E.O. 12866 Review - Secondary Lead RTR - Revised Preamble/Rule and RTC - 

Responses to OMB Comments 

 

Hi All, 

Here is the revised preamble/rule and the response to comment document is coming in about 5 minutes. 

Nathan Topham 

Environmental Engineer 

US EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MIG 

Phone - (919)541-0483 

From: <Topham.Nathan@epamail.epa.gov>

To: <Topham.Nathan@epamail.epa.gov>

Date: 12/15/2011 5:52 PM

Subject:

 

E.O. 12866 Review - Secondary Lead RTR - Revised Preamble/Rule and RTC - Responses to 

OMB Comments

CC:

 

<Chang.Andy@epamail.epa.gov>, <French.Chuck@epamail.epa.gov>, 

<Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>, <Guinnup.Dave@epamail.epa.gov>, 

<Donna.Lazzari@erg.com>, <Kirrane.Ellen@epamail.epa.gov>, 

<Woodall.George@epamail.epa.gov>, <Malave.Maria@epamail.epa.gov>, 

<Stewart.Michael@epamail.epa.gov>, <Michael.Burr@erg.com>, <nbeck@omb.eop.gov>, 

<Doolan.Stephanie@epamail.epa.gov>, <Fruh.Steve@epamail.epa.gov>, 

<silverman.steven@epamail.epa.gov>, <Benner.Tim@epamail.epa.gov>

Attachments:

 

EO 12866 Secondary Lead Smelting RTR 2060_AQ68 Final Rule 12-15-2011-530pm - 

Redline.docx; EO 12866 Secondary Lead Smelting RTR 2060_AQ68 Final Rule 12-15-2011-

530pm - clean.docx

Page 1 of 1
6560-50-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344; FRL-XXXX-X] 

RIN 2060–AQ68 

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Secondary Lead Smelting 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology 

review conducted for the Secondary Lead Smelting source category 

regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants. These final amendments include revisions to the 

emissions limits for lead compounds; revisions to the standards 

for fugitive emissions; the addition of total hydrocarbon and 

dioxin and furan emissions limits for reverberatory and electric 

furnaces; the addition of a work practice standard for mercury 

emissions; the modification and addition of testing and 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements; related 

notifications; and revisions to the regulatory provisions 

related to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction. 

DATES: This final action is effective on [INSERT THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 2 of 192 

incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the 

rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of 

[INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action 

under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344. All documents in the 

docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. 

Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., confidential business information (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 form. Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket 

Center, EPA West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of 

operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time 

(EST), Monday through Friday. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number 

for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 

566–1742. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 3 of 192 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final 

action, contact Mr. Nathan Topham, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541–0483; fax number: (919) 541-

3207; and email address: topham.nathan@epa.gov. For additional 

contact information, see the following SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 

section. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For specific information regarding 

the risk assessment and exposure modeling methodology, contact 

Dr. Michael Stewart, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Air Toxics 

Assessment Group (C504–06), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: 

(919) 541–7524; fax number: (919) 541–0840; and email address: 

stewart.michael@epa.gov. For information about the applicability 

of this NESHAP to a particular entity, contact the appropriate 

person listed in Table 1 to this preamble.

Table 1. List of EPA Contacts for the NESHAP Addressed in This 

Action 

NESHAP for: OECA Contacta

OAQPS Contactb

Secondary Lead 

Smelting 

Maria Malave 

(202) 564-7027 

malave.maria@epa.gov

Nathan Topham 

(919) 541-0483 

topham.nathan@epa.gov

a EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. 

b EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 4 of 192 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and 

abbreviations are used in this document. 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI confidential business information 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEMS continuous emission monitoring system 

CPMS continuous parameter monitoring system 

D/F dioxins and furans 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

HAP hazardous air pollutants 

HQ hazard quotient 

ICR information collection request 

lbs/yr pounds per year 

MACT maximum achievable control technology 

MIR maximum individual risk 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants 

ng/dscm nanograms per dry standard cubic meter 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

OP Office of Policy 

ppbv parts per billion by volume 

ppbw parts per billion by weight 

ppmv parts per million by volume 

ppmw parts per million by weight 

REL recommended exposure limit 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

RIN Regulatory Information Number 

RTR Risk and Technology Review 

SRF short rotary furnace 

TEF toxic equivalency factor 

TEQ toxic equivalency quotient 

THC total hydrocarbons 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

UPL upper prediction limit 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 5 of 192 

WWW World Wide Web 

Background Information Document. On May 19, 2011 (76 FR 

29032), the EPA proposed revisions to the Secondary Lead 

Smelting NESHAP based on evaluations performed by the EPA in 

order to conduct our risk and technology review. In this action, 

we are finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. Some of 

the significant comments and our responses are summarized in 

this preamble. A summary of the public comments on the proposal 

not presented in the preamble, and the EPA’s responses to those 

comments, is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344. A 

tracked changes version of the regulatory language that 

incorporates the changes in this action is available in the 

docket.

Organization of This Document. The following outline is 

provided to aid in locating information in the preamble. 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What is the affected source? 

C. Where can I get a copy of this document? 

D. Judicial Review 

II. Background 

III. Summary of the Final Rule 

A. What are the final rule amendments for the Secondary Lead 

Smelting source category? 

B. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards? 

C. What are the requirements for submission of performance test 

data to the EPA? 

IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 6 of 192 

A. Changes to the Risk Assessment Performed Under CAA Section 

112(f) 

B. Changes to the Technology Review Performed Under CAA Section 

112(d)(6) 

C. Other Changes Since Proposal 

V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses 

A. Use of Lead Primary NAAQS as a Measure of Acceptability of 

Risk for Public Health 

B. Total Enclosure Requirements 

C. Work Practice Standard Requirements 

D. Emission Standards for Organic HAP from Rotary Furnaces 

E. The EPA’s Risk Assessment Supporting the Proposed Rule 

F. Miscellaneous Changes to the Regulatory Text 

G. Emission Testing Methods and Frequency 

H. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected facilities? 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

E. What are the benefits? 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Orders 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 

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 

K. Congressional Review Act 

I. General Information 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 7 of 192 

A. Does this action apply to me?

Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially 

regulated by this action are shown in Table 2 of this preamble. 

Table 2. NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected By 

This Final Action 

NESHAP and Source Category 

NAICSa Code MACTb

Code

Secondary Lead Smelting 331492 0205 

a North American Industry Classification System. 

b Maximum Achievable Control Technology. 

Table 2 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, 

but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities 

likely to be affected by the final action for the source 

category listed. To determine whether your facility would be 

affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in the 

appropriate NESHAP. As defined in the source category listing 

report published by the 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.1 For clarification purposes, all reference to lead 

emissions in this preamble means “lead compounds” (which is a 

hazardous air pollutant) and all reference to lead production 

 

1 USEPA. Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List – 

Final Report, USEPA/OAQPS, EPA-450/3-91-030, July, 1992. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 8 of 192 

means elemental lead (which is not a hazardous air pollutant) as 

provided under CAA section 112(b)(7). 

If you have any questions regarding the applicability of 

any aspect of this NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person 

listed in Table 1 of this preamble in the preceding FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. What is the affected source?

The final rule applies to owners and operators of secondary 

lead smelters. The affected source for this subpart is any of 

the following sources at a secondary lead smelter: blast, 

reverberatory, rotary, and electric furnaces; refining kettles; 

agglomerating furnaces; dryers; process fugitive emissions 

sources; buildings containing lead bearing materials; and 

fugitive dust sources. A new affected source is any affected 

source at a secondary lead smelting facility of which the 

construction or reconstruction commenced after May 19, 2011. If 

components of an existing affected source are replaced such that 

the replacement meets the definition of reconstruction in 40 CFR 

63.2 and the reconstruction commenced on or after May 19, 2011, 

then the existing source becomes a reconstructed source and is 

subject to the relevant standards for a new affected source. The 

reconstructed source must comply with the requirements for a new 

affected source upon initial startup of the reconstructed 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 9 of 192 

source, or by [INSERT THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 

whichever is later. 

C. Where can I get a copy of this document?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic 

copy of this final action will also be available on the World 

Wide Web through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 

Following signature, a copy of the final action will be posted 

on the TTN’s policy and guidance page for newly proposed and 

promulgated rules at the following address: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/new.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 and 

other data that were used as inputs to the risk assessments. 

D. Judicial Review

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final 

action is available only by filing a petition for review in the 

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit by [INSERT THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 10 of 192 

PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Under 

CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this 

final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or 

criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the 

requirements. 

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that 

“[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised 

with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment 

(including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial 

review.” This section also provides a mechanism for us to 

convene a proceeding for reconsideration, “[i]f the person 

raising an objection can demonstrate to the EPA that it was 

impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for 

public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after 

the period for public comment (but within the time specified for 

judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance 

to the outcome of the rule.” Any person seeking to make such a 

demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration 

to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel 

Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, 

with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR 

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General 

Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 11 of 192 

Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, 

Washington, DC 20460. 

II. Background 

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 the EPA has 

identified categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAP 

listed in CAA section 112(b), section 112(d) calls for us to 

promulgate NESHAP for those sources. “Major sources” are those 

that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a 

rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any 

combination of HAP. For major sources, these technology-based 

standards must reflect the maximum degree of emission 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. 

For MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 

stringency requirements, which are referred to as floor 

requirements and may not be based on cost considerations. See 

CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be 

less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in 

practice by the best controlled similar source. The MACT 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 12 of 192 

standards for existing sources can be less stringent than floors 

for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the 

average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 

percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or 

the best-performing five sources for categories or subcategories 

with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT, we must also 

consider control options that are more stringent than the floor, 

under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish standards more 

stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of the cost 

of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality 

health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. In 

promulgating MACT standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs us to 

consider the application of measures, processes, methods, 

systems, or techniques that reduce the volume of or eliminate 

HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of 

materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes 

to eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when 

released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions 

point; and/or are design, equipment, work practice, or 

operational standards. 

In the second stage of the regulatory process, we undertake 

two different analyses, as required by the CAA: section 

112(d)(6) of the CAA calls for us to review these technology-
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 13 of 192 

based standards and to revise them “as necessary (taking into 

account developments in practices, processes, and control 

technologies)” no less frequently than every 8 years; and within 

8 years after promulgation of the technology standards, CAA 

section 112(f) calls for us to evaluate the risk to public 

health remaining after application of the technology-based 

standards and to revise the standards, if necessary, to provide 

an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to 

prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and 

other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. In 

doing so, the EPA may adopt standards equal to existing MACT 

standards if the EPA determines that the existing standards are 

sufficiently protective. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. 

Cir. 2008). 

On May 19, 2011, the EPA published a proposed rule in the 

Federal Register for the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP, 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart X that took into consideration the residual 

risk and technology review (RTR) analyses. Today’s action 

provides the EPA’s final determinations pursuant to the RTR 

provisions of CAA section 112 for the Secondary Lead Smelting 

source category, and also promulgates first-time standards under 

section 112 (d)(2) (MACT) for certain hazardous air pollutants 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 14 of 192 

emitted by secondary lead smelters. Specifically, we are taking 

the following actions: 

• Revising some requirements of the NESHAP related to control 

of metal HAP emissions based on our risk assessment and 

technology reviews. 

• Finalizing first-time total hydrocarbon (THC) and dioxin 

and furan (D/F) emissions limits and a plastic separation 

work practice standard to prevent dioxin formation. 

• Finalizing work practice standards for mercury. 

• Revising the requirements in the NESHAP related to 

emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction (SSM). 

• Incorporating the use of plain language into the rule. 

• Addressing technical and editorial corrections in the rule. 

III. Summary of the Final Rule 

A. What are the final rule amendments for the Secondary Lead 

Smelting source category?

EPA promulgated the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Secondary Lead Smelting on 

June 13, 1997 (62 FR 32216). The standards are codified at 40 

CFR part 63, subpart X. The secondary lead smelting industry 

consists of facilities that recycle lead-bearing scrap material, 

typically lead acid batteries, into elemental lead or lead 

alloys. The source category covered by this MACT standard 

currently includes 16 facilities, including one facility that is 

not currently operating and one facility that is in the process 

of being constructed. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 15 of 192 

This section describes the final amendments to the 

secondary lead smelting NESHAP. These revisions include changes 

to the stack and fugitive metal HAP emission standards, the 

addition of new THC and D/F emission limits, the addition of a 

work practice standard to separate plastics from automotive 

batteries to prevent dioxin emissions, the addition of work 

practice standards to minimize mercury emissions, and changes to 

the requirements that apply during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction. In addition to these changes described below, 

we are making minor changes to the regulatory text to correct 

editorial errors and to make plain language revisions. We have 

evaluated the cost, emissions reductions, energy implications 

and cost effectiveness of all of the standards being promulgated 

in this final rule and have determined that these measures are 

cost effective, technically feasible and will provide the public 

with an ample margin of safety from exposure to emissions from 

the secondary lead smelter source category. See Cost Impacts of 

the Revised NESHAP for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source 

Category, which is available in the docket, for information on 

the costs and cost effectiveness of each of the standards being 

promulgated in this final rule. 

1. Stack and Fugitive Metal HAP Emission Standards
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 16 of 192 

For the reasons provided in Section IV.A of this preamble 

and in the support documents in the docket, we have determined 

that the risks associated with emissions from this source 

category are unacceptable primarily due to fugitive emissions of 

lead. We have further determined that there have been 

developments in practices, processes, and control technologies 

that warrant revisions to the MACT standard (i.e. the standards 

promulgated pursuant to section 112 (d)(2) and (3)) for this 

source category. Therefore, to satisfy the requirements of CAA 

sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f), we are revising the MACT standard 

to include: 

• A facility-wide, flow-weighted average lead2 emissions 

limit from stacks of 0.20 mg/dscm and an individual stack 

lead emissions limit of 1.0 mg/dscm for each stack at 

existing sources. For new sources, a lead emissions limit 

of 0.20 mg/dscm applies to each individual stack at a 

modified or "greenfield" new facility. 

• A requirement for the facility to operate sources of 

fugitive lead emissions within total enclosures that are 

maintained under negative pressure and vented to a control 

device. These sources of fugitive emissions include the 

smelting furnaces, smelting furnace charging areas, lead 

taps, slag taps, molds during tapping, battery breakers, 

refining kettles, casting areas, dryers, material handling 

areas, and areas where dust from fabric filters, sweepings 

or used fabric filters are processed. The facilities are 

also required to adopt a list of specified work practice 

standards to minimize fugitive emissions. 

2. Organic HAP Emissions Standards

 

2 Throughout this preamble, all references to lead emissions means lead 

compounds as listed by Congress at section 112 (b)(1) of the Act. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 17 of 192 

To satisfy CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3), we are 

also revising the MACT standard to include first-time D/F and 

THC emission limits (with THC serving as a surrogate for nondioxin organic HAP). These emission limits are summarized in 

Table 3 of this preamble. 

Table 3. Summary of new THC and D/F emission limits. 

Source Type 

D/F Emission 

Limita

THC Emission 

Limitb

New and Existing Collocated 

Blast and Reverberatory Furnaces

0.50 20c

Existing Blast Furnaces 170 360c

New Blast Furnaces 10 70c

New and Existing Reverberatory 

and Electric Furnaces 

1.0 12 

a ng/dscm on a TEQ basis, corrected to 7% O2

b ppmv as propane, corrected to 4% CO2

c Emission limit is unchanged from 1997 NESHAP 

3. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the 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 (D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. 

denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (2010). Specifically, the Court vacated 

the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 

63.6(h)(1), that was part of a regulation, commonly referred to 

as the “General Provisions Rule,” that the EPA promulgated under 

CAA section 112. When incorporated into CAA section 112(d) 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 18 of 192 

regulations for specific source categories, these two provisions 

exempted sources from the requirement to comply with the 

otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standard during 

periods of SSM. 

We have eliminated the SSM exemption for secondary lead 

smelting facilities in this rule. Consistent with Sierra Club v. 

EPA, the EPA has established standards in this rule for all 

periods of operation. We have also revised Table 1 to subpart X 

(the General Provisions table) in several respects. For example, 

we have eliminated that incorporation of the General Provisions’ 

requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We have also 

eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting that 

related to the SSM exemption. The EPA has attempted to ensure 

that we have not included in the regulatory language any 

provisions that are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in 

the absence of the SSM exemption. 

In establishing the standards in this rule, the EPA has 

taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the 

reasons explained below, has established different standards for 

non-dioxin organic HAP during those periods. 

Information on periods of startup and shutdown in the 

industry indicate that lead emissions during these periods do 

not increase (consistent with our engineering judgment that lead 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 19 of 192 

emissions would not increase during these periods because leadbearing feed is not being smelted during these periods). 

Furthermore, all lead-emitting processes are controlled by 

either control devices or work practices and these controls 

would not typically be affected by startup or shutdown. 

Therefore, the EPA is not adopting separate lead-emission 

standards for periods of startup and shutdown.3 

The EPA has revised this final rule to require sources to 

meet a work practice standard that requires the development of 

standard operating procedures designed to minimize emissions of 

THC for each start-up and shutdown scenario anticipated for all 

units subject to THC limits. Temperature monitoring is the 

metric used to determine continuous compliance with emission 

standards for THC. This metric is inappropriate as a measure of 

the destruction efficiency of these organic pollutants during 

periods of startup and shutdown. 

The EPA is not including a standard for dioxins and furans 

during periods of startup and shutdown. This is because dioxins 

and furans will not be emitted during those periods. During 

startup and shutdown, scrap feed materials (including 

chlorinated plastics and flame retardants) that contain the 

 

3 Since startup and shutdown refers to the smelting process, and not to 

ancillary management activities, there are no startup and shutdown standards 

for process fugitive emissions since startup and shutdown do not occur for 

the activities generating such emissions. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 20 of 192 

precursors needed for dioxin formation are not introduced into 

the smelter4 so there are no conditions that could give rise to 

dioxin and furan emissions. 

The EPA determined that it is not technically and 

economically feasible for units subject to THC limits to perform 

stack testing for this pollutant during periods of startup and 

shutdown due to technical and economic impracticality associated 

with testing secondary lead smelting furnaces during these 

periods. The furnaces are heated during periods of startup 

through slow feeding of natural gas and small amounts of coke, 

with no lead acid batteries fed to the furnace during these 

periods. Test crews would have to be on-site prior to a period 

of startup or shutdown occurring and may need to break up a 

single test over multiple startups or shutdowns, the length of 

which could vary depending on the type of secondary lead 

smelting furnace being tested, that would happen infrequently to 

gather enough data to complete a three-run test. See also 

section V.G of this preamble discussing these standards further. 

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, 

 

4 “Shutdown” is defined as a period “when no lead bearing materials are being 

fed to the furnace and smelting operations have ceased...”. Section 63.542 

(definition of “shutdown”). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 21 of 192 

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). The 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 

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 emission limitation “achieved” 

by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. 

