### Memorandum

**Subject:** Teleconference with the Association of Battery Recyclers (ABR)
**Location:** U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , RTP, NC
**Date:** September 16 , 2011 **Participants:** Chuck French, EPA

Nate Topham, EPA Colin Boswell, EPA Russell Kemp, ENVIRON Mark DeLaquil, Baker Law Robert Steinwurtzel, Baker Law Mike Burr, ERG Donna Lazzari, ERG The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) met via telephone with representatives of the Associati on of Battery

Recy clers (ABR) . The meeting was requested b y ABR to discuss a letter dated June 24, 2011 in which ABR submitted a request for EPA to issue a supplemental notice of rulemaking for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Secondary L ead Smelting. A brief summary of the key

points that were discussed is outlined below.

 ABR provided background information describing their role as interveners in litigation for the RTR schedule developed by EPA and Sierra Club.

 ABR stated its position that the proposed rule for secondary lead smelters has a number of substantive flaws that would make it impossible to defend. ABR stated that their ultimate goal is for the Agency to consider a supplemental notice.

 The main issues identified by ABR include:
1. EPA failed to consider emissions from The Battery Recycling Company (TBR) in Arecibo, Puerto Rico when developing the proposed rule. ABR stated their understanding that TBR was sent a limited Information Collection Request and that no stack testing was requested. A BR contends that TBR should have received the same I CR that all other facilities received. ABR stated that information from this facility is especially

important since they

are unique in the fact that they operate a rotary furnace. ABR further stated that the I CR that was sent to TBR was not docketed, nor was the response. Interested parties should have had an opportunity to review and comment on any data submitted by

TBR in response to the limited I CR that they received.2. An explanation of how EPA determined fugitive emissions for Exide’s Frisco, TX facilit y is not included in the docket. ABR stated that the calculations made for the facilit y based on I CR data was not apparent and visible in the docket. Additionally , a le tter from Fred Ganster to Chuck French regarding Exide Frisco’s dioxin emissions was not included in the docket.
3. ABR stated that there are fundamental flaws with EPA’s fugitive emission estimation methodology . First, EPA double counted the fugitive emiss ions reported b y Exide Frisco for one emissions point. Second, EPA used the wrong common denominator when scaling Exide Frisco’s fugitive emissions in order to estimate fugitive emissions at the other secondary lead smelters. ABR stated that they

had no specific alternative methodology to propose since they had insufficient time to develop an y alternative methodology

. 4. ABR stated that EPA overestimated emissions of dioxins and furans from the Exide Frisco facilit y. The facilit y submitted a stack test rep ort showing that emissions of dioxins and furans were approximately 69 times lower than the estimates used by

EPA for their multipathway risk assessment. ABR further stated their understanding that additional testing has been submitted or will be submitte d by

RSR’s Middletown, NY facility and Exide’s Reading, PA facility

.

 ABR concluded the meeting b y requesting that EPA inform ABR ASAP as to whether the Agency

plans on granting an extension for promulgation of the final rule for secondary

lead smelters.