(2) .............................. Yes. 

63.8(d)(3) ......................................... Yes, except for last sentence 

63.8(e)–(g) ....................................... Yes. 

63.9(a), (b), (c), (e), (g), (h)(1) 

through (3), (h)(5) and (6), (i) and 

(j).

Yes. 

63.9(f) .............................................. No. 

63.9(h)(4) ......................................... No .................................................. Reserved. 

63.10 (a) .......................................... Yes. 

63.10 (b)(1) ..................................... Yes. 

63.10(b)(2)(i) ................................... No. 

63.10(b)(2)(ii) ................................... No .................................................. See 63.550 for recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of malfunctions and recordkeeping of actions taken during malfunction. 

63.10(b)(2)(iii) .................................. Yes. 

63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(b)(2)(v) ................... No. 

63.10(b)(2)(vi)–(b)(2)(xiv) ................ Yes. 

63.(10)(b)(3) .................................... Yes. 

63.10(c)(1)–(9) ................................ Yes. 

63.10(c)(10)–(11) ............................ No .................................................. See 63.550 for recordkeeping of malfunctions. 

63.10(c)(12)–(c)(14) ........................ Yes. 

63.10(c)(15) ..................................... No. 

63.10(d)(1)–(4) ................................ Yes. 

63.10(d)(5) ....................................... No .................................................. See 63.550(c)(7) for reporting of malfunctions. 

63.10(e)–((f) .................................... Yes. 

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

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


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 97 / Thursday, May 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29081 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART X OF PART 63—EMISSIONS LIMITS FOR SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING FURNACES

For vents from these processes 

You must meet the following emissions 

limits 

Total hydrocarbon 

ppm by volume 

expressed as propane corrected to 

4 percent carbon 

dioxide 

Dioxin and furan 

(dioxins and 

furans) 

nanograms/dscm 

expressed as TEQ 

corrected to 

7 percent O2

Collocated blast and reverberatory furnace ............................................................................................... 20 ppmv 0.50 ng/dscm. 

Collocated blast and reverberatory furnace when the Reverberatory furnace is not operating ................ 360 ppmv 170 ng/dscm.

Collocated blast and reverberatory furnace that commence construction after June 9, 1994 .................. 20 ppmv 0.50 ng/dscm.

Collocated blast and reverberatory furnace that commence construction after [INSERT DATE 24 

MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

20 ppmv 0.50 ng/dscm. 

Blast furnace ............................................................................................................................................... 360 ppmv 170 ng/dscm. 

Blast furnaces that commence construction or reconstruction after June 9, 1994 ................................... 70 ppmv 10 ng/dscm. 

Reverberatory and electric furnace ............................................................................................................ 12 ppmv 0.20 ng/dscm. 

Reverberatory and electric furnace that commence construction or reconstruction after [INSERT DATE 

24 MONTHS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

12 ppmv 0.10 ng/dscm. 

Rotary furnaces .......................................................................................................................................... 610 ppmv 1.0 ng/dscm. 

Rotary Furnaces that commence construction or reconstruction after [INSERT DATE 24 MONTHS 

AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

610 ppmv 1.0 ng/dscm. 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART X OF PART 60—TOXIC EQUIVALENCY FACTORS

Dioxin/Furan congener 

Toxic 

equivalency 

factor 

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin .............................................................................................................................................. 1 

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin .......................................................................................................................................... 0 .5 

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ........................................................................................................................................ 0 .1 

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ........................................................................................................................................ 0 .1 

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ........................................................................................................................................ 0 .1 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin .................................................................................................................................... 0 .01 

octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ........................................................................................................................................................... 0 .001 

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran .................................................................................................................................................... 0 .1 

2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran ............................................................................................................................................... 0 .05 

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran ............................................................................................................................................... 0 .5 

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran ............................................................................................................................................. 0 .1 

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran ............................................................................................................................................. 0 .1 

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran ............................................................................................................................................. 0 .1 

[FR Doc. 2011–11220 Filed 5–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2