There is nothing in section 112 that directs the agency to 

consider malfunctions in determining the level “achieved” by the 

best performing or best controlled sources when setting emission 

standards. Moreover, while the EPA accounts for variability in 

setting emissions standards consistent with the section 112 case 

law, nothing in that case law requires the agency to consider 

malfunctions as part of that analysis. Section 112 uses the 

concept of “best controlled” and “best performing” unit in 

defining the level of stringency that section 112 performance 

standards must meet. Applying the concept of “best controlled” 

or “best performing” to a unit that is malfunctioning presents 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 22 of 192 

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 (D.C.Cir. 1999) (EPA 

typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of datagathering 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 (D.C. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 23 of 192 

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 non-malfunctioning 

source. The EPA’s approach to malfunctions is consistent with 

CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the 

statute. In section 3.2.1 of the separate response to comment 

document, we respond to comments that emissions during 

malfunctions should be accounted for in assessing risk pursuant 

to CAA section 112 (f)(2). 

In the event that a source fails to comply with the 

applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the 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. The 

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). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 24 of 192 

Finally, the 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 

emission standard. (See, e.g., State Implementation Plans:

Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions During Malfunctions, 

Startup, and Shutdown (September 20, 1999); Policy on Excess 

Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and 

Malfunctions (February 15, 1983).) The EPA is therefore adding 

to the final rule an affirmative defense to civil penalties for 

exceedances of emission 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 have added 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 

63.552 (see 40 CFR 22.24). The criteria ensure that the 

affirmative defense is available only where the event that 

causes an exceedance of the emission limit meets the narrow 

definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 25 of 192 

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 63.552 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 emission 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 22.27). 

The EPA is including an affirmative defense in the final 

rule in an attempt to balance a tension, inherent in many types 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 26 of 192 

of air regulations, to ensure adequate compliance while 

simultaneously recognizing that despite the most diligent of 

efforts, emission limits may be exceeded under circumstances 

beyond the control of the source. The EPA must establish 

emission standards that “limit the quantity, rate, or 

concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous 

basis” 42 U.S.C. §7602(k)(defining “emission limitation and 

emission standard”). See generally Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 

1019, 1021 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Thus, the EPA is required to ensure 

that section 112 emissions limitations are continuous. The 

affirmative defense for malfunction events meets this 

requirement by ensuring that even where there is a malfunction, 

the emission limitation is still enforceable through injunctive 

relief. While “continuous” limitations, on the one hand, are 

required, there is also case law indicating that in many 

situations it is appropriate for the EPA to account for the 

practical realities of technology. For example, in Essex 

Chemical v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the 

D.C. Circuit acknowledged that in setting standards under CAA 

section 111 “variant provisions” such as provisions allowing for 

upsets during startup, shutdown and equipment malfunction 

“appear necessary to preserve the reasonableness of the 

standards as a whole and that the record does not support the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 27 of 192 

‘never to be exceeded’ standard currently in force.” See also,

Portland Cement Association v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 

(D.C.Cir. 1973). Though intervening caselaw such as Sierra Club 

v. EPA and the CAA 1977 amendments undermine the relevance of 

these cases today, they support the EPA’s view that a system 

that incorporates some level of flexibility is reasonable. The 

affirmative defense simply provides for a defense to civil 

penalties for excess emissions that are proven to be beyond the 

control of the source. By incorporating an affirmative defense, 

the EPA has formalized its approach to upset events. In a Clean 

Water Act setting, the Ninth Circuit required this type of 

formalized approach when regulating “upsets beyond the control 

of the permit holder.” Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 

1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977). But see Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 

F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal 

approach is adequate). The affirmative defense provisions give 

the EPA the flexibility to both ensure that its emission 

limitations are “continuous” as required by 42 U.S.C. §7602(k) 

and account for unplanned upsets and thus support the 

reasonableness of the standard as a whole. 

B. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in 

this action are effective on [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 28 of 192 

THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. For the MACT standards 

being addressed in this action, the compliance date for the 

revised SSM requirements is the effective date of the standards, 

[INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. The compliance date for existing sources for 

the revised stack lead emission limit and the revised fugitive 

emission standard including the requirement to adopt work 

practice standards and install total enclosures for specified 

process fugitive emission sources, and for the new D/F and THC 

emission limits, is 2 years from the effective date of the 

standard, [INSERT THE DATE 2 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION 

OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. New sources must 

comply with the all of the standards immediately upon the 

effective date of the standard, [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION 

OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or upon startup, 

whichever is later. 

C. What are the requirements for submission of performance test 

data to the EPA?

In this action, as a step to increase the ease and 

efficiency of data submittal and improve data accessibility, the 

EPA is requiring the electronic submittal of select performance 

test data. Specifically, the EPA is requiring owners and 

operators of secondary lead smelting facilities to submit 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 29 of 192 

electronic copies of performance test reports required under 40 

CFR 63.543 to the EPA’s WebFIRE database. The WebFIRE database 

was constructed to store performance test data for use in 

developing emission factors. A description of the WebFIRE 

database is available at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.

The 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, 

emission factor development, and annual emission rate 

determinations. In conducting these required reviews, the EPA 

has found it ineffective and time consuming, not only for us, 

but also for other regulatory agencies and for 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. 

One major advantage of submitting performance test data 

through the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) is a standardized 

method to compile and store much of the documentation required 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 30 of 192 

to be reported by this rule. Another advantage is that the ERT 

clearly states what testing information would be required. 

Another important benefit of submitting these data to the 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 the 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 results in 

a reduced burden on both affected facilities (in terms of 

reduced labor to respond to data collection requests) and the 

EPA (in terms of preparing and distributing data collection 

requests and assessing the results). 

State, local, and tribal agencies can also benefit from a 

more streamlined and accurate review of electronic data 

submitted to them. The ERT allows for an electronic review 

process rather than a manual data assessment making review and 

evaluation of the data and calculations easier and more 

efficient. 

As mentioned above, data entry will be through an 

electronic emissions test report structure called the Electronic 

Reporting Tool or ERT. The ERT will generate an electronic 

report which will be submitted using the Compliance and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 31 of 192 

Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The submitted report 

is transmitted through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) 

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/index.html and 

CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX website (www.epa.gov/cdx). 

The requirement to submit performance test data 

electronically to the EPA does not create any additional 

performance testing and would apply only to those performance 

tests conducted using test methods that are 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/index.html. We 

believe that industry will benefit from this new electronic data 

submittal requirement. Having these data, the EPA will be able 

to develop improved emission factors, make fewer information 

requests, and promulgate better regulations. The information to 

be reported is already required for the existing test methods 

and is necessary to evaluate the conformance to the test method. 

Finally, another benefit of submitting data to WebFIRE 

electronically is that these data will greatly improve the 

overall quality of the existing and new emission factors by 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 32 of 192 

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 

emission factors are outdated or not representative of a 

particular source category. With timely receipt and 

incorporation of data from most performance tests, the EPA will 

be able to ensure that emission 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 control activities, having 

an electronic database populated with performance test data will 

save industry, state, local, tribal agencies, and the EPA 

significant time, money, and effort while improving the quality 

of emission inventories and, as a result, air quality 

regulations. 

IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal 

A. Changes to the Risk Assessment Performed Under CAA Section 

112(f)

In the proposed rulemaking, the EPA presented a number of 

options for additional controls on the Secondary Lead Smelting 

source category. In that notice, the EPA solicited comment on 

the proposed options as well as on all of the analyses and data 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 33 of 192 

upon which the options were based, including the risk methods 

and results presented in the draft document: Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category. 

During the public comment period for the proposed rule, 

several parties submitted comments and suggested revisions 

regarding the emissions used for the risk assessment, and also 

submitted other information relevant to the risk assessment (see 

docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344 for all public comments). After 

considering these submissions, the EPA revised its analyses. 

Revised methods, model inputs, and risk results are presented in 

the report: Residual Risk Assessment for the Secondary Lead 

Smelting Source Category, which is available in the docket for 

this rulemaking. In addition, a discussion of the updated 

emissions information used in the final risk assessment can be 

found in the memorandum titled: Development of the RTR Emissions 

Dataset for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, which 

can also be found in the docket for this rulemaking. 

Considering the updated emissions information received 

during the public comment period for the proposed rule, our 

final risk analysis estimates that the primary NAAQS for lead, 

used in this rule as a measure of acceptable risk from air-borne 

lead emissions, could be exceeded at 9 of 15 facilities based on 

actual emissions, largely due to fugitive dust emissions (see 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 34 of 192 

Table 4). At these 9 facilities, fugitive dust emissions account 

for about 94 to 99 percent of the estimated 3-month maximum lead 

concentrations.5 Our analysis also estimates that approximately 

200 people live in areas around four of these facilities where 

3-month maximum lead concentrations are estimated to be above 

the lead NAAQS. Allowable stack emissions of lead also resulted 

in modeled concentrations exceeding the NAAQS, with modeled lead 

ambient air levels as high as 8 and 10 times above the NAAQS.

This analysis also estimates that 3-month maximum lead 

concentrations from a secondary lead smelter could be up to 

about 20 times the NAAQS for lead based on actual emissions. The 

maximum lead exceedance at a populated census block centroid was 

between three and four times the NAAQS. There is some 

uncertainty associated with the fugitive emissions estimates 

that is derived from the uncertainty involved in determining the 

housekeeping and enclosure factors. This uncertainty could have 

important impacts on the estimated fugitive emissions and the 

resulting modeled ambient concentration. For example, if the 

level of control assumed through the use of full enclosure and 

robust housekeeping were both increased from 75% to 85%, the 

estimated fugitive emissions at the RSR facility would be about 

 

5 For all facilities, the percent contribution of fugitive and stack 

emissions to modeled ambient lead concentrations has only been estimated for 

the model receptor representing the site of maximum lead impact. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 35 of 192 

43 pounds (roughly three times lower than those estimated in 

this rule). If the level of control assumed through the use of 

full enclosure and robust housekeeping were both decreased from 

75% to 65%, the estimated fugitive emissions at the RSR facility 

would be about 240 pounds (roughly two times higher than those 

estimated in this rule). As shown in this example, changing the 

estimates of control efficiency achieved with full enclosure and 

robust housekeeping practices by 10% each could impact the 

resulting fugitive emission estimates for facilities employing 

that level of control by two to three times. These estimates 

could significantly impact the resulting risk estimates since 

most of the impact of lead emissions was due to fugitive dust 

emissions. While there are uncertainties associated with 

estimating fugitive emissions, we conclude that the methodology 

used in this rulemaking provided reasonable estimates of 

fugitive emissions for these sources. For further details, see 

Development of the RTR Emissions Dataset for the Secondary Lead 

Smelting Source Category, available in docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR2011-0344, which describes how we developed these fugitive 

emissions estimates and provides a presentation of our estimates 

compared to estimates submitted via the ICR and estimates 

reported to the TRI. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 36 of 192 

Table 4. Secondary Lead Smelting Facility Modeled Maximum 

Ambient Lead Concentrations Considering Actual Emissionsa 

(rolling 3-month average values) 

Facility Name City State

Highest 

Modeled Lead 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) 

Concentration 

is X times 

the NAAQS 

Doe Run CompanyBuick Mill Boss MO 2.38 20 

Sanders Lead Co. Troy AL 

2.16 10 

Exide 

Corporation Vernon CA 1.14 8 

Battery 

Recycling Co. Arecibo PR 0.76 5 

Gulf Coast 

Recycling, Inc. Tampa FL 0.38 3 

Exide 

TechnologiesCanon Hollow 

Plant 

Forest City MO 

0.47 3 

Gopher Resource 

Corp. Eagan MN 0.35 2 

Frisco Battery 

Recycling Frisco TX 0.23 2 

Exide 

Tech/Reading 

Smelter 

Reading PA 

0.25 2 

Quemetco, Inc. Industry CA 0.17 1 

Exide 

Technologies Muncie IN 0.15 1 

Exide 

Technologies/ B 

R Smelter 

Baton Rouge LA 

0.14 1 

Revere Smelting 

& Refining Corp Middletown NY 0.10 0.7 

Quemetco, Inc. Indianapolis IN 0.07 0.5 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 37 of 192 

Table 4. Secondary Lead Smelting Facility Modeled Maximum 

Ambient Lead Concentrations Considering Actual Emissionsa 

(rolling 3-month average values) 

Facility Name City State

Highest 

Modeled Lead 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) 

Concentration 

is X times 

the NAAQS 

East Penn Mfg. 

Co Inc/Smelter 

Plt 

Lyon Station PA 

0.02 0.1 

aValues of 1 or less in the last column indicate that modeled lead 

concentrations are at or below the NAAQS for lead. 

We also note that there were changes to our cancer, acute, 

and PB-HAP multipathway case study analyses (see section 3.4 of 

the risk assessment document) for non-lead HAP as a result of 

the updated risk assessment performed for the final rule. With 

respect to our updated cancer risk assessment, we estimate that 

the maximum individual risk (MIR) of cancer due to actual 

emissions is 50 in a million predominantly due to fugitive dust 

emissions of arsenic and cadmium as compared to the analysis at 

proposal of risk of 50 in a million but based on a different 

secondary lead facility. Moreover, approximately 700 people were 

estimated to have cancer risks above 10 in a million and 

approximately 80,000 people were estimated to have cancer risks 

above 1 in a million considering all facilities in this source 

category(as compared to the analysis at proposal of 1,500 above 

10 in a million and 128,000 above 1 in a million). In addition, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 38 of 192 

the MIR due to MACT allowable emissions remains 200 in a million 

predominantly from stack emissions of arsenic. The updated 

worst-case acute hazard quotient (HQ) value is 20 at two 

facilities (based on the REL for arsenic; the REL is the only 

available acute health benchmark value for arsenic and all other 

pollutants had HQ values less than or equal to 1), driven by 

both stack and fugitive dust emissions of arsenic (as compared 

to analysis at proposal of an acute HQ value of 30 based on the 

REL for arsenic at one facility driven by emissions from 

stacks). Finally, the risk assessment supporting the final 

rulemaking estimates that the cancer MIR values from both 

multipathway case study analyses (i.e., in Frisco, TX and 

Middletown, NY; see section 3.2 of the final risk assessment 

document) are less than 1 in a million (as compared to an 

estimated multipathway MIR of 30 in a million and less than 1 in 

a million in the Frisco, TX and Middletown, NY multipathway case 

study analyses for the proposed rule). Notably, the reduction in 

multipathway risks resulted from updated emissions information 

received during the public comment period with respect to these 

facilities. 

Taking into account all the results of the final risk 

assessment, and similar to the proposed rulemaking, we conclude 

that risks to public health due to emissions from this source 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 39 of 192 

category are unacceptable. Our conclusion is primarily based on 

risk from exposure to air-borne lead emissions but also 

considers other risk metrics such as cancer and non-cancer risks 

associated with actual and allowable stack emissions of non-lead 

HAPs, especially arsenic and cadmium. As mentioned above, actual 

lead emissions resulted in modeled concentrations of lead above 

the lead NAAQS at 9 of 15 facilities. At these 9 facilities, 

fugitive dust emissions account for about 94 to 99 percent of 

the estimated 3-month maximum lead concentrations.6 Our analysis 

also estimates that approximately 400 people live in areas 

around these facilities where 3-month maximum lead 

concentrations are estimated to be above the lead NAAQS. 

Allowable stack emissions of lead also resulted in modeled 

concentrations exceeding the NAAQS, with modeled lead ambient 

air levels as high as 8 and 10 times above the NAAQS due to 

these allowable stack lead emissions, and allowable stack 

emissions (primarily arsenic) resulted in estimated cancer risks 

of 200 in a million. Thus, we note that allowable stack

emissions and fugitive emissions of lead and other HAP metals 

must be reduced to assure that lead concentrations in ambient 

air beyond the facility fenceline are acceptable – that is, do 

 

6 For all facilities, the percent contribution of fugitive and stack 

emissions to modeled ambient lead concentrations has only been estimated for 

the model receptor representing the site of maximum lead impact. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 40 of 192 

not exceed the lead NAAQS (the measure of risk acceptability for 

exposure to air-borne lead in this rule). The fact that maximum 

individual cancer risks due to actual emissions are above 1 in a 

million also contributes to our determination of 

unacceptability, but to a lesser extent. While the estimated 

maximum individual cancer risks due to actual emissions would, 

by themselves, not generally lead us to a determination that 

risks are unacceptable, the fact that they occur along with the 

exceedences of the lead primary NAAQS adds to our concern about 

these exposures, and further supports our proposed determination 

that risks are unacceptable. To provide acceptable levels of 

risk with an ample margin of safety, we are finalizing the 

requirement that secondary lead smelting facilities must operate 

the following fugitive dust emissions sources within total 

enclosures that must be maintained at negative pressure at all 

times and vented to a control device designed to capture lead 

particulate: smelting furnaces, smelting furnace charging areas, 

lead taps, slag taps, molds during tapping, battery breakers, 

refining kettles, casting areas, dryers, material handling areas 

managing lead bearing materials, and areas where dust from 

fabric filters, sweepings, or used fabric filters are processed. 

As further described in Section IV.C of this preamble, based on 

public comments, we are not adopting the proposed alternative to 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 41 of 192 

demonstrate compliance by monitoring lead at or near the 

property boundary based on a 3-month rolling average in lieu of 

constructing total enclosures. (See 76 FR 29056.) We are 

finalizing the proposed requirement for facilities to conduct 

fugitive emission work practices as well as to enclose fugitive 

emission sources. As further described in Section IV.C of this 

preamble, we are also promulgating a revised list of required 

work practices based on a number of comments received regarding 

the necessity, efficacy, and safety of the work practices which 

the EPA proposed. 

We are also finalizing the proposed requirement limiting 

stack lead emissions to 0.2 mg/dscm as a facility-wide emissions 

average and limiting stack lead emissions from any single stack 

to 1.0 mg/dscm.

After implementation of the controls required in this final 

rule, we estimate that there will be no one living in an area 

exposed to ambient concentrations above the NAAQS and the cancer 

MIR due to actual emissions will decrease from 50 in a million 

to 7 in a million.

B. Changes to the Technology Review Performed Under CAA Section 

112(d)(6)

Based on the technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6), 

the EPA proposed to change the stack lead emission limits from 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 42 of 192 

2.0 mg/dscm for any individual stack to a facility-wide, flowweighted average emission limit of 0.20 mg/dscm with a limit of 

1.0 mg/dscm applicable to any individual stack. The proposed 

limit was based on emissions data collected from industry, which 

indicated that well-performing baghouses currently used by much 

of the industry are capable of achieving outlet lead 

concentrations significantly lower than the limit of 2.0 mg/dscm 

adopted in the 1997 MACT standard. We have considered the public 

comments on this issue and are adopting the limits as proposed. 

Under CAA section 112(d)(6), we also proposed a fugitive 

emission standard requiring operation of the following process 

fugitive emission sources in total enclosures that are 

maintained under negative pressure at all times and vented to a 

control device: smelting furnaces, smelting furnace charging 

areas, lead taps, slag taps, and molds during charging, battery 

breakers, refining kettles, casting areas, dryers, agglomerating 

furnaces and agglomerating furnace product taps, material 

handling areas for any lead bearing materials, and areas where 

dust from fabric filters, sweepings, or used fabric filters are 

processed. This proposed requirement was based on information 

collected from the industry that indicated that several 

operating facilities currently enclose most or all of their 

process fugitive emission sources, and that the ambient lead 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 43 of 192 

concentrations near these facilities are significantly lower 

than those facilities that do not have enclosures. We have 

considered the public comments on this issue, and have decided 

to adopt the requirements largely as proposed. This requirement 

is identical to that adopted to eliminate unacceptable risk for 

fugitive emissions pursuant to CAA section 112 (f)(2). However, 

as described in Section IV.C of this preamble, based on public 

comments, we are not adopting the proposed alternative to 

demonstrate compliance by monitoring lead at or near their 

property boundary based on a 3-month rolling average in lieu of 

constructing total enclosures. (See 76 FR 29056.) We are 

finalizing the proposed requirement for facilities to conduct 

fugitive emission work practices as well as to enclose fugitive 

emission sources. As further described in Section IV.C of this 

preamble, we are also promulgating a revised list of required 

work practices based on a number of comments received regarding 

the necessity, efficacy, and safety of the work practices which 

the EPA proposed. 

We are also finalizing the requirement limiting stack lead 

emissions to 0.2 mg/dscm as a facility-wide emissions average 

and limiting stack lead emissions from any single stack to 1.0 

mg/dscm as proposed. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 44 of 192 

We note that although we have adopted the same standards 

under both CAA sections 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6), these standards 

rest on independent statutory authorities and independent 

rationales. Consequently, these standards remain independent and 

legally severable. 

C. Other Changes Since Proposal

We received over 30 public comments on the proposed rule. 

After considering these comments, we are making the following 

additional changes to the proposal. The rationale for these and 

any other significant changes can be found in this preamble and 

in the comment response document available in the docket. 

1. Stack Emission Limits

• The EPA is not adopting numerical limits for THC and D/F 

emissions from rotary furnaces pending further datagathering and analysis for this furnace type. 

• For units constructed after June 9, 1994, the EPA is adding 

a limit for THC and D/F for collocated blast and 

reverberatory furnaces when the reverberatory furnace is 

not operating, and is amending the D/F limits for blast 

furnaces for units that commenced construction after June 

9, 1994. We also added a THC and D/F new source limit for 

blast furnaces that commence construction or reconstruction 

after May 19, 2011. 

2. Definitions

• Definitions have been added for “affected source” and “new 

source” to clarify when the standards for new sources would 

apply. 

• A definition of “lead-bearing material” has been added to 

the rule to clarify requirements for material handling area 

enclosures and work practices for fugitive emissions. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 45 of 192 

• The definition of “material storage and handling” has been 

revised to exclude transfer of raw materials in enclosed 

containers. 

• The definition of “plant roadway” has been revised to 

exclude roadways inside total enclosures. 

• The definition of “process vent” has been revised to 

specify that it includes only vents from lead processing 

equipment and from buildings containing lead bearing 

material. 

• Definitions for “leeward,” “windward,” and “natural draft 

opening” have been added to the rule to clarify the 

differential pressure and monitoring requirements and the 

requirement to maintain an inward flow of air through 

enclosure openings. 

• The definition of “total enclosure” was modified by 

specifically including modified text from 40 CFR 265.1101 

and EPA method 204 “Criteria for and Verification of a 

Permanent or Temporary Total Enclosure” rather than citing 

the reference to the requirements for a hazardous waste 

containment area. We also clarified the requirement for 

total enclosures to be vented to a control device designed 

to capture lead particulates. 

3. Enclosure Requirements

• The proposed requirement to maintain an in-draft velocity 

of 300 feet per minute at enclosure openings (see 76 FR 

29072) was replaced with a requirement to maintain an 

inward flow of air through all natural draft openings. 

• The proposed requirement for a back-up power source for the 

differential pressure monitors required for the total 

enclosures (see 76 FR 29077) was eliminated, and a 

reporting requirement was added to identify periods when 

the power was lost to the monitoring system. 

• The proposed rule (see 76 FR 29072) has been modified to 

clarify that activities required for inspection of fabric 

filters and maintenance of filters that are in need of 

removal and replacement are not required to be conducted 

inside of total enclosures. 

• Lead ingot product handling, storm water and wastewater 

treatment, intact battery storage areas, and clean battery 

casing plastic handling activities are not subject to the 

total enclosure requirement. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 46 of 192 

4. Fugitive Emission Work Practice Requirements

• The proposed maintenance requirements (see 76 FR 29073) 

have been modified to allow emergency repairs of ductwork 

or structure leaks to occur outside of enclosures if the 

time to construct a temporary enclosure would exceed the 

time to make a temporary or permanent repair. The proposed 

rule has been modified to extend the deadline for required 

maintenance and repair on total enclosures to one week 

after identification of any gaps, breaks, separations, leak 

points or other possible routes for emissions of lead to 

the atmosphere. The final rule also clarifies that once an 

item that is not otherwise subject to total enclosure 

requirements has been cleaned, its maintenance is no longer 

subject to the enclosure requirement. 

• The proposed rule has been edited to allow for existing 

control devices to treat the ventilation from temporary 

enclosures constructed for maintenance purposes if the 

device and its permit account for increased airflow and 

emissions for this activity. 

• The roof washing proposed work practice (see 76 FR 29073) 

has been removed from the list of required fugitive 

emission work practices. 

• The specific proposed water application rate of 0.48 

gallons per square yard (see 76 FR 29073) has been removed 

from the road washing requirement. 

• The proposed battery storage area inspection frequency (see 

76 FR 29073) has been changed from twice per day to once 

per week to maintain consistency with inspection frequency 

required under other regulatory programs. 

• The proposed requirement to collect wash water in a 

container that is not open to the atmosphere (see 76 FR 

29073) has been removed. 

• The proposed rule (see 76 FR 29073) has been revised to 

clarify that lead-bearing dust must be collected and 

transported within closed conveyor systems or in sealed, 

lead-proof containers while other lead bearing material 

must be contained and covered in a manner that prevents 

spillage or dust formation. 

• The proposed requirement for cleaning after an accidental 

release (see 76 FR 29073) has been clarified to include 

only those releases that exceed the CERCLA reportable 

quantity for lead (e.g., 10 pounds). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 47 of 192 

5. Testing and monitoring requirements

• The performance testing requirements (see 76 FR 29074) have 

been modified to allow facilities to use EPA Method 12 or 

Method 29 for lead compounds. 

• A provision was added allowing for biannual testing of lead 

compounds and THC for sources that demonstrate 

concentrations that are less than 50 percent of the 

applicable limit. 

• An exemption was provided for THC testing if a facility has 

installed and is using a THC CEMS. 

• The time between D/F testing (see 76 FR 29072) was changed 

from once every 5 years to once every 6 years, in 

anticipation that most facilities would be on a biannual 

testing schedule for lead and THC, and this schedule would 

allow coordination of the two required tests. 

• The conditions for the performance tests (see 76 FR 29072) 

were changed from “under such conditions as the 

Administrator specifies...” to “maximum representative 

operating conditions for the process”. 

• The EPA also added a provision stating that sources which 

operate a HEPA filter or WESP system downstream of a 

primary particulate (lead) control device are not subject 

to a bag leak detection system (BLDS) requirement. 

6. Other changes 

• A provision was added for sources to develop procedures to 

minimize emissions of THC limits during periods of startup 

and shutdown. 

• We modified the proposed plastic separation work practice 

requirement (see 76 FR 29072) to include only plastic 

battery casing materials from automotive batteries (which 

comprise the vast majority of input plastics). 

• The proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements were 

revised to be consistent with the other changes made to the 

rule. 

A tracked changes version of the regulatory language 

incorporating the changes in this action is available in the 

docket. Additionally, a summary of the public comments that are 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 48 of 192 

not in the preamble can be found in the comment response 

document available in the docket. 

V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses 

A. Use of Lead Primary NAAQS as a Measure of Acceptability of 

Risk for Public Health

Commenters from both the environmental and industry sectors 

challenged the EPA’s use of the lead primary NAAQS as a measure 

of acceptability of risk in this rule. The EPA disagrees with 

these comments. The EPA has reasonably applied the lead primary 

NAAQS as a measure of evaluating acceptability or 

unacceptability of risk from exposure to lead emissions from 

sources in this category. The lead primary NAAQS targets 

protection to children living near sources, such as secondary 

lead smelters, who are exposed at the level of the standard --

the population most sensitive to the health impacts of these 

emissions. Moreover, using the lead primary NAAQS to assess 

acceptability of risk does not amount to an impermissible 

implementation of the lead primary NAAQS as industry commenters 

would have it. Full responses to these comments are found in the 

Response to Comment Document for this rulemaking, available in 

docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344.Comment: A number of commenters 

from the environmental community challenged the use of the lead 

primary NAAQS as a measure of acceptable risk for public health, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 49 of 192 

and further challenged whether the lead NAAQS (primary) provided 

an ample margin of safety given that primary NAAQS provide an 

“adequate” rather than “ample” margin of safety. The commenters 

assert that the EPA simply assumed that the lead primary NAAQS 

was a legitimate measure of acceptable risk, and that this 

assumption is unwarranted. These commenters’ main argument is 

that “the CAA requirements for the level of a NAAQS are 

different from the standard for residual risk. What is 

acceptable at the population level is not necessarily acceptable 

at the community level.” More specifically, the commenters 

assert that “EPA must set a standard for those people living 

near facilities subject to the MACT who were left with 

insufficient protection... It is these specific communities near 

the facilities and the children living in these communities, and 

not a broad U.S. sub-population, that must be protected... The 

fact is that the lead NAAQS does not sufficiently protect people 

living near secondary lead smelters.” 

Response: The commenter is mistaken both that the EPA 

applied the lead primary NAAQS unthinkingly as a measure of 

acceptable risk, and further mistaken in its argument that the 

primary lead NAAQS is an inappropriate measure of risk 

acceptability (for lead) here because (according to the 

commenter) it is not designed to, and does not protect sensitive 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 50 of 192 

populations living near secondary lead smelters. First, the lead 

NAAQS primary standard targets protection to the most 

susceptible group in the human population – children – and is 

designed to protect against adverse effects to children’s most 

sensitive organ system – the developing neurological system. See 

73 FR at 66975, 66976.7 Second, the primary NAAQS for lead is 

specifically targeted at those children living near major 

sources of lead, such as secondary smelters. See 73 FR at 

67002/3 (“in applying the evidence-based framework, we are 

focused on a subpopulation of U.S. children, those living near 

air sources and more likely to be exposed at the level of the 

standard”); to the same effect see 73 FR 67000/3--(“The 

framework in effect focuses on the sensitive subpopulation that 

is the group of children living near sources and more likely to 

be exposed at the level of the standard. The evidence-based 

framework estimates a mean air-related IQ loss for this 

subpopulation of children; it does not estimate a mean for all

U.S. children”;). 73 FR 67005/1--(“the air-related IQ loss 

 

7 “While adults are susceptible to Pb effects at lower blood Pb levels than 

previously understood..., the greater influence of past exposures on their 

current blood Pb levels... leads us to give greater prominence to children as 

the sensitive subpopulation in this review. Children are at increased risk of 

Pb-related health effects due to various factors that enhance their exposures 

(e.g., via the hand-to-mouth activity that is prevalent in very young 

children...) and susceptibility.” 73 FR at 66975. With regard to neurological 

effects, the EPA stated “[a]mong the wide variety of health endpoints 

associated with Pb exposures, there is general consensus that the developing 

nervous system in children is among the, if not the, most sensitive.” 73 FR 

at 66976.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 51 of 192 

framework provides estimates for the mean air-related IQ loss of 

a subset of the population of U.S. children, and there are 

uncertainties associated with those estimates. It provides 

estimates for that subset of children likely to be exposed to 

the level of the standard, which is generally expected to be the 

subpopulation of children living near sources who are likely to 

be most highly exposed.”)

The commenter further maintains that the primary lead NAAQS 

is an inappropriate measure of acceptability of risk “because it 

ignores the cumulative, long-term impacts to individuals in the 

local affected communities from prior lead emissions”. This 

again is incorrect. First, as part of the Risk and Exposure

Assessment supporting the lead primary NAAQS, the EPA assessed 

the IQ loss associated with the cumulative environmental impact 

of long-term emissions in communities living near stationary 

sources of lead emissions, specifically lead smelters. See Lead 

Human Exposure and Health Risk Assessments for Selected Case 

Studies; Volume I Human Exposure and Health Risk Assessments 00 

Full Scale; and Volume II: Appendices ((USEPA, 2007) (Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 

EPA-432/R-07-014a and EPA-452/R-07-014b; see also 73 FR 66979-

66983. The Risk and Exposure Assessment assessed exposure to 

lead from the inhalation route as well as the multiple air-
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 52 of 192 

related ingestion pathways. Although the EPA relied primarily 

upon the evidence-based framework (i.e. epidemiological studies 

and related information) in developing the lead primary NAAQS, 

the EPA nonetheless found the air-related lead risk estimates 

from the Risk and Exposure Assessment to be generally supportive 

of that scientific evidence. (See 73 FR at 67003-04.) 

We further note, “The current evidence... with regard to the 

quantitative relationship between neurocognitive decrement, such 

as IQ, and blood Pb levels indicates that the slope for Pb 

effects on IQ is non-linear and is steeper at lower blood Pb 

levels, such that each [mu]g/dL increase in blood Pb may have a 

greater effect on IQ at lower blood Pb levels... than at higher 

levels.” 73 FR at 66976-77; to the same effect, see 73 FR at 

67002, 67004. Consequently, in the case of the child who 

experiences significant exposure to lead due to non-air sources 

in addition to ambient air-related lead exposure (producing a 

relatively larger total lead exposure), the IQ loss for each 

increment of air-related lead exposure will likely be less than 

it is for a child with lower total lead exposure. (See EPA-HQOAR-2006-0735-5894 at page 13). The evidence-based framework 

used in developing the lead NAAQS is focused on children with 

total lead exposure closer to the current U.S. average (than the 

more highly lead exposed upper percentiles of the population), 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 53 of 192 

since these children will have greater response to each 

increment of air-related lead exposure than would children with 

higher overall blood lead levels. Other less susceptible 

populations, including children with higher blood lead levels 

due to past exposures, will necessarily be accorded protection 

from air-related lead as well.8 (See EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0735-5894 

at page 13).

We also do not accept the commenter’s argument that a 

primary NAAQS is not a suitable measure for assessing 

acceptability of risk with an ample margin of safety because 

(the argument goes) a primary NAAQS is requisite to protect 

public health with an adequate margin of safety. First, the EPA 

is using the lead primary NAAQS as a measure of acceptability or 

unacceptability of risk from lead exposure. Thus, to the extent 

the commenter’s argument rests on the difference between 

‘adequate’ and ‘ample’ margin of safety, the argument is 

misplaced. Second, once we determined a level of emissions that 

results in risks being acceptable, under the two-step residual 

risk decision process, the EPA then considered whether there 

were additional controls that might further reduce risk to 

achieve an ample margin of safety considering cost and 

 

8 We add that in responding to these comments, EPA is not reconsidering, 

reopening, or otherwise reassessing any aspect of the lead NAAQS (either 

primary or secondary).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 54 of 192 

feasibility. See NRDC v. EPA, 902 F. 2d 962. 973 (D.C. 

Cir.1990)(primary NAAQS considers degree of protection and 

margin of safety as a single process, and is not required to 

conduct the two-step process (acceptability of risk and margin 

of safety) utilized in making residual risk determinations under 

section 112).9 Using that framework, with its consideration of 

costs, cost-effectiveness, technological feasibility, and other 

factors set out in the Benzene NESHAP, we did not identify any 

additional controls beyond those that would need to be 

implemented to ensure an acceptable level of risk.10

In sum, the EPA has reasonably applied the lead primary 

NAAQS as a measure of evaluating acceptability or 

unacceptability of risk from exposure to lead emissions from 

sources in this category. The lead primary NAAQS targets 

protection to children living near these sources who are exposed 

at the level of the standard -- the population most sensitive to 

the health impacts of these emissions -- and accounts for multipathway exposures to the environmental impacts of long-term 

emissions, as well as the differential incremental risk of Pb 

faced by populations at different levels of exposure. This 

 

9 The court was referring to the predecessor provision to the current section 

112 (f), but its analysis is equally applicable to the revised provision. 

10 Indeed, EPA’s utilization of a standard which also incorporates an 

adequate margin of safety to evaluate acceptability of risk is an added 

conservative (i.e. protective) element in its approach here. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 55 of 192 

reasoned approach is therefore fully in accord with the 

requirements of section 112(f)(2). Additional responses to 

comments on this issue (including responses to (mistaken) 

comments from industry that this rule amounts to impermissible 

implementation of the lead NAAQS), are found in the Response to 

Comment Document for this rulemaking, available in docket ID 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344.

B. Total Enclosure Requirements

Comment: Several commenters supported a requirement for 

total enclosures of enumerated sources of fugitive emissions. 

Some of those commenters did not support the alternative that 

would have allowed ambient monitoring in lieu of total 

enclosures. 

According to one commenter, “The purpose of establishing 

emission standards and control technology regulations is to 

reduce, by empirically proven technical means, the release of 

hazardous air pollutants into the atmosphere.” The commenter 

therefore recommended that the EPA require enclosures in all 

instances to limit fugitive emissions. 

According to another commenter, “The non-cancer and cancer 

risk reductions associated with total enclosures of all lead 

bearing processes to reduce fugitive emissions are clearly 

demonstrated for all facilities in the post control scenario 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 56 of 192 

contained in the residual risk assessment. These benefits also 

have been observed based on our experience with total enclosures 

that are under negative pressure and vented to air pollution 

controls....The annual geometric mean of lead measured [in ambient 

air near the facility] dropped from a high of 0.71 μg/m3 (1987) 

to 0.06 μg/m3 (1993) after all of the point source and fugitive 

emission controls were in place. The benefits of requiring total 

enclosures as demonstrated by the ambient monitoring results 

were clearly apparent to the Department and surrounding 

community. Based on that experience, we do not support the 

alternative of allowing partial enclosures with an air 

monitoring requirement option in this rulemaking.”

Another commenter stated “We do not support allowing 

partial enclosures with an air monitoring requirement option, 

since the total enclosures have been shown to be extremely 

effective in reducing fugitive emissions of lead and the other 

metal HAPs from these sources.”

One commenter indicated that neither proposed alternative 

(total enclosure or the ambient monitoring alternative) complies 

with CAA section 112(d)(6) but did state that “additional health 

risk reductions would occur if a facility used total enclosure.” 

This commenter also stated that the EPA should require total 

enclosures and work practice standards beyond those included in 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 57 of 192 

the proposed rule to control fugitive dust emissions of arsenic 

and cadmium and achieve reductions in cancer and non-cancer 

risks from these pollutants. 

Alternatively, one commenter disagreed that total enclosure 

is the most effective method to reduce emissions. According to 

the commenter, “Capturing emissions from secondary lead smelting 

sources at the point of emission and controlling such emissions 

through the use of baghouses equipped with secondary HEPA 

filtration systems represents a better alternative to 

constructing and maintaining total enclosures around secondary 

lead smelting sources.”

Response: As explained at 76 FR 29059 in the proposed rule 

and below, the EPA is amending the NESHAP for fugitive emissions 

of lead both because these emissions pose an unacceptable risk 

under CAA section 112(f) and because it is technically 

appropriate and necessary to do so pursuant to section 

112(d)(6). With respect to what changes to adopt, we agree with 

those commenters who argued that total enclosures maintained 

under negative pressure are the most effective means by which to 

reduce fugitive emissions. Facilities in this source category 

that implement total enclosures as a means of controlling 

fugitive emissions are able to achieve significantly lower 

ambient lead concentrations near the boundaries of their 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 58 of 192 

facilities, as clearly demonstrated in the Summary of Ambient 

Lead Monitoring Data Around Secondary Lead Smelting Facilities

document available in docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344. About half 

of the existing facilities currently have such full enclosures, 

and a few other facilities are currently constructing such 

enclosures. The prevalence of total enclosures in the secondary 

lead smelting source category suggests that this measure is cost 

effective and it is clearly technically feasible. There is more 

certainty that fugitive emissions are well controlled through 

the use of total enclosures than would exist with the proposed 

alternative to use fenceline ambient monitoring. The work 

practice standards in the final rule have been revised from 

those proposed to ensure that there are no requirements that 

pose safety hazards, are unnecessary to achieve emission 

reductions, or result in duplicative burden on regulated 

facilities. The work practice standards in the final rule are 

already implemented at some of the facilities. 

Furthermore, we assumed at proposal that total enclosures 

would be required at all facilities regardless of which option 

they chose. The facilities that do not operate total enclosures 

are unlikely to achieve fenceline ambient concentrations at or 

below the lead primary NAAQS. The monitoring data just mentioned 

and the ICR responses indicated that the facilities which have 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 59 of 192 

totally enclosed their processes are generally achieving ambient 

concentrations substantially lower than those which have not 

totally enclosed. Since we based our analysis at proposal on the 

assumption that all facilities would have to construct total 

enclosures and assumed that the rule would impose those costs on 

all sources which have not yet installed total enclosures, our 

cost analysis has already accounted for the cost of total 

enclosure. See 76 FR at 29064 and the cost impacts memo that 

supported the proposed rule (docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0040 

at page 8). The total enclosure requirements in section 63.544 

ensure that process fugitive emissions sources and other 

fugitive dust emissions sources will not generate fugitive 

emissions that escape the facility uncontrolled. The work 

practice standards for process fugitive emissions sources and 

fugitive dust emissions sources in section 63.545 ensure that 

fugitive dust is not generated outside of total enclosures and 

that fugitive dust generated inside total enclosures is not 

carried outside of those enclosures. 

We note that one commenter’s statements appear to pertain 

to process fugitive emissions from secondary lead smelters that 

are captured by enclosure hoods and vented to a control device. 

We agree that enclosure hoods near sources of process fugitive 

emissions (e.g., lead taps, charging hoppers, etc.) can be an 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 60 of 192 

effective method to control emissions from these sources. We 

also recognize that these devices are important to minimize 

exposure of workers to lead dust. However, we note that the 

enclosure hoods are not 100 percent effective at controlling 

these emissions, and that process fugitives that are amenable to 

control with hoods are not the only source of fugitive emissions 

from secondary lead processes. We thus disagree that enclosure 

hoods without total enclosures represent a better alternative 

for controlling all fugitive emissions.

Comment: Several commenters objected to requiring 

monitoring of both building pressure differential and the indraft velocity at building openings for the total enclosures and 

stated that the duplicate monitoring requirements are redundant 

and unjustified. The commenters also requested that the EPA 

abandon its proposed specific minimum velocity requirement at 

doorway openings or lower the proposed requirement of 300 feet 

per minute. Two commenters stated that “A number of the existing 

total enclosures in this industry do not meet the proposed 300 

feet per minute in-draft velocity requirement, and their 

modification to achieve 300 feet per minute would require 

substantial expenditures.” One commenter stated that much larger 

volumes of air would be exhausted from the smelter buildings and 

that “the greater the volume of air exhausted, the greater the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 61 of 192 

emissions of lead. Therefore increasing exhaust volumes above 

current levels could possibly have negative impacts.” The 

commenters requested an exemption from demonstration of 

compliance with the in-draft requirements for access points that 

are normally closed. One commenter requested clarification of 

the use of the terms “leeward” and “windward” in the context of 

the differential pressure monitoring. 

One commenter stated that they have demonstrated that none 

of these total enclosure monitoring requirements and continuous 

monitoring systems are necessary to reduce actual emissions of 

HAP. The commenter recommended continued compliance with the 

original 1997 NESHAP, which requires facilities to demonstrate 

that total enclosures were maintained under constant negative 

pressure by maintaining process enclosure hoods at the 

prescribed face velocities. As an alternative, measurements of 

face velocity at doorways and windows and pressure measurements 

at prescribed intervals would provide a viable monitoring 

option. 

Response: We agree with the commenters that monitoring of 

both building differential pressure and in-draft velocity at 

building openings is unnecessary. However, we disagree that 

continuous monitoring of differential pressure is overly 

prescriptive. We believe that monitoring of building 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 62 of 192 

differential pressure is the most accurate means by which to 

ensure that the building is under negative pressure at all 

times. This method provides direct measurements that the 

building is indeed maintained at negative pressure. Some 

commenters stated persuasively that specifying doorway 

velocities could require substantial additional in-draft, which 

could cause strain to building structures, wind chill problems 

for workers, and pilot lights being extinguished. We have 

therefore not adopted the proposed requirement to measure indraft velocity at the openings of the total enclosures but have 

retained the continuous differential pressure monitoring 

requirement. However, we have altered the differential pressure 

requirement from 0.02 mm of mercury to 0.013 mm of mercury to be 

consistent with EPA Method 204’s criteria for verification of a 

permanent or temporary total enclosure. With regard to the 

comment that increased volumes of air exhausted through control 

devices would increase overall emissions, it is unclear to us 

how directing previously uncontrolled fugitive emissions through 

a fabric filter would increase the overall emissions from a 

structure.

Comment: Several commenters objected to requiring a back-up 

power source for the differential pressure monitors. According 

to the commenters, during a power outage, the “negative pressure 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 63 of 192 

would not be maintained and the pressure drop monitors would 

simply be measuring and documenting this known and predictable 

fact.... The same information could be obtained by requiring 

facilities to note periods when power has been lost to the 

ventilation fans such that negative pressure could not be 

maintained.” One commenter recommended requiring an 

uninterruptible power supply for the control device as well as 

the total enclosure monitoring system or removing the current 

requirement. 

Response: We agree with the commenters’ assessment that a 

back-up power source for the building differential pressure 

monitors is not needed. We also agree with the commenters’ 

suggestion to include a recordkeeping provision for power 

outages that occur for the building ventilation systems. The 

regulatory text has been edited accordingly.

Comment: Several commenters objected to the enclosure 

requirement at all areas where fabric filters are handled or 

processed. One commenter stated that “This is impractical in 

that all baghouses are not and cannot be located within 

enclosures. Therefore, in the replacement of used bag filters, 

there will always be a point in which the bags must be handled 

in order to get them into a closed container for transport.” Two 

commenters stated that “The first point at which used fabric 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 64 of 192 

filters are ‘handled’ is upon removal from the baghouse cell, 

usually on a catwalk running along the side of the baghouse. It 

is not appropriate to require all such areas to be placed within 

total enclosures. Best practices in the industry when replacing 

fabric filters are to place the used filter bags in sealed 

plastic bags or other closed containers in the cell while the 

filters are being replaced, but prior to removing the used 

filters to the catwalk.”

Response: We agree that the proposed requirement to enclose 

all areas where fabric filters are handled or processed may be 

impractical at times, the enclosure of a catwalk being an 

example. We also agree that fabric filters cannot be enclosed 

under the circumstances described in these comments. We have 

therefore revised the regulatory text to require used fabric 

filters to be placed in sealed plastic bags or containers before 

removal from the baghouse cell. 

C. Work Practice Standard Requirements for Fugitive Emissions

Comment: Several industry respondents expressed concern 

about the proposed requirement to perform all maintenance 

activities for any equipment potentially contaminated with lead 

bearing material inside an enclosure. 

Two commenters requested clarification that once an item 

that is not already subject to total enclosure requirements has 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 65 of 192 

been cleaned, its maintenance or repair is not subject to the 

enclosure requirements. Both commenters also gave an example of 

circumstances where the best course of action would be to make 

an immediate repair on a leak in an elevated duct rather than 

wait until a temporary structure was constructed. One commenter 

expressed concern that inspection and maintenance of filters 

that are in need of removal and replacement would need to be 

performed within a total enclosure. 

Two commenters stated that 72 hours to make repairs to any 

gaps or leak points in enclosures or structures was not feasible 

to implement. One commenter suggested that the rule “be changed 

to require initiation of repairs within 24 hours of discovery 

and completion of repairs as soon as practicable. Rather than 

seeking and obtaining approval for extensions from the 

Administrator, the source should be required to file and to keep 

a record listing when the problem was discovered, when the 

repair was initiated and when the repair was completed.” Another 

commenter stated that “the presence of leak points is irrelevant 

to collection as long as the size and location of these leak 

points does not change over time. Once a facility documents that 

any total enclosure criteria (for negative pressure) are met, 

the presence of existing leak points is irrelevant.” 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 66 of 192 

One commenter requested that the EPA allow facilities to 

route emissions from partial or temporary enclosures to control 

devices that meet the performance requirements stated in the 

rule. According to the commenter, “This compliance option is 

requested, because as written, the provisions would require 

manufacturer’s specification alone and not allow use of an 

otherwise compliant control device.”

Response: With regard to the comment that the proposed 

maintenance practices were overly prescriptive, we have revised 

the regulatory text to require performance of maintenance “in a 

manner that minimizes emissions of fugitive dust” that includes 

several options to control fugitive emissions. With regard to 

the comment pertaining to inspection and maintenance of fabric 

filters, we have edited the regulatory text such that this 

enclosure requirement does not apply to inspection and 

maintenance practices for fabric filters.

We also agree with commenters that making prompt and timely 

repairs for leaks is often more effective than first 

constructing a total enclosure around the leak. However, we 

believe that the formulation to initiate repairs “as soon as 

practicable” is too vague. We have edited the regulatory text to 

require completion of repairs to enclosures within one week and 

inserted language allowing facilities to initiate immediate 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 67 of 192 

repairs of ductwork or structure leaks without an enclosure 

provided that the time necessary to construct a temporary 

enclosure would exceed the time necessary to make a temporary or 

permanent repair. This change ensures that the requirement is 

technically practicable and the most cost-effective means for 

fixing leaks while minimizing the period during which the leak 

causes emissions. 

We disagree with the commenter that the presence of a leak 

point is irrelevant to collection as long as the size and 

location of these leak points do not change over time. Total 

enclosures are designed with openings of specific size and 

location to provide appropriate airflow into a building and to 

maintain the negative pressure at all locations. Multiple leak 

points at different locations of non-uniform size would be 

difficult to measure and document. It would also be difficult to 

ensure that the building negative pressure is uniform at all 

locations.

We agree with the commenter that facilities should be 

allowed to route emissions from partial temporary enclosures to 

existing control devices that meet the performance specification 

stated in the rule provided the control device has the 

capability to accommodate the additional air flow and that its 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 68 of 192 

permit accounts for the additional air flow and emissions. The 

regulatory text has been edited accordingly. 

Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns about the 

requirement in the proposed rule for cleaning of building 

rooftops. The commenters stated that the EPA did not provide a 

basis to demonstrate that roof washing is effective or 

necessary. One commenter stated that roof cleaning was 

unnecessary to operate in compliance with the current lead 

NAAQS, and that current work practices are sufficient to meet 

the standard. Several commenters also stated that roof cleaning 

is potentially dangerous to workers and in some cases not 

possible due to the rooftop construction and weather conditions. 

Several commenters noted that the requirement unnecessarily 

applied at all times, even when natural precipitation makes 

cleaning unnecessary.

Response: We agree that the proposed roof washing 

requirement may not be feasible and may cause worker safety 

hazards in some cases, and we have therefore removed this 

activity from the list of required fugitive emission work 

practices.

Comment: Several commenters opposed the specific 

requirement for a mobile vacuum sweeper used for pavement 

cleaning when a water flush is used. The commenters stated that 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 69 of 192 

the EPA provides no justification for the minimum water 

application rate of 0.48 gallons per square yard of pavement 

cleaned or evidence that equipment currently used could achieve 

this rate. The commenters suggested that this specific 

requirement be replaced with a “requirement that pavement be 

periodically cleaned, leaving methods, and minimum water 

application rates to individual facilities and, as relevant, 

their permitting authorities.” According to the commenter, “EPA 

should further exempt pavement cleaning 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.” 

Two commenters also expressed concerns that the rule 

requires pavement cleaning in the battery breaking, furnace, 

refining and casting areas when a total enclosure is not used. 

According to the commenters, certain locations within these 

areas are not capable of being cleaned on a routine basis due to 

safety, access, or other reasons. The commenters give an example 

of paved areas under process equipment as being an area that is 

not safe to access during operation of the equipment. One 

commenter also stated that roadway cleaning and washing of truck 

tires and undercarriages are redundant requirements with no 

incremental benefit. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 70 of 192 

Response: We agree with the commenters’ suggestion to 

remove the minimum water application rate requirement from the 

regulatory text. We note that the proposal did include an 

exemption for cleaning 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. 

That exemption remains in the final rule. See 40 CFR 

63.545(c)(2).

With regard to the comments regarding pavement cleaning 

requirements when total enclosures are not used, we note that 

the final rule requires total enclosures rather than including 

them as an option. Furthermore, it is our understanding that in 

the cases where mobile sweeping or wet washing equipment is not 

feasible (e.g., underneath process equipment), facilities can 

utilize hand held vacuum equipment to clean these areas. 

Therefore, we do not believe it is appropriate to exempt these 

areas from the cleaning requirements since these areas contain 

fugitive lead which can be emitted and reach human and 

environmental receptors.

We disagree with the commenter that roadway cleaning and 

undercarriage washing are redundant requirements. While truck 

tires may be a significant source of lead bearing material on 

the roadway, we understand that they are not the only source. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 71 of 192 

Therefore, we have maintained both requirements in the final 

rule.

Comment: One commenter recommended modifying the 

requirement to pave “all areas subject to vehicle traffic” to 

“all areas subject to routine vehicle traffic.” The commenter 

noted that areas not subject to routine traffic do not have the 

potential to generate significant quantities of fugitive dust 

and that paving these areas would increase the amount of storm 

water generated.

Response: We agree with the commenter that there may be 

some instances where paving and cleaning a roadway is 

impractical. We have included an exemption in the rule for 

limited access and limited use roadways that access remote, 

infrequently used locations on the facility’s property. See 40 

CFR 63.545(c)(2).

Comment: Two commenters objected to the proposed frequency 

of inspection of the unenclosed battery storage areas. One 

commenter “finds this requirement to impose an administrative 

burden of minimal value.” According to the commenter, “Spent 

lead acid batteries, even if accidentally broken and leaking, 

pose minimal potential for generation of fugitive dust 

containing HAPs. Inspection of these areas is typically required 

on a weekly basis as part of the facilities’ Resource 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 72 of 192 

Conservation and Recovery Act obligations and such frequency is 

sufficient to satisfy the intent of this proposed rule as well.” 

One commenter suggests that identifying and mitigating leaks 

within 72 hours will prevent generation of fugitive lead 

emissions. The commenter also states that it is unclear whether 

batteries stored in partial enclosures are exempted from the 

twice daily inspection requirement and proposes the following 

regulatory language incorporating both of these issues. 

You must inspect any batteries that are not stored in 

a partial or total enclosure once each day and move 

any broken batteries to a partial or total enclosure 

within 72 hours of detection. You must also clean 

residue from broken batteries within 72 hours of 

identification. Storage of batteries in trucks and 

railcars consistent with Department of Transportation 

requirements are specifically exempted from these 

requirements. 

Response: We agree with the commenters that requiring 

inspection of these areas on a twice daily basis is not 

necessary. We have modified the regulatory text to require 

inspection of these areas once per week – consistent with 

requirements implementing the hazardous waste subtitle of RCRA 

(see 40 CFR sections 264.174 and 264.1101(c)(4) (and the EPA 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 73 of 192 

sees no reason to deviate from these long-standing requirements 

here, given that they were adopted to be “protective of human 

health and the environment” from management of hazardous waste) 

- with removal of broken batteries within 72 hours of detection. 

We have also clarified that the inspection requirement does not 

apply to battery storage areas that are in a total enclosure. We 

do not believe that an exemption for storage of batteries in 

trucks and railcars is necessary since the inspection frequency 

was reduced to once per week.

Comment: One commenter objected to the requirement to 

collect wash water in a container that is not open to the 

atmosphere. The commenter stated that “Covering of these 

collection tanks is not necessary because lead dissolved and/or 

suspended in water does not have a pathway for becoming a 

fugitive emission.” 

Response: We agree with the commenter that so long as the 

contents in the container are wet, there should be no fugitive 

emissions. We have removed the requirement to collect wash water 

in a sealed container. 

Comment: Two commenters requested changes to the 

requirement to transport lead bearing materials in sealed leakproof containers. One commenter proposed that containers be 

“covered” rather than “sealed leak-proof” and that an exemption 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 74 of 192 

be made for off-road dump trucks. The suggestion was made 

because “sealed leak-proof containers ...cannot be attained, but 

covers can be for most trucks used in such transport....no 

approved sealing covers are made for the 30-ton, 6-wheel, offroad dump trucks used at the facility.” One commenter supported 

the requirement for transporting lead bearing materials within 

an enclosure or in a sealed container, but suggested that lead 

bearing materials with little potential for production of 

fugitive lead dust from transportation should be excluded, 

including intact batteries, raw materials with lead content that 

is not considered recoverable such as iron, caustic, coal, wood, 

sulfur and other similar materials, and products from the 

recycling process. 

Response: We agree that the proposed requirement for 

material transport should be modified. The intent of the 

proposed requirement was to prevent fugitive lead dust formation 

outside of a total enclosure. We have therefore modified the 

requirement at 63.545(c)(7) to read as follows: 

“You must transport all lead bearing dust within 

closed conveyor systems or in sealed, leak-proof 

containers, unless the transport activities are contained 

within an enclosure. All other lead bearing material must 

be contained and covered for transport outside of a total 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 75 of 192 

enclosure in a manner that prevents spillage or dust 

formation. Intact batteries and lead ingot product are 

exempt from the requirement to be covered for transport.” 

The definition of lead bearing material in the rule 

clarifies that lead bearing materials must contain at least 100 

ppm of lead (measured via Toxicity Characteristic Leaching 

Procedure (EPA Method 1311) lead test results <5 mg/l). Intact 

batteries and lead ingot product are excluded from this 

requirement. 

Comment: Some commenters agreed that the secondary lead 

facilities operate a separation process at their battery 

breakers to separate polypropylene battery case material as a 

valuable recyclable commodity. However, not all spent lead acid 

batteries are amenable to separation. Certain battery types such 

as small sealed-lead-acid batteries and certain industrial leadacid batteries are fed into the blast furnace without ever 

passing through the facility’s battery breaker. These batteries 

are either too small or too large to be broken by the automated 

battery breaking equipment. One commenter requested that the EPA 

estimate the cost of the systems that would be required. Another 

commenter offered that mandatory separation could be used for 

facilities that are not meeting TEQ limits as one of several 

options to reduce emissions. Two commenters stated that the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 76 of 192 

current dioxin emission levels pose no incremental health risk 

presented by background dioxin and that there is no valid 

justification for imposing this burden.

Response: Based on these comments, we have revised the 

proposed plastics separation work practice requirement to be 

specific to automotive batteries, which should be amenable to 

separation based on current practices used in the industry. We 

agree with the commenters that some industrial batteries are not 

easily processed in battery breakers and that the retrofits or 

additional equipment required to process such batteries are not 

justified since automotive batteries make up the vast majority 

of lead acid batteries processed at these facilities. We believe 

that plastics separation from automotive batteries is sufficient 

to minimize emissions of organic HAP. We further note that the 

use of battery breakers to separate plastics from automotive 

batteries is clearly a development in practices that limits 

emissions of organic HAP, including dioxin, and is therefore an 

appropriate part of a standard under CAA section 112(d)(6). 

D. Emission Standards for Organic HAP from Rotary Furnaces

Comment: We received several comments on the proposed D/F 

and THC MACT floor limits for the rotary furnace subcategory 

that were based on data (two test runs, see 76 FR at 29049) from 

the slag-processing rotary furnace at RSR’s Middletown, NY 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 77 of 192 

facility. One commenter stated that rotary furnace standards 

should not be based on emissions that are not from stand-alone 

rotary furnace operations. The commenter stated that the EPA 

should not derive standards for rotary furnaces from performance 

of a different source type or subcategory that includes a 

furnace combination (i.e., reverberatory/short rotary furnace). 

The commenter also contends that there are insufficient data 

available to establish limits for D/F and THC from rotary 

furnaces. The commenter contends that the EPA used one source 

that is not representative of or similar to true rotary furnace 

operation to establish the limits for “rotary furnaces.” The 

commenter stated that the emissions limit established in the 

proposed rule is arbitrary because it is not based on operations 

of rotary furnaces using lead bearing materials from lead acid 

batteries as feedstock.

The commenter notes that RSR’s Middletown, NY facility, 

whose test data were used as the basis for the THC and D/F 

limits, only uses their rotary furnace to process one type of 

lead bearing material, reverberatory slag, and this furnace is 

not representative of the full capabilities of rotary furnace 

operation. The commenter notes that JCI’s Florence Recycling 

Center plans to utilize stand-alone rotary furnaces to process 

lead paste, battery components, and “other materials with 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 78 of 192 

recoverable quantities of lead.” The commenter further notes 

that the emissions from RSR’s short rotary furnace (SRF) and 

drying kiln are combined, and it is unclear from information in 

the docket whether testing of the SRF occurred at a location 

prior to the combination of these exhaust streams.

The commenter also stated that JCI and RSR differ in raw 

materials used in the facilities’ operations. RSR’s Title V 

application for its Middletown facility indicates that RSR may 

process automotive, industrial, and specialty-type lead-acid 

batteries as well as lead bearing materials received from leadacid battery manufacturing plants and scrap metal in its 

reverberatory furnace. JCI’s furnace feed is from automotive and 

marine batteries and from lead bearing materials from other JCI 

facilities. The commenter contends that, since the EPA 

considered no data representative of a rotary furnace operation 

such as that which will be operated at the JCI Florence 

Recycling Center, a numeric limit for this category cannot be 

assigned.

One commenter also stated that the stack test for RSR’s SRF 

that was used to develop D/F and THC emission limits for “rotary 

furnaces” included only two successful test runs and therefore 

must be considered inadequate for setting emission limits since 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 79 of 192 

40 CFR 63.7(e)(3) requires three test runs for compliance 

demonstration purposes.

One commenter supports the individual stack emission limits 

for THC and D/F but provides comment on the EPA’s consideration 

of statistical variability for the rotary furnace subcategory. 

The commenter stated that the Upper Prediction Limit (UPL) tends 

to inflate the variability because the statistical procedure 

attempts to accommodate the highest emission measurement at the 

same facility and not necessarily the variability between 

facilities as the MACT floor is intended to achieve. 

Additionally, the UPL is very dependent on the number of valid 

samples. The commenter contends that, when a suitable number of 

samples have been collected, the 99 percent confidence limit 

(CL) represents a range for which there is 99 percent certainty 

that the interval contains the true mean. The commenter suggests 

that caution be used when determining a MACT floor from limited 

test data and that the 99 percent CL is more appropriate for 

this particular industry.

One commenter noted that the EPA did not consider a 

secondary lead smelting facility in Puerto Rico that operates a 

stand-alone rotary furnace. The commenter contends that even if 

it were appropriate to set MACT floor emission rates or 

standards for rotary furnaces, the EPA would have to obtain and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 80 of 192 

consider data from the Puerto Rico facility. According to the 

commenter, failure to consider data from the facility 

“undermines the RTR Proposed Rule and any attempt by EPA to 

establish emission standards for the rotary furnace 

subcategory.” The commenter contends that the EPA should issue a 

separate ICR for the Puerto Rico facility and publish a 

supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking that takes into 

account the emission information for this facility.

Response: The EPA agrees that rotary furnaces fueled by 

natural gas could be different from rotary furnaces operating 

using different fuel types, and that rotary furnaces processing 

slag could be different types of rotary furnaces than those 

processing lead acid batteries. More basically, the EPA simply 

has insufficient data on which to promulgate organic HAP 

standards for rotary furnaces. The proposed standards for THC 

and D/F were based on less than one single complete test, 

consisting only of two test runs from the natural gas fueled 

rotary furnace processing slag. See 76 FR at 29049-29050. (A 

complete test consists of three test runs.) When calculating 

variability using a limited dataset (in this case, the two test 

runs) the effect of variability can be substantial. Id. The 

proposed THC and D/F standards likewise were based on two test 

runs and similarly reflected enormous statistical variability 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 81 of 192 

due to the limited data. Id. at 29049/1. The EPA does not 

believe that these data are sufficient to adopt a standard even 

for the rotary furnace which was tested, much less a rotary 

furnace which may be different. Accordingly, we are not adopting 

standards for organic HAP emissions from rotary furnaces at this 

time and instead we intend to issue CAA section 114 information 

requests to sources operating rotary furnaces to obtain more 

representative emission data and plan to propose standards for 

organic HAP in a future action. However, we note that the lead 

emission standards included in this action do apply to rotary 

furnaces processing slag or lead acid batteries. 

E. The EPA’s Risk Assessment Supporting the Proposed Rule

Comment: Two commenters stated that the EPA’s methodology 

is unreliable and incorrect. The commenters stated that the EPA 

overestimated the baseline fugitive emissions for the Exide 

Frisco facility whose (faulty) estimates then became the basis 

for estimating all other facilities’ fugitive emission rates. 

The commenter stated that the EPA scaled Exide’s reported 

fugitive emissions of 0.296 tpy for the blast and reverberatory 

furnace fugitive emissions to 0.32 tpy based on the assumption 

that fugitives would not be on the same operating schedule as 

process emissions. The commenter contends that this scaling is 

inappropriate since furnace fugitives can only occur when the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 82 of 192 

associated process furnaces are operating. The commenter further 

stated that the EPA also double-counted the fugitives of 0.32 

tpy by assigning the value to each of the blast and 

reverberatory furnaces, despite the fact that Exide reported the 

value as combined emissions for both the reverberatory and blast 

furnace.

Response: The commenter is correct in both respects. The 

EPA has accordingly adjusted its calculation of the fugitive 

emissions from Exide’s Frisco facility (thereby reducing the 

facility’s fugitive dust emissions estimate) and adjusted the 

emissions estimates for each facility to reflect the revised 

estimate of the Frisco facility. The resulting risk results have 

also been adjusted. We note that the updated emissions estimates 

and risk results did not substantively alter our decisions under 

section 112(f). The modeling showed 9 of 15 facilities above the 

lead NAAQS, down from 12 of 14 facilities at proposal. The 

maximum modeled lead concentration in the source category 

decreased from about 23 times the NAAQS to about 16 times the 

NAAQS. We still find that risks from this source category are 

not acceptable and that revisions under section 112 (f)(2) are 

therefore required, and further find that it is necessary under 

section 112(d)(6) to revise the standards for fugitive emissions 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 83 of 192 

considering the developments in cost-effective control 

technologies for their control.

Comment: Three commenters stated that the EPA’s 

multipathway risk estimates are incorrect because they relied on 

incorrect dioxin and furan emissions from Exide’s Frisco, Texas 

facility. The commenters contend that a dioxin and furan test 

conducted in October 2010 at the Frisco facility revealed an 

emissions rate of 6.2E-08 tons/year on a toxic equivalency 

quotient (TEQ) basis, 69 times lower than the estimate used by 

the EPA. One commenter noted that the exact effect that the 

difference in emissions would have on the calculated risks is 

unknown since the EPA has not placed the full methodology behind 

its multipathway risk calculations in the record. However, the 

commenter noted that assuming the relationship between emissions 

and risk is approximately linear, the EPA’s calculated risk 

would be approximately 69 times lower than that estimated at 

proposal and less than 1 in a million. The commenter further 

requested that the EPA disclose its multipathway risk 

calculation methodology and allow for public notice-and-comment. 

Another commenter stated that the EPA’s overestimation of dioxin 

and furan emissions may lead to unwarranted public concern about 

the Frisco facility. The commenter requested that the EPA 

include a clarifying explanation regarding the Frisco emissions 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 84 of 192 

data and the lower multipathway risk in the final rule as well 

as in the risk assessment document.

Response: As noted in previous responses, the final risk 

assessment reflects updated emission information received during 

the public comment period for the proposed rule. We also note 

that the updated dioxin/furan test data were not made available 

to the EPA, despite repeated requests, until June 2011. With 

respect to the estimated emissions of D/F, the commenter is 

correct that EPA overestimated these emissions at proposal by a 

factor of 69 for the reasons stated. Considering this updated 

emissions information, the EPA estimates that multipathway risk 

associated with the Exide Frisco facility is less than 1 in a 

million (and so contributes very little to the estimates of risk 

posed by this source category, and is not a driver of the 

determination that risks from this source category are 

unacceptable). See Residual Risk Assessment for the Secondary 

Lead Smelting Source Category, available in the docket, at pages 

32-33. 

This additional information does not warrant any reopening 

of the proposed rule or comment period, however. First, the EPA 

fully disclosed its multipathway risk methodology; the 

commenter’s assertions to the contrary are simply mistaken. 

Thus, the risk assessment document along with its appendices was 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 85 of 192 

available in the docket for the proposed rulemaking and 

describes in detail the methodology used in the assessment. See

the Residual Risk Assessment for the Secondary Lead Smelting 

Source Category, at page 10, available in the docket. Also see 

docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0037 for a thorough discussion of 

the EPA’s human health multipathway risk assessment methodology. 

Second, the new information reinforces the tentative 

conclusion the EPA reached at proposal: risks associated with 

emissions of dioxin and furans from the secondary lead source 

category are not primary drivers in the unacceptable risks from 

this source category (i.e. dioxin and furan emissions are not 

the reason that risks from secondary lead smelter emissions are 

unacceptable). See 76 FR at 29055/2. The new analysis reinforces 

that risks posed by dioxin and furan emissions are acceptable, 

since emission levels are 69 times less than estimated at 

proposal (when risks from CDD and CDFs were already considered 

to be at an acceptable level). Thus, this already acceptable 

level of risk is less than estimated and less than one in a 

million. The EPA does not agree that further comment on this 

issue is warranted, since further comment would not have a 

practical effect on the rule.11

 

11 The comment that EPA’s standards for dioxin and furans do not result in 

significant risk reduction is misplaced given that the EPA is not adopting 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 86 of 192 

Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA inappropriately 

summed risks from the inhalation and multipathway risk 

assessments at the Exide Frisco facility. The commenter noted 

that it is impossible for the person with the highest chronic 

inhalation cancer risk to also be the same person with the 

highest individual multipathway cancer risk since the two MIR 

values are location dependent and are at locations that are 

widely separated. The commenter further noted that the EPA has 

indicated in other contexts that when populations are exposed 

via more than one pathway, the combination of exposures across 

pathways must also represent a reasonable maximum exposure. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. While 

highly unlikely (and noted as being highly unlikely in the risk 

assessment document), it is theoretically possible for the 

person with the highest chronic inhalation cancer risk to also 

be the same person with the highest individual multipathway 

cancer risk. The EPA notes that the multipathway risk assessment 

does not provide a specific location for the MIR; thus, it is 

possible (although highly unlikely) that the person with the 

highest inhalation MIR is also consuming fish (at the fish 

ingestion rates described in the multipathway report) from the 

 

any risk-based (i.e. section 112 (f)(2)) standards based on the need for 

reduction of emissions of dioxin and furan. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 87 of 192 

theoretically contaminated lake. That being said, however, we 

note that considering updated emissions information for this 

facility, updated multipathway results indicate multipathway 

risk associated with the Exide Frisco facility are well below 1-

in a million. Considering these updated results, multipathway 

risk would not appreciable add to any inhalation risk associated 

with this facility. 

Comment: Commenter 94 stated that the EPA improperly 

calculated the inhalation cancer MIR for the Exide Frisco 

facility in a vacant field to the north of the facility within 

the facility’s property line. The commenter noted that the 

lifetime cancer risk of the MEI cannot be at a location within 

the facility property line. 

Response: The commenter is correct and the EPA has 

corrected the receptor location resulting in a change in the 

results in the final risk assessment. The MIR for this facility 

is now located at a populated census block (based on the 2001 

census).

F. Miscellaneous Changes to the Regulatory Text

Comment: Three commenters requested that the EPA replace 

the term “modified source” with “reconstructed source.” Neither 

the proposed rule nor the EPA’s general Part 63 regulations 

define the term “modified source.” The term is defined in the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 88 of 192 

CAA, but that definition would require a source to install 

maximum achievable control technology and impose a “new source” 

requirement like CEMS on a modified source, rather than 

appropriately imposing the existing source provisions that do 

not require installation of a CEMS.

Response: The term “modified source” appeared in the 

proposed rule at 40 CFR 63.548(l) under the proposed requirement 

to install a CEMS for measuring lead emissions on all new or 

modified sources. We agree with the commenter that the 

terminology of “reconstructed” source would be more appropriate 

for this requirement and have changed the regulatory language 

accordingly. 

Comment: Three commenters requested clarification of the 

term “affected source” as used in the proposed rule. The 

proposed rule uses the terms “new sources”, “existing source” 

and “modified source” without clarifying whether it is referring 

to secondary lead smelters generally, or to potential emissions 

sources within secondary lead smelters. There is a seeming 

contradiction between the use of the term “affected source” in 

the proposed rule and the definition in 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 

A general provisions. One commenter also understands that the 

terms “new sources” and “existing sources”, as used in the 

proposed rule, are consistent with the definitions as used in 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 89 of 192 

CAA § 112(a). The commenter “understands EPA intends to address 

any addition of units to an “existing source” consistent with 

the provisions of the CAA” and understands that the analysis as 

explained in Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing Area Source 

Categories, 40 CFR Part 63 (6X) NESHAP, Questions and Answers, 

April 2011 would apply with respect to implementation of any 

amendments to subpart X requirements. The Q&A explains that the 

“CAA uses the word ’source’ to mean the entire facility in terms 

of the classification of ’new’ vs. ’existing’ whereas for the 

Subpart 6X rule, what is referred to as the ’affected source’ is 

actually one of the processes at the facility”.

Response: The EPA has clarified the application of these 

terms in the final rule. The definition in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart A requires each relevant standard to define the 

“affected source,” as the collection of equipment, activities, 

or both within a single contiguous area and under common control 

that is included in a CAA section 112(c) source category or 

subcategory for which a section 112(d) standard or other 

relevant standard is established pursuant to CAA section 112 

unless a different definition is warranted based on a published 

justification as to why this definition would result in 

significant administrative, practical, or implementation 

problems and why the different definition would resolve those 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 90 of 192 

problems. We have adopted a definition of “affected source” in 

this rulemaking as any of the listed individual sources at a 

secondary lead smelter. This application of the term “affected 

source” is the same as was used in the 1997 NESHAP for secondary 

lead. The term “affected source” is used in the final rule 

primarily in the context of new sources. This definition is 

appropriate for the secondary lead source category because the 

chief source of emissions from these facilities are the 

furnaces, and as these furnaces are replaced or reconstructed, 

the replacement equipment would be subject to the standard for a 

new source.

A “new source” has also been defined as any affected source 

at a secondary lead facility that undergoes construction or 

reconstruction after May 19, 2011, the date of the proposed CAA 

section 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6) rules. A building that is 

constructed for the purpose of controlling fugitive emissions 

from an existing source is not considered to be a new source 

because it is effectively a control device for fugitive 

emissions.

Comment: One commenter noted that the last sentence in the 

current definition of “Materials storage and handling area” has 

been deleted in the proposed definition. This sentence reads: 

“Materials storage and handling area does not include areas used 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 91 of 192 

exclusively for storage of blast furnace slag.” The commenter 

disagreed with the EPA’s assessment that this is a minor change. 

“EPA should provide an explanation of what changed circumstances 

justify a new rule.” Two other commenters requested that the 

definition be modified to exclude the transfer of raw materials 

of any type in enclosed conveyors. The commenter stated that “as 

currently worded, the enclosure requirement proposed would apply 

to handling of fabric filter dust in enclosed conveyors, 

containers, or in wet slurried form, which is unnecessary.” The 

commenter suggested revising the definition to include the 

following: “Material storage and handling area shall not include 

any closed containers or enclosed mechanical conveyors.”

Response: A definition of “lead bearing material” has been 

added to the final rule. Rather than include or exclude any one 

particular material in the definition of “materials storage and 

handling area” based on the originating process, this definition 

establishes lead content as the criterion for determining 

whether materials must be handled in such a manner as to prevent 

lead dust formation. The definition of “materials storage and 

handling area” remains essentially unchanged from the definition 

in the proposed rule. 

Fugitive dust formation has been identified as the major 

contributor to ambient lead concentrations near secondary lead 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 92 of 192 

smelters. Piles where lead bearing materials are stored were 

identified as one of the major sources of fugitive lead 

emissions. However, there was no definition for lead-bearing 

material in the proposed rule that could be used to make a 

determination of which materials needed to be handled in a 

manner that prevents dust formation. By adding a definition of 

“lead bearing material” to the rule, we have clarified and 

quantified the definition of “materials storage and handling 

area.” 

The EPA is using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching 

Procedure (TCLP), EPA Method 1311 to measure which materials are 

lead-bearing, and using the characteristic level of 5.0 mg/l (in 

the extract from the test) as the specific level for being leadbearing. See 40 CFR 261.24. This assures that only materials 

with at least 100 ppm total lead will be considered to be ‘leadbearing’. See EPA Method 1311 section 2.2 which describes that 

the liquid to solid ratio of material tested should be 20:1 

(i.e. 5 mg/l in the TCLP extract is equal to at least 100 ppm in 

the material being tested). The specific definition of lead 

bearing material chosen ensures that materials that contain 

relatively substantial amounts of lead (0.01%) are included 

while minimizing additional testing burden for facilities who 

must determine what does or does not meet the definition. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 93 of 192 

Testing burden is minimized because facilities already use the 

TCLP to determine whether or not the wastes they manage are 

hazardous, pursuant to subtitle C of the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act. Imposing a different threshold for defining 

material as “lead bearing” could thus impose duplicative or 

conflicting requirements between subpart X and other regulatory 

regimes. Furthermore, the TCLP is a test protocol which includes 

a grinding step, which is a conservative measure of determining 

whether a material could generate fugitive emissions. See Method 

1311 steps 7.1.3 and 7.2.10. 

To address the concern that fabric filter dust in enclosed 

conveyors, containers or wet slurries must be additionally 

handled only inside an enclosure, we have added an exemption 

from the enclosure requirement for materials that are “lead 

bearing” but are not expected to generate fugitive lead dust. 

While these materials do contain lead in amounts that could 

otherwise meet the definition of lead bearing material, they are 

either in a stabilized form that will not create fugitive dust 

or in a container that prevents fugitive dust formation. These 

materials include: lead ingot products, stormwater and 

wastewater, intact batteries, lead bearing material that is 

stored in closed containers or enclosed mechanical conveyors, 

and clean battery casing material. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 94 of 192 

Comment: One commenter requested a change to the definition 

of “plant roadway” specifically to exclude finished lead product 

storage areas and roadways or traffic areas located within 

enclosed buildings.

Response: We accept the commenter’s suggestion to exclude 

roadways or traffic areas located within enclosed buildings from 

the definition of “plant roadway.” However, we do not believe 

that it is appropriate to exclude finished lead product storage 

areas since these areas may be located in close proximity to 

areas that may require cleaning (e.g., slag storage areas).

Comment: One commenter requested a change to the definition 

of process vent. As currently drafted, it appears overly broad 

and could lead to confusion concerning the ventilation systems 

that must be tested. 

Response: We have made revisions to the regulatory text to 

clarify that the term “process vent” includes various process 

vents and vents from buildings containing lead bearing material. 

Vents from office or other non-process areas are not considered 

to be process vents. 

Comment: Two comments were received on the terminology used 

for a lead CEMS. According to the commenter, “Paragraph 

63.548(m) specifies that lead CEMS be ‘continuous emission rate

monitors." The standard is a concentration standard, not an 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 95 of 192 

emission rate standard, so the term "continuous emission rate

monitor" is not appropriate”. Since flow and concentration 

monitors are needed to calculate compliance with the flow 

weighted average, one commenter recommended a requirement for 

flow and concentration monitors rather than citing a type of 

monitoring system that is not applicable to the standard.

Response: We agree with the commenter that the term 

continuous emissions rate monitor is not appropriate. We have 

replaced the term “continuous emissions rate monitor” with 

“continuous emissions monitoring system”. 

Comment: Two commenters noted that the term “accidental 

release” is not defined in the rule. The commenters recommended 

that the EPA use the CERCLA reportable quantity threshold of 10 

pounds to define an accidental release of lead-containing dust. 

Two commenters recommended that the requirement to initiate 

cleaning within one hour of a release be changed to require that 

the facility initiate cleaning activities within one hour after 

discovery of an accidental release.

Response: We accept the commenters’ suggestion to use the 

CERCLA reportable quantity threshold of 10 pounds to define an 

accidental release of lead-containing dust. We also accept the 

commenters’ suggestion to require initiation of cleaning within 

one hour of discovery of an accidental release.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 96 of 192 

Comment: One commenter recommended that the definition of 

“maintenance activity” be changed from “any of the following 

routine maintenance and repair activities that generate fugitive 

lead dust:” to “any of the following maintenance and repair 

activities when they generate fugitive lead dust:” 

Response: We do not agree with the commenter’s proposed 

change to the definition of “maintenance activity.” If this 

definition was adopted, the facility would be allowed to proceed 

with a maintenance activity and then, if the activity began 

generating dust, controls would need to be adopted but 

otherwise-controllable lead emissions would be released to 

ambient air. However, we have modified the definition to read 

“any of the following routine maintenance and repair activities 

that could generate fugitive lead dust.” This definition ensures 

that proactive, rather than reactive, actions would be taken for 

activities with the potential to generate lead dust. 

Comment: One commenter stated that a definition of leadbearing material should be added and should include such 

characteristics as the material should be semi-granular, have a 

lead content of greater than 10 percent, and produce visible 

fugitive emissions when handled or transported.

Response: As noted above, we have added a definition of 

lead-bearing material to the regulatory text. However, we 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 97 of 192 

believe that a 10 percent lead content is too high. We have 

defined lead-bearing material in the rule as material with lead 

content of 5 mg/l or greater as measured by the TCLP (Method 

1311), which means that materials would need to contain at least 

100 ppm of lead. This is equivalent to the toxicity 

characteristic level for a hazardous waste containing lead as 

defined at 40 CFR 261.24.

Comment: One commenter noted that 40 CFR 63.544(d) of the 

proposed rule makes reference to the requirements in subsections 

(d)(1) through (d)(4). However, as the commenter points out, 

there are eight subsections applicable to 40 CFR 63.544(d) and 

subsection (d)(2) further refers to meeting requirements through 

(d)(8).

Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter and has made 

the suggested change in the regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.544(d). 

Comment: One commenter noted that proposed 40 CFR 63.543(i) 

requires that sources conduct testing for process vents, “...under 

such conditions as the administrator specifies based on 

representative performance of the affected source for the period 

being tested.” The commenter requested that the EPA replace this 

“cumbersome” language with “...under normal operating conditions.”

Response: We have modified the text to require sources to 

conduct testing “under maximum representative operating 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 98 of 192 

conditions for the process.” The term maximum is included to 

ensure that the testing occurs during a time period of full 

production at the facility that is representative of normal 

operation. This language allows sources to develop test 

conditions which approximate the variability they can reasonably 

encounter during normal operation. Parametric monitoring 

requirements, based on parameters measured during the 

performance test, would then reasonably reflect this operating 

variability and afford the source flexibility in its day-to-day 

operation. Cf. Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 

F.855, 866-67 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (upholding use of such data to 

set MACT standards under CAA section 112 (d)(3)).

Comment: One commenter noted that Table 3 of the proposed 

rule is improperly labeled, “table 3 to Subpart X of Part 60 – 

Toxic Equivalency Factors.” As the commenter points out, the 

table is included in 40 CFR part 63, not 40 CFR part 60.

Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter and has made 

the suggested change to Table 3 of the proposed rule.

Comment: Two commenters pointed out that there is a 

typographical error in Equation 2 of the proposed rule at 40 CFR 

63.543(c). The definition of the term CELI includes the word 

lead, though the equation is not applicable to lead.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 99 of 192 

Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter and has 

adjusted the definition of the term CELI in Equation 2 of 40 CFR 

63.543(c) accordingly.

G. Emission Testing Methods and Frequency

Comment: Two commenters stated their support for biannual 

testing for well performing facilities. One commenter contends 

that the East Penn facility currently conducts biannual testing 

for lead and still maintains compliance with the lead NAAQS and 

applicable subpart X emission standards. The commenter further 

argued that the EPA has not demonstrated any environmental 

benefits associated with annual testing versus biannual testing 

for well controlled facilities. The commenter contends that the 

East Penn facility has made strategic decisions to invest 

capital resources to reduce lead emissions and that the removal 

of the biannual testing exemption would unnecessarily increase 

the annual operating costs of the facility.

Response: We agree with the commenter that a biannual 

testing exemption for well performing facilities can be retained 

in this NESHAP. We have added an exemption for any stacks that 

report a lead concentration of 0.1 mg/dscm or lower allowing 

biannual testing. The concept of decreased testing frequency for 

well-performing sources was discussed in the proposal as a part 

of the fenceline monitoring approach (see 76 FR at 29057). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 100 of 192 

Comment: Two commenters disagreed with the annual testing 

requirement for total hydrocarbons (THC). One commenter stated 

that since the risk assessment did not identify significant 

risks drivers among the organic HAP represented by THC, the THC 

testing should be conducted concurrently with the dioxin and 

furan tests every 5 years with continuous compliance 

demonstrated via afterburner temperature monitoring. Another 

commenter stated that requiring annual THC tests is redundant 

and unnecessary if a CEMS is installed and operated per 40 CFR 

63.543(k).

Response: We disagree with the commenter that THC testing 

should be conducted on the same schedule as dioxins and furans. 

Testing for THC is substantially less expensive than testing for 

dioxins and furans and we do not believe annual THC testing 

presents an unnecessary burden. However, we have added an 

exemption allowing biannual testing of THC for any stack that 

reports concentrations that are less than half of the applicable 

emissions limit. Annual stack testing is obviously not required 

if a THC CEMS is used.

Comment: Three commenters stated that the EPA should allow 

facilities to use EPA Method 12 for lead compounds to calculate 

compliance with the process vent limitations in order to be 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 101 of 192 

consistent with testing requirements that exist in many facility 

permits.

Response: We agree that facilities should be given the 

option of using EPA Method 12. The regulatory text has been 

edited accordingly.

Comment: Three commenters stated that the BLDS exemption 

for baghouses equipped with HEPA filters should be retained. One 

commenter stated that to install BLDS’s on HEPA filtered stacks 

is excessive and unwarranted. The commenter also believes that 

annual stack testing for sources equipped with HEPA filtration 

is not necessary. Another commenter argued that the cost 

associated with using BLDS is not commensurate with their 

limited ability. The commenter stated that BLDS’s are inherently 

reactive whereas baghouses equipped with HEPA filtration 

actually prevent emissions in the event of a bag failure. 

Further, the commenter argued that HEPA secondary collection 

pressure differential is an effective method to monitor baghouse 

performance. The commenter contends that the BLDS requirement 

will pose an unnecessary and redundant burden on facilities that 

proactively chose to install HEPA filtration systems and that 

the proposed revisions are a disincentive for facilities to 

install HEPA filters. Finally, the commenter stated that the 

proposed BLDS requirement and the elimination of the BLDS 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 102 of 192 

exemption for HEPA filters are arbitrary and not supported by 

test data.

Response: We agree with the commenters that baghouses 

equipped with HEPA filters do not need bag leak detection 

systems as well. The measurement of pressure drop across a HEPA 

filter provides the indicia of superior performance for 

determining continuous compliance. However, we disagree that 

sources should be exempt from annual stack testing based solely 

on the use of a HEPA filter. The emission standard includes 

calculation of a facility-wide emission average and testing the 

process vents subject to that limit is needed to determine 

compliance. Monitoring pressure drop across HEPA filters is a 

means for determining continuous compliance, similar to a bag 

leak detection system in baghouses without HEPA filters. In both 

cases, periodic stack tests are necessary to ensure that lead 

emissions are below the applicable emission standard. However, 

we note that we have included a biannual testing exemption for 

stacks that report lead concentrations less than 0.1 mg/dscm.

H. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

Comment: One commenter expressed concerns related to the 

total hydrocarbon (THC) standard during start-up periods. 

According to the commenter, it will be impossible to meet the 

minimum temperature at which compliance with the THC standard 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 103 of 192 

has been demonstrated during startup of a furnace. The blast 

furnace crucible must be heated for up to 12 hours before raw 

materials can be charged. The reverberatory furnace cold 

startups occur over an extended period also. There is no 

introduction of feedstock during the warm-up process and, 

therefore, no emissions of process-related THC emissions. 

Emissions during this time period will consist entirely of 

combustion products associated with the fuels natural gas and 

foundry coke. The afterburner or post combustion system are 

equipped with rudimentary burners that provide supplementary 

heat but rely on the excess heat contained within the combined 

furnace exhaust gases during production operations to achieve an 

afterburner temperature that assures the efficient combustion of 

the process off-gases. The afterburner supplementary burners are 

not sufficient to maintain the required temperature during 

furnace startup and shutdown sequences. The proposed revisions 

to subpart X should include definitions of startup and shutdown 

for collocated blast and reverberatory furnaces that clearly 

define when alternative THC standards would apply and how 

compliance with an alternative standard is monitored. 

Response: The EPA has revised this final rule to require 

sources to meet a work practice standard that requires the 

development of standard operating procedures designed to 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 104 of 192 

minimize emissions of THC for each start-up and shutdown 

scenario anticipated for all units subject to THC emission 

limits. We considered whether temperature (the metric used to 

determine continuous compliance for the THC standard in this 

rule) or performance testing and enforcement of numeric emission 

limits would be practicable during periods of startup and 

shutdown. The EPA determined that there are a number of 

significant technical challenges associated with emissions 

measurements of THC emissions during periods of startup and 

shutdown for this industry. These challenges make establishing 

and complying with numerical emissions limits impracticable. 

There are multiple factors informing this decision. 

Temperature is obviously an inappropriate measure to determine 

continuous compliances for these furnaces during periods of 

startup and shutdown when the furnaces are being heated during 

startup (or cooled during shutdown) from ambient to the steady 

state operating temperature. The furnaces are heated during 

periods of startup through slow feeding of natural gas and small 

amounts of coke with no lead acid batteries fed to the furnace. 

It is impossible for furnace exhaust to be maintained within the 

window prescribed by 40 CFR 63.548(h)(4) during periods of 

startup and shutdown. However, the inability to maintain this 

temperature in secondary lead smelter furnace exhaust does not 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 105 of 192 

indicate high emissions of THC during these periods. In fact, 

the emissions are likely minimal because there are no plastics 

being fed to the furnace and minimal fuel use (mostly natural 

gas). Temperature is thus not the appropriate measure of 

continuous compliance during these periods and we are unaware of 

another metric that can be used to determine continuous 

compliance with a numerical standard for these furnaces during 

startup and shutdown. In terms of staff scheduling, test crews 

would have to be on-site and ready to begin THC testing at the 

beginning of a period of startup or shutdown, have multiple test 

crews on site for startup or shutdown periods lasting longer 

than 12 hours, and be prepared to stop and restart measurements 

to coincide with process trips that can occur during startup and 

shutdown of secondary lead smelting furnaces. Since startups and 

shutdowns of these furnaces are not necessarily scheduled long 

in advance, scheduling such testing to coincide with the 

beginning of startup or shutdown periods would require having 

testing crews on-site nearly full time. These staff resource 

issues would dramatically increase the cost of testing during 

startup and shutdown periods. 

For these technical and economic reasons, we have 

determined that conducting manual test methods during these 

secondary lead furnace startup or shutdown periods for THC to be 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 106 of 192 

impracticable within the meaning of CAA section 112(h)(2)(B). As 

a result, we have established a separate work practice standard 

for emissions of THC during periods of startup and shutdown. 

This work practice standard requires the development of standard 

operating procedures designed to minimize emissions of THC for 

each start-up and shutdown scenario anticipated for all units 

subject to THC limits. 

This startup and shutdown work practice applies only to the 

THC emission limits. We have no reason to provide startup or 

shutdown provisions for emissions of lead from any source 

because the fabric filters used to control particulate and lead 

emissions are not less effective during startup or shutdown 

periods (nor would we expect sources to have any difficulty 

meeting the lead standard since lead-bearing feed is not charged 

during either startup or shutdown conditions). Additionally, the 

metrics for determining continuous compliance with these 

standards are appropriate for periods of startup and shutdown. 

Therefore, we have established the separate work practice 

standard only for THC for periods of startup and shutdown. 

During these periods, we do not believe dioxins and furans 

can form because there are no chlorinated plastics or flameretardants being fed as these materials are only introduced as 

impurities with the lead feed material. Therefore, we have not 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 107 of 192 

included a standard for dioxins and furans during periods of 

startup and shutdown because these pollutants are not emitted. 

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). The EPA has determined that malfunctions should not be 

viewed as a distinct operating mode and, therefore, any 

emissions that occur at such times do not need to be factored 

into development of CAA section 112(d) standards, which, once 

promulgated, apply at all times.

VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected facilities?

We anticipate that the 15 secondary lead smelting 

facilities currently or recently operating in the continental 

United States and Puerto Rico as well as one facility currently 

under construction in South Carolina will be affected by this 

final rule. 

B. What are the air quality impacts?

The EPA estimated the emissions reductions that are 

expected to result from these final amendments to the 1997 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 108 of 192 

NESHAP compared to the 2009 baseline emissions estimates 

calculated based on ICR data. The ICR data and RTR emissions 

memo are available in the docket to this action. A detailed 

documentation of the analysis can be found in the document in 

the docket titled: 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 

final rule will cut lead and arsenic emissions by an estimated 

68 percent from current actual emission levels based on the ICR 

data collected for this rulemaking. The final rule will result 

in estimated annual lead emissions reductions of 6.97.2 tpy from 

process and process fugitive sources and annual lead emissions 

reductions of 6.4 tpy from fugitive dust sources from 2009 

baseline emissions (for a total annual reduction of 13.3 6 tons 

per year). The expected annual reduction in total metal HAP12 is 

8.7 2 tpy from process and process fugitive sources and the 

expected annual reduction is 7.2 tpy from fugitive dust sources 

(total annual metal HAP reductions are estimated at 15.9 4

tons). We estimate that these controls will also reduce 

 

12 Total metal HAP consists of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, 

chromium, lead, manganese, nickel and selenium. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 109 of 192 

emissions of particulate matter (PM) (combined total of fine and 

coarse PM) by 135 tpy. 

Based on the emissions data available to the EPA, we 

believe that all facilities will be able to comply with the 

final emissions limits for THC and D/F without additional 

controls. However, we expect that emissions reductions will 

occur due to increased temperatures of afterburners and from 

improved work practices. Nevertheless, it is difficult to 

estimate accurate reductions from these actions and, therefore, 

we are not providing quantified estimates of reductions for THC 

and D/F. 

C. What are the cost impacts?

As a result of this final rule, certain 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 partially enclosed structures to meet 

the requirements of total enclosure, and installation of fabric 

filters on enclosures. 

The capital costs for each facility were estimated based on 

the number and types of upgrades we estimate that facility will 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 110 of 192 

require. Each facility was evaluated for its ability to meet the 

final limits for lead emissions, THC emissions, D/F emissions, 

and fugitive dust emissions. The memorandum titled: 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 this action are for purchasing new enclosures and the 

associated control devices that would be required for these 

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 facilities, 

particularly the storage areas, to reduce the footprint of areas 

subject to total enclosure requirements. 

Based on our analysis of the facility configurations, seven 

facilities were considered already to be totally enclosed. Two 

facilities are currently installing enclosure structures and 

equipment that we anticipate will meet the requirements. 

Consequently, the capital costs do not include estimates for 

these nine facilities. We estimate that the remaining six 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 111 of 192 

facilities will require new building installations, thereby 

incurring capital costs. For the one facility currently under 

construction, we estimated one additional baghouse would be 

required. 

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 installations submitted by 

facilities in the ICR survey. The total capital cost estimate 

for the enclosures, the ductwork system, and control devices at 

the seven facilities is approximately $38 million, at an 

annualized cost of $6.4 million in 2009 dollars (an average of 

about $1 million per facility). 

We also estimated annual costs for the required work 

practices in this action. Based on the ICR survey information, 

we estimated that additional costs would be required to 

implement the work practices at 12 of the 16 facilities. The 

total annual costs to implement the fugitive emissions work 

practices are approximately $3 million per year. 

For compliance with the stack lead concentration limit, we 

compared each stack emission point’s lead concentration 

(reported to the EPA under the ICR) to the requirement of 1.0 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 112 of 192 

mg/dscm of lead for any one stack. If the reported concentration 

exceeded 0.5 mg/dscm (one half the standard), we assumed that 

the facility would either upgrade the baghouse with new bags and 

additional maintenance or completely replace the baghouse, 

depending on the age of the baghouse (as explained further 

below). This cost estimate presents an upper-end estimate of the 

cost impacts of the final rule that assumes facilities will 

strive to operate well below the standard to ensure process 

variability does not cause emission rates approaching the 

maximum level allowed by the standard. If the baghouse was less 

than 10 years old and the lead concentration in the outlet was 

not appreciably over one half the standard (i.e., 0.5 mg/dscm), 

we assumed that the baghouse would require maintenance and bag 

replacement. If the baghouse was more than 10 years old and the 

lead concentration was appreciably over the standard, we assumed 

the baghouse would be replaced. We then compared each facility’s 

emissions with the 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. These 

analyses indicate that nine baghouses would need to be replaced, 

and two baghouses would require additional maintenance. To 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 113 of 192 

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 

nine new baghouses at five facilities is estimated to be 

approximately $12.61.5 million, and total annual costs were 

estimated to be approximately $3.02.7 million. 

New limits are being promulgated for THC and D/F emissions 

from reverberatory and electric furnaces. We anticipate all 

operating affected units will be able to meet the 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 standards. (We also considered 

this additional energy use as part of our analysis of whether 

the standards are warranted under CAA section 112(d)(6). See 

Cost Impacts of the Revised NESHAP for the Secondary Lead 

Smelting Source Category, available in docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–

2011–0344, at page 7). 

The capital cost estimated for additional differential 

pressure monitors for total enclosures is $106,000. The cost for 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 114 of 192 

all additional monitoring and recordkeeping requirements, 

including the baghouse monitoring, is estimated at $791,000. 

The total annualized costs for the final rule are estimated 

at $13.4 million (2009 dollars). Table 5 of this preamble 

provides a summary of the estimated costs and emissions 

reductions associated with the final amendments to the Secondary 

Lead Smelting NESHAP presented in today’s action. More detail on 

the estimated costs of today’s final rule can be found in Cost 

Impacts of the revised NESHAP for the Secondary Lead Smelting 

Source Category, available in the docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–

0344. 

Table 5. Estimated Costs and Reductions for the Promulgated 

Standards in this Action 

Final 

Amendment 

Estimated 

Capital 

Cost 

($MM) 

Estimated 

Annual 

Cost 

($MM) 

Total HAP 

Emissions 

Reductions 

(tons per year)

Cost Effectiveness 

in $ per ton total 

HAP reduction 

($ per pound) 

Revised stack 

lead 

emissions 

limit 

12.611.5 3.02.7 8.7 2 of metal 

HAPa (6.97.2 of 

which is lead) 

$0.34 33 MM per 

ton 

($170 per pound) 

Total 

enclosure of 

fugitive 

emissions 

sources 

38 6.4 5.2 of metal 

HAPa (4.6 of 

which is lead) 

$1.0 MM per ton 

($500 per pound) 

Fugitive 

control work 

practices 

0 3.0 2.0 of metal 

HAPa (1.8 of 

which is lead) 

$1.5 MM per ton 

($750 per pound) 

THC and D/F 

concentration 

limits 

0 0.3 29.6b $0.01 MM per ton 

Additional 

testing and 

monitoring 

0.3 0.79 N/A N/A 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 115 of 192 

aMetal HAP consisting of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, 

chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium. 

bBased on total organic HAP reductions as a co-benefit of 

compliance with standards for dioxins and furans. 

The EPA notes that the cost effectiveness of the controls 

for stack emissions of metal HAP are within the range of values 

the agency has determined to be reasonable in other section 112 

rules. Indeed, EPA determined that a value of $175 per pound of 

metal HAP removed was reasonable when determining standards for 

the iron and steel foundry source category, an area source 

standard reflecting the less rigorous Generally Available 

Control Technology under section 112(d)(5). See 73 FR at 249. 

Thus, EPA regards the cost effectiveness of the standards for 

metal HAP here as reasonable, for purposes of the standards 

adopted pursuant to sections 112 (f)(2) (ample margin of safety 

determination) and 112 (d)(6). The measures required to control 

fugitive emissions are also cost effective, based largely on the 

fact that much of the industry has implemented some or all of 

the measures required in this final rule. The cost effectiveness 

for THC and D/F is presented as a point of information. Since 

those standards are MACT floor standards adopted pursuant to 

sections 112 (d)(3), considerations of cost and costeffectiveness played no part in EPA’s consideration. 

D. What are the economic impacts?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 116 of 192 

We performed an economic impact analysis for secondary lead 

consumers and producers nationally. Most secondary lead 

producers will incur annual compliance costs of much less than 1 

percent of their sales, but one firm will incur costs of greater 

than 1 percent. Both demand and supply in this sector are 

generally inelastic to price changes as shown in the Economic 

Impact Analysis at page 4. Thus, if producers could pass through 

the entire cost of the rule to consumers, we would expect prices 

to increase by no more than one percent, with no change in 

output. Conversely, if producers could not pass through any of 

the cost by increasing the price, we would expect output to 

decline by less than one percent. 

Hence, the overall economic impact of this proposed rule 

should be low on most of the affected industry and its 

consumers. For more information, please refer to the Economic 

Impact Analysis for this rulemaking that is in docket ID EPA–HQ–

OAR–2011–0344. 

E. What are the benefits?

The estimated reductions in lead emissions that will be 

achieved by this final rule will provide significant benefits to 

public health. For example, 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 117 of 192 

website)13 described monetized benefits calculated for that 

action associated with reduced exposure to lead. 

As noted in that RIA, there were also several other leadrelated health effects for which the EPA was unable to quantify 

a monetized benefit--particularly among adults. These potential 

impacts included hypertension, non-fatal strokes, reproductive 

effects and premature mortality, among others. 

When viewed in this context, the reductions in 

concentrations of ambient lead that will be achieved with this 

RTR for secondary lead smelters are expected to provide 

important benefits to both children and adults. The EPA did not 

quantify these benefits because this rule did not trigger the 

requirement for conducting an RIA under Executive Order 12866, 

in addition to resource and data limitations for this rule. 

However, as noted at proposal, this rule should result in areas 

attaining the lead NAAQS where the secondary lead smelting 

source dominates the areas’ ambient lead concentrations. See 76 

FR at 29063-64. Although these standards are not adopted to 

implement the lead NAAQS, and rest on legal and policy 

justifications that are unrelated to the requirements for 

adopting, revising, and implementing a NAAQS (e.g. CAA sections 

112 (d) (2), (3), 6 and CAA section 112 (f)(2) as opposed to CAA 

 

13 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/finalpbriach5.pdf
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 118 of 192 

sections 107-110), nonetheless these rules will aid in the 

attainment of the lead NAAQS.14

In addition to the benefits likely to be achieved for lead 

reductions, we also estimate that this final RTR rule will 

achieve about 39 to 63 tons of reductions in PM2.5 emissions as a 

co-benefit of the HAP reductions annually. See Development of 

the RTR Emissions Dataset for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source 

Category at section 8.3, which is available in the docket for 

information on how the PM2.5 emission reductions were calculated 

based on total PM reductions. Reducing exposure to PM2.5 is 

associated with significant human health benefits, including 

avoiding mortality and respiratory morbidity. Researchers have 

associated PM2.5 exposure with adverse health effects in numerous 

toxicological, clinical and epidemiological studies (U.S. EPA, 

2009)15. When adequate data and resources are available and an 

RIA is required, the EPA generally quantifies several health 

effects associated with exposure to PM2.5 (e.g., U.S. EPA, 

 

14 It is possible that SIPs may require some of the same types of controls on 

these sources (or may rely on the controls in these rules as part of a 

control strategy). EPA cannot, of course, pre-judge the SIP process. What 

is clear is that this rule should contribute significantly to attainment of 

the lead NAAQS. 

15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. Integrated Science 

Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA-600-R-08-139F. National 

Center for Environmental Assessment—RTP Division. 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546>. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 119 of 192 

2010)16. These health effects include premature mortality for 

adults and infants, cardiovascular morbidities such as heart 

attacks, hospital admissions, and respiratory morbidities such 

as asthma attacks, acute and chronic bronchitis, hospital and 

emergency department visits, work loss days, restricted activity 

days, and respiratory symptoms. Although the EPA has not 

quantified certain outcomes including adverse effects on birth 

weight, pre-term births, pulmonary function and other 

cardiovascular and respiratory effects, the scientific 

literature suggests that exposure to PM2.5 is also associated with 

these impacts (U.S. EPA, 2009). 

Finally, the final rule will provide human health benefits 

through reductions in arsenic and cadmium emissions, as well as 

reductions in emissions of organic HAP (including dioxins and 

furans). 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Orders 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.” This action is 

 

16 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010. Regulatory Impact 

Analysis for the Proposed Federal Transport Rule. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/proposaltrria_final.pdf>. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 120 of 192 

a significant regulatory action because it raises novel legal 

and policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under 

Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 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 the EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 1686.09.

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 the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 121 of 192 

is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set forth in 

40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

We are promulgating new paperwork requirements to the 

Secondary Lead Smelting source category in the form of stack 

testing for THC and D/F as described in 40 CFR 63.543(h)-(k). In 

conjunction with setting THC limits for reverberatory and 

electric 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(and received no comments to indicate 

otherwise). Additionally, increased monitoring is required for 

demonstrating negative pressure in all total enclosures. 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, the 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. The 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 122 of 192 

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 the EPA. The 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 the EPA has no 

basis currently for estimating the number of malfunctions for 

which an affirmative defense to penalties might be asserted. 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 123 of 192 

believe the number of instances in which source operators might 

be expected to assert 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 information on 

such events in the future and will revise this estimate as 

better information becomes available. We estimate 16 regulated 

entities are currently subject to subpart X and will be subject 

to all 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 $790,000 per year. This includes 1,600 labor 

hours per year at a total labor cost of $347,000 per year, and 

total non-labor capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) 

costs of $440,000 per year. This estimate includes performance 

tests, notifications, reporting, and recordkeeping associated 

with the new requirements for front-end process vents and backend 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 1,150 hours per year at 

a total labor cost of $52,000 per year. Burden is defined at 5 

CFR 1320.3(b). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 124 of 192 

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 the 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. 

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 final 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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 125 of 192 

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 action). 

After considering the economic impacts of today’s final 

rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Two of the eight parent companies affected are 

considered a small entity per the definition provided in this 

section. However, we estimate that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on those companies (See: Small 

Business Analysis for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source 

Category). All other affected parent companies are not small 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 126 of 192 

businesses according to the SBA small business size standard for 

the affected NAICS code (NAICS 331419). 

Although this final rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on 

small entities. To reduce the impacts, we are promulgating stack 

limits for lead that allow sources to meet a standard based on 

aggregated emissions that are based on a weighted average 

approach (with each stack required to achieve a specified 

minimum level of control) and have been established at the least 

stringent levels that we estimate will still result in 

acceptable risks to public health with an ample margin of 

safety. Moreover, the 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 

standards. For more information, please refer to Small Business

Analysis for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, which 

is available in docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This action 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 127 of 192 

governments or the private sector. The action 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 action imposes no enforceable duties on any State, 

local or tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, this 

action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 

of the UMRA. 

This action 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 action 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 Executive Order 

13132. These final rules primarily affect private industry, and 

do not impose significant economic costs on State or local 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 128 of 192 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It 

will not have substantial direct effect on tribal governments, 

on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian 

tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 

between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

This action 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. 

Children living near secondary lead smelters are the 

subpopulation most susceptible to effects of air-borne lead, as 

explained in detail in section V.A above. The primary NAAQS for 

lead targets protection to this population, and is a reasonable 

measure for evaluating acceptability of risk here, again as 

explained in section V.A. Modeled ambient air lead 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 129 of 192 

concentrations, based on actual emission levels, from about 9 of 

the 15 facilities in this source category are in excess of the 

NAAQS for lead. Also, the results of the demographic analysis 

indicate that of the 84,000 people exposed to a cancer risk 

greater than 1-in-1 million, the age 0 to 17 demographic 

percentage (of 30 percent) is 3 percentage points higher than 

the corresponding national percentage for this demographic group 

(of 27 percent). This suggests that children may be at a 

slightly disproportionate risk of exposure to cancer risks from 

this source category. However, the control measures promulgated 

in this notice will result in lead concentration levels at or 

below the lead NAAQS at all facilities, thereby mitigating the 

risk of future adverse health effects to children. See Section 

V.A of this preamble and the Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, which is available in 

the docket for this action, for discussions of post-control 

risks. 

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 

in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because 

it is not likely to have a significant adverse energy effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action will not 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 130 of 192 

create any new requirements for sources in the energy supply, 

distribution, or use sectors. Further, we have concluded that 

these final rules are not likely to have any adverse energy 

effects (and indeed, rejected certain types of control options, 

such as standards based on use of wet electrostatic 

precipitators, in part because of adverse energy implications). 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) 

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the 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, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA 

directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. 

This action involves technical standards. The EPA requires 

use of 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 131 of 192 

available from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

(ASME), Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016–5990. 

Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the 

General Provisions, a source may apply to the 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 final 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. 

The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of environmental protection for 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 132 of 192 

all affected populations without having any disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any 

population, including any minority or low-income population. 

To examine the potential for any environmental justice 

issues that might be associated with each source category, we 

evaluated the distributions of HAP related 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 development of demographic 

analyses to inform the consideration of environmental justice 

issues in EPA rulemakings is evolving. 

In the case of Secondary Lead Smelting, we focused on 

populations within 50 km of the 15 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 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 the technical report: Risk and Technology Review -

Final Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 133 of 192 

Near Secondary Lead Smelting Facilities which can be found in 

the docket for this rulemaking. The actions in today’s final 

rule will significantly decrease the risks due to HAP emissions 

from this source category for all demographic groups and 

mitigate any disproportionate risks due to those emissions. 

K. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as 

added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

of 1996, generally provides that, before a rule may take effect, 

the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, 

which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA 

will submit a report containing this final rule and other 

required information to the United States Senate, the United 

States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of 

the United States prior to publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days 

after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is 

not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final 

rules will be effective on [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 

THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 134 of 192 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions for 

Secondary Lead Smelting 

Page 135 of 192

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and 

procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, 

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 

______________ 

Dated: XXXXX XX, 2011 

________________________ 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 
Page 136 of 192 

For17 the reasons stated in the preamble, part 63 of title 

40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is 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. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph (p)(2) to 

read as follows: 

§63.14 Incorporations by reference.

* * * * * 

(p) * * * 

(2) Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards (OAQPS), 

Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA–454/R–98–015, 

September 1997, IBR approved for §§63.548(e)(4), 63.7525(j)(2), 

and 63.11224(f)(2). 

* * * * * 

3. 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 

63.541 Applicability. 

63.542 Definitions. 

63.543 What are my standards for process vents? 

 

17 Note that the EPA is reprinting portions of the language from the 1997 

NESHAP here so the entire rule appears in one place, for readers’ 

convenience. The EPA is not amending, reopening or otherwise reconsidering 

these reprinted portions of the 1997 rule. 
Page 137 of 192 

63.544 What are my total 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 to Civil Penalties for Exceedance of 

Emissions Limit During Malfunction 

Tables to Subpart X 

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 63—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 affected sources at a secondary lead 

smelter: blast, reverberatory, rotary, and electric furnaces; 

refining kettles; agglomerating furnaces; dryers; process 

fugitive emissions sources; buildings containing lead bearing 

materials; and fugitive dust sources. The provisions of this 

subpart do not apply to primary lead processors, 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. 
Page 138 of 192 

(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: 

Affected source means any of the following sources at a 

secondary lead smelter: blast, reverberatory, rotary, and 

electric furnaces; refining kettles; agglomerating furnaces; 

dryers; process fugitive emissions sources; buildings containing 

lead bearing materials; and fugitive dust sources. 

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, 
Page 139 of 192 

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 Celsius) 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. 
Page 140 of 192 

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 Celsius) that lead 

compounds are reduced to elemental lead metal. 

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, lead bearing material handling transfer 

points, lead bearing material transport areas, lead bearing 

material storage areas, other lead bearing material process 

areas, and buildings. 

Furnace and refining/casting area means any area of a 

secondary lead smelter in which: 

(1) Smelting furnaces are located; 

(2) Refining operations occur; or 

(3) Casting operations occur. 

Lead alloy means an alloy in which the predominant 

component is lead. 
Page 141 of 192 

Lead bearing material means material with a lead content 

equal to or greater than 5 mg/l as measured by EPA Method 1311 

(Under Method 1311, only materials with at least 100 ppm lead 

will be considered to be lead bearing). 

Leeward wall means the furthest exterior wall of a total 

enclosure that is opposite the windward wall. 

Maintenance activity means any of the following routine 

maintenance and repair activities that could generate fugitive 

lead dust: 

(1) Replacement or repair of refractory, or any internal or 

external part of equipment used to process, handle or control 

lead-containing materials. 

(2) Replacement of any duct section used to convey leadcontaining exhaust. 

(3) Metal cutting or welding that penetrates the metal 

structure of any equipment, and its associated components, used 

to process lead-containing 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, 
Page 142 of 192 

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 open piles, bins, or 

tubs, and areas in which material is prepared for charging to a 

smelting furnace. 

Natural draft opening means any permanent opening in an 

enclosure that remains open during operation of the facility and 

is not connected to a duct in which a fan is installed. 

New source means any affected source at a secondary lead 

smelting facility the construction or reconstruction of which is 

commenced after May 19, 2011. A building that is constructed for 

the purpose of controlling fugitive emissions from an existing 

source is not considered to be a new source. 

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 

outside of a total enclosure that is subject to vehicle traffic, 

including traffic by forklifts, front-end loaders, or vehicles 
Page 143 of 192 

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 emissions 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, vents 

from buildings containing lead bearing material, 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. 
Page 144 of 192 

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 Celsius) 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 Celsius) that lead 

compounds are chemically reduced to elemental lead metal. 

Secondary lead smelter means 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. 

Shutdown means the period when no lead bearing materials 

are being fed to the furnace and smelting operations have ceased 

during which the furnace is cooled from steady-state operating 

temperature to ambient temperature. 

Smelting means the chemical reduction of lead compounds to 

elemental lead or lead alloys through processing in hightemperature (greater than 980 Celsius) furnaces including, but 

not limited to, blast furnaces, reverberatory furnaces, rotary 

furnaces, and electric furnaces. 
Page 145 of 192 

Startup means the period when no led bearing materials have 

been fed to the furnace and smelting operations have not yet 

commenced during which the furnace is heated from ambient 

temperature to steady-state operating temperature. 

Total enclosure means a containment building that is 

completely enclosed with a floor, walls, and a roof to prevent 

exposure to the elements and to assure containment of lead 

bearing material with limited openings to allow access and 

egress for people and vehicles. The total enclosure must provide 

an effective barrier against fugitive dust emissions such that 

the direction of air flow through any openings is inward and the 

enclosure is maintained under constant negative pressure. 

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. 

Windward wall means the exterior wall of a total enclosure 

that is most impacted by the wind in its most prevailing 

direction determined by a wind rose using available data from 

the closest representative meteorological station. 
Page 146 of 192 

§63.543 What are my standards for process vents?

(a) For existing sources, 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 smelting 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 using the most recent test data available. 

(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: 

∑

∑=

×

= n

i

i

n

i

i i

FWA

F

F C

C

1

(Eq. 1) 

Where: 
Page 147 of 192 

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. 

(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 using Equation 1 of this section. 

(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 rate must be 

used rather than the most recent compliance test data. 

(b) For new sources that begin construction or 

reconstruction after May 19, 2011 you must maintain the 

concentration of lead compounds in any process vent gas at or 

below 0.20 milligrams of lead per dry standard cubic meter 

(0.000087 grains of lead per dry standard cubic foot). 

(c) You must meet the applicable emissions limits for total 

hydrocarbons and dioxins and furans from furnace sources 

specified in Table 2 of this subpart. There are no standards for 

dioxins and furans during periods of startup and shutdown. 
Page 148 of 192 

(d) 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 of this section. 

∑

∑=

×

= n

i

i

n

i

i ELi

EL

F

F C

C

1

(Eq. 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 pollutant in 

furnace vent i as specified in Table 2 of this 

subpart. 

(e) 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 (c) of this section 

at a location downstream from the point at which the two 

emissions streams are combined. 
Page 149 of 192 

(f) 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 and corrected to 4 

percent carbon dioxide. 

(g) Following the initial performance or compliance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the lead emissions limits specified 

in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, you must conduct 

performance tests according to the schedule in paragraph (g)(1) 

or (g)(2) of this section. 

(1) 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 meeting the requirements of §63.8. 

(2) If an annual compliance test demonstrates that a 

process vent emitted lead compounds at 0.10 milligram of lead 

per dry standard cubic meter or less during the time of the 

annual compliance test, you may submit a written request to the 

Administrator applying for an extension of up to 24 calendar 

months from the previous compliance test to conduct the next 

compliance test for lead compounds. 
Page 150 of 192 

(h) Following the initial performance or compliance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the total hydrocarbons emissions 

limits in paragraphs (c) and (f) of this section, you must 

conduct an annual performance test for total hydrocarbons 

emissions from each process vent that has established limits for 

total hydrocarbons (no later than 12 calendar months following 

the previous compliance test), unless you install and operate a 

CEMS meeting the requirements of §63.8. If an annual compliance 

test demonstrates that a process vent emitted total hydrocarbons 

at less than 50 percent of the allowable limit during the time 

of the annual compliance test, you may submit a written request 

to the Administrator applying for an extension of up to 24 

calendar months from the previous compliance test to conduct the 

next compliance test for total hydrocarbons. 

(i) Following the initial performance or compliance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the dioxins and furans emissions 

limits specified in paragraph (c) of this section, you must 

conduct a performance test for dioxins and furans emissions from 

each process vent that has established limits for dioxins and 

furans at least once every 6 years following the previous 

compliance test. 

(j) You must conduct the performance tests specified in 

paragraphs (g) through (i) of this section under maximum 

representative operating conditions for the process. During the 
Page 151 of 192 

performance test, you may operate the control device at maximum 

or minimum representative operating conditions for monitored 

control device parameters, whichever results in lower emission 

reduction. Upon request, you must make available to the 

Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 

conditions of performance tests. 

(k) 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. 

(l) If you own or operate a unit subject to emission limits 

in Table 2 of this subpart, you must minimize the unit’s startup 

and shutdown periods following the manufacturer’s recommended 

procedures, if available. You must develop and follow standard 

operating procedures designed to minimize emissions of total 

hydrocarbon for each startup or shutdown scenario anticipated. 

You must submit a signed statement in the Notification of 

Compliance Status report that indicates that you conducted 
Page 152 of 192 

startups and shutdowns according to the manufacturer’s 

recommended procedures, if available, and the standard operating 

procedures designed to minimize emissions of total hydrocarbons. 

(m) 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 from all automotive batteries prior to introducing 

feed into a furnace. 

§63.544 What are my total enclosure standards?

(a) You must operate the process fugitive emissions sources 

and fugitive dust 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 and vented to a control device 

designed to capture lead particulate. The total enclosure must 

meet the requirements specified in paragraph (c) 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. 
Page 153 of 192 

(8) Material handling areas for any lead bearing materials 

except those listed in paragraph (b) of this section. 

(9) Areas where dust from fabric filters, sweepings or used 

fabric filters are processed. 

(b) Total enclosures are not required in the following 

areas: lead ingot product handling areas, stormwater and 

wastewater treatment areas, intact battery storage areas, areas 

where lead bearing material is stored in closed containers or 

enclosed mechanical conveyors, and areas where clean battery 

casing material is handled. 

(c) You must construct and operate total enclosures for the 

sources listed in paragraph (a) of this section as specified in 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section. The total 

enclosure must be free of significant cracks, gaps, corrosion or 

other deterioration that could cause lead bearing material to be 

released from the primary barrier. Measures must be in place to 

prevent the tracking of lead bearing material out of the unit by 

personnel or by equipment used in handling the material. An area 

must be designated to decontaminate equipment and any rinsate 

must be collected and properly managed. 

(1) You must ventilate the total enclosure continuously to 

ensure negative pressure values of at least 0.013 mm of mercury 

(0.007 inches of water). 
Page 154 of 192 

(2) You must maintain an inward flow of air through all 

natural draft openings. 

(d) You must inspect enclosures and facility structures 

that contain any lead-bearing materials at least once per month. 

You must repair any gaps, breaks, separations, leak points or 

other possible routes for emissions of lead to the atmosphere 

within one week of identification unless you obtain approval for 

an extension from the Administrator before the repair period is 

exceeded. 

§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)(7) of this section. 

(1) Plant roadways. 

(2) Plant buildings. 

(3) Accidental releases. 

(4) Battery storage area. 

(5) Equipment maintenance. 

(6) Material storage areas. 

(7) Material handling areas. 

(b) You must submit the standard operating procedures 

manual to the Administrator or delegated authority for review 
Page 155 of 192 

and approval when initially developed and any time changes are 

made. 

(c) The controls specified in the standard operating 

procedures manual must at a minimum include the requirements 

specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(7) 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. 

Limited access and limited use roadways such as unpaved roads to 

remote locations on the property may be exempt from this 

requirement if they are used infrequently (no more than one 

round trip per day). 

(3) Accidental releases. You must initiate cleaning of all 

affected areas within one hour after detection of any accidental 

release of lead dust that exceeds 10 pounds (the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 

reportable quantity for lead at 40 CFR 302.4). 
Page 156 of 192 

(4) Battery storage areas. You must inspect any batteries 

that are not stored in a total enclosure once each week and move 

any broken batteries to an enclosure within 72 hours of 

identification. You must clean residue from broken batteries 

within 72 hours of identification. 

(5) 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. 

(6) Equipment maintenance. You must perform all maintenance 

activities that could generate lead dust in a manner that 

minimizes emissions of fugitive dust. This must include one or 

more of the following: 

(i) Performing maintenance inside a total permanent 

enclosure maintained at negative pressure. 

(ii) Performing maintenance inside a temporary enclosure 

and use a vacuum system either equipped with a filter rated by 

the manufacturer to achieve a capture efficiency of 99.97 

percent for 0.3 micron particles or routed to an existing 

control device permitted for this activity. 

(iii) Performing maintenance inside a partial enclosure and 

use of wet suppression sufficient to prevent dust formation. 
Page 157 of 192 

(iv) Decontamination of equipment prior to removal from an 

enclosure. 

(v) Immediate repair of ductwork or structure leaks without 

an enclosure if the time to construct a temporary enclosure 

would exceed the time to make a temporary or permanent repair, 

or if construction of an enclosure would cause a higher level of 

emissions than if an enclosure were not constructed. 

(vi) Activities required for inspection of fabric filters 

and maintenance of filters that are in need of removal and 

replacement are not required to be conducted inside of total 

enclosures. Used fabric filters must be placed in sealed plastic 

bags or containers prior to removal from a baghouse. 

(7) Material transport. You must collect and transport all 

lead bearing dust (i.e. lead bearing material which is a dust) 

within closed conveyor systems or in sealed, leak-proof 

containers unless the collection and transport activities are 

contained within a total enclosure. All other lead bearing 

material must be contained and covered for transport outside of 

a total enclosure in a manner that prevents spillage or dust 

formation. Intact batteries and lead ingot product are exempt 

from the requirement to be covered for transport. 

(d) Your standard operating procedures manual must specify 

that records be maintained of all pavement cleaning, vehicle 
Page 158 of 192 

washing, 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, limited 

access and limited use roadways). 

(f) As provided in §63.6(g), as an alternative to the 

requirements specified in 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 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 

[INSERT THE DATE TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS 

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 [INSERT THE 

DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] 

or upon startup of operations, whichever is later. 

§63.547 Test methods.
Page 159 of 192 

(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) and (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 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 12 or 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 
Page 160 of 192 

emissions standards for total hydrocarbons specified in 

§63.543(c) through (f). 

(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. 

2

4.0

CO

F = (Eq. 2) 
Page 161 of 192 

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(c). 

(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. 
Page 162 of 192 

(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. 

(20.9 % 2)

(20.9 7)

O

Cmeas Cadj

−

−

= (Eq. 3) 

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. 
Page 163 of 192 

%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. 

§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 
Page 164 of 192 

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 shakertype baghouses. Such checks are not required for shaker-type 

baghouses using self-tensioning (spring loaded) devices. 

(7) Quarterly confirmation of the physical integrity of the 

baghouse through visual inspection of the baghouse interior for 

air leaks. 

(8) Quarterly inspection of fans for wear, material 

buildup, and corrosion through visual inspection, vibration 

detectors, or equivalent means. 

(9) Except as provided in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this 

section, continuous operation of a bag leak detection system, 
Page 165 of 192 

unless a system meeting the requirements of paragraph (m) of 

this section for a continuous emissions monitoring system is 

installed for monitoring the concentration of lead. 

(d) The procedures you specify 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. 

(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 
Page 166 of 192 

Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance” EPA-454/R-98-015, September 

1997 (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) 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. 
Page 167 of 192 

(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. 
Page 168 of 192 

(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or 

otherwise repairing the bag leak detection system. 

(vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate 

emissions. 

(g) Baghouses equipped with high efficiency particulate air 

(or HEPA) filters as a secondary filter used to control 

emissions from any source subject to the lead emission standards 

in §65.543(a) or (b), are exempt from the requirement to be 

equipped with a bag leak detection system. You must monitor and 

record the pressure drop across each HEPA filter system daily. 

If the pressure drop is outside the limit(s) specified by the 

filter manufacturer, you must take appropriate corrective 

measures, which may include but not be limited to those given in 

paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this section. 

(1) Inspecting the filter and filter housing for air leaks 

and torn or broken filters. 

(2) Replacing defective filter media, or otherwise 

repairing the control device. 

(3) Sealing off a defective control device by routing air 

to other control devices 

(4) Shutting down the process producing the particulate 

emissions. 

(h) Baghouses followed by a wet electrostatic precipitator 

used as a secondary control device for any source subject to the 
Page 169 of 192 

lead emission standards in §63.543(a) or (b), are exempt from 

the requirement to be equipped with a bag leak detection system. 

(i) If you use a wet scrubber to control particulate matter 

and metal hazardous air pollutant emissions from a process vent 

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) or 

(b). 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. 

(j) You must comply with the requirements specified in 

paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(4) of this section to demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the total hydrocarbons and dioxins 

and furans emissions standards. During periods of startup and 

shutdown, the requirements of paragraph (j)(4) of this section 

do not apply. Instead, you must demonstrate compliance with the 

standard for total hydrocarbon by meeting the requirements of 

§63.543(l). 

(1) Continuous temperature monitoring. You must install, 

calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate a device to 
Page 170 of 192 

monitor and record the temperature of the afterburner or furnace 

exhaust streams consistent with the requirements for continuous 

monitoring systems in §63.8. 

(2) Prior to or in conjunction with the initial performance 

or compliance test to determine compliance with §63.543(c), 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 (j)(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 (j)(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-
Page 171 of 192 

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 

°Celsius (50 °Fahrenheit) below the average established in 

paragraph (j)(3) of this section. 

(k) You must install, operate, and maintain a digital 

differential pressure monitoring system to continuously monitor 

each total enclosure as described in paragraphs (k)(1) through 

(k)(5) 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. 
Page 172 of 192 

(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 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 

millimeters mercury (0.005 to 0.11 inches of water) with a 

minimum accuracy of plus or minus 0.001 millimeters of 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. 
Page 173 of 192 

(l) Except as provided in paragraphs (l)(2) or (l)(3) of 

this section, all new or reconstructed sources subject to the 

requirements under §63.543 must install, calibrate, maintain, 

and operate a CEMS for measuring lead emissions. In addition to 

the General Provisions requirements for CEMS in §63.8(c) that 

are referenced in Table 1 to this subpart, you must comply with 

the requirements for CEMS specified in paragraph (m) of this 

section. 

(1) Sources subject to the emissions limits for lead 

compounds under §63.543(b) must install a CEMS for measuring 

lead emissions within 180 days of promulgation by the EPA of 

performance specifications for lead CEMS. 

(2) Prior to 180 days after the EPA promulgates performance 

specifications for CEMS used to measure lead concentrations, you 

must use the procedure described in §63.543(g)(1) to determine 

compliance. 

(3) Vents from control devices that serve only to control 

emissions from buildings containing lead bearing materials are 

exempt from the requirement to install a CEMS for measuring lead 

emissions. 

(m) If a CEMS is used to measure lead emissions, you must 

install a continuous emissions 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 
Page 174 of 192 

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 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 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 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 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 
Page 175 of 192 

or quality control activities including, as applicable, 

calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments. 

(5) If you have a CEMS to measure lead emissions, you must 

calculate the average lead concentration and flow rate monthly 

to determine compliance with §63.543(a). 

(6) When the continuous emissions 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. Electronic notifications are encouraged 

if suitable for the specific case (e.g., by electronic media 

such as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy), and when 

required by this subpart. 

(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 
Page 176 of 192 

approval of these plans and procedures. You must submit this 

notification no later than [INSERT THE DATE ONE YEAR AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. For 

sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after 

[INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS 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 [INSERT THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THIS 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 THE 

DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 

you must submit this notification no later than [INSERT THE DATE 

ONE YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF THIS 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 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 if 

suitable for the specific case (e.g., by electronic media such 
Page 177 of 192 

as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy), and when required by 

this subpart. 

(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)(13) 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). 
Page 178 of 192 

(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(i). 

(5) Electronic records of the output from the continuous 

temperature monitor required in §63.548(j)(1), and an 

identification of periods when the 3-hour average temperature 

fell below the minimum established under §63.548(j)(4), and an 

explanation of the corrective actions taken. 

(6) Electronic records of the continuous pressure monitors 

for total enclosures required in §63.548(k), and an 

identification of periods when the pressure was not maintained 

as required in §63.544(c)(1). 

(7) Records of any time periods power was lost to the 

continuous pressure monitors for total enclosures required in 

§63.548(k) and records of loss of power to the air handling 

system maintaining negative pressure on total enclosures. 

(8) Records of the inspections of facility enclosures 

required in §63.544(d). 

(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. 
Page 179 of 192 

(10) Electronic records of the output of any CEMS installed 

to monitor lead emissions meeting the requirements of 

§63.548(m). 

(11) Records of the occurrence and duration of each 

malfunction of operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air 

pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment. 

(12) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction 

to minimize emissions in accordance with §63.543(k), including 

corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air 

pollution control and monitoring equipment to its normal or 

usual manner of operation. 

(13) Records of any periods of startup or shutdown of a 

furnace and actions taken to minimize emissions during that 

period in accordance with §63.543(l). 

(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. 
Page 180 of 192 

(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), except during the first year when the 

concentration is calculated using the method described in 

§63.543(a)(2). 

(2) Records of the concentration of total hydrocarbon and 

dioxins and furans in each process vent that has established 

limits for total hydrocarbon and dioxins and furans as required 

in §63.543(c). 

(3) Records of all periods when monitoring using a CEMS for 

lead or total hydrocarbon was not in compliance with applicable 

limits. 

(4) Records of all alarms from the bag leak detection 

system specified in §63.548. 

(5) A description of the procedures taken following each 

bag leak detection system alarm pursuant to §63.548(f)(1) and 

(2). 

(6) A summary of the records maintained as part of the 

practices described in the standard operating procedures manual 
Page 181 of 192 

for baghouses required under §63.548(a), including an 

explanation of the periods when the procedures were not followed 

and the corrective actions taken. 

(7) 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(i), and an explanation of the corrective actions taken. 

(8) Records of the temperature monitor output, in 3-hour 

block averages, for those periods when the temperature monitored 

pursuant to §63.548(j) fell below the level established in 

§63.548(j)(4). 

(9) Certification that the plastic separation process for 

battery breakers required in §63.543(m) was operated at all 

times the battery breaker was in service. 

(10) Records of periods when the pressure was not 

maintained as required in §63.544(c) or power was lost to the 

continuous pressure monitoring system as required in §63.548(k). 

(11) 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 during a malfunction 
Page 182 of 192 

of an affected source to minimize emissions in accordance with 

§63.543(k), including actions taken to correct a malfunction. 

(12) 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). 

(13) Records of any periods of startup or shutdown of a 

furnace including an explanation of the periods when the 

procedures required in §63.543(l) were not followed and the 

corrective actions taken. 

(14) You must submit records pursuant to paragraphs 

(e)(14)(i) through (iii) of this section below. 

(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 
Page 183 of 192 

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 paragraph (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 paragraph 

(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 
Page 184 of 192 

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 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. 
Page 185 of 192 

§63.552 Affirmative Defense to Civil Penalties 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. 
Page 186 of 192 

(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. 
Page 187 of 192 

(9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the 

purpose of which is 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 
Page 188 of 192 

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(k) 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(j) 

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(k) 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 
Page 189 of 192 

Reference 

Applies to 

subpart X Comment 

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

hrough (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(e)(11) 

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 
Page 190 of 192 

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...a

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 

(new and existing) 

20 ppmv 0.50 ng/dscm 

Collocated blast and 

reverberatory furnace 

when the 

Reverberatory furnace 

is not operating 

(existing)for units 

that comments 

construction or 

reconstruction before 

June 9, 1994

360 ppmv 170 ng/dscm 

Collocated blast and 

reverberatory furnace 

when the 

reverberatory furnace 

is not operating for 

units that commence 

construction or 

reconstruction after 

June 9, 1994 

70 ppmv 170 ng/dscm 

Blast furnace that 

commence construction 

or reconstruction 

before June 9, 1994 

360 ppmv 170 ng/dscm 

Blast furnaces that 

commence construction 

or reconstruction 

after June 9, 1994 

70 ppmv 170 ng/dscm 

Blast furnaces that 

commence construction 

or reconstruction 

after May 19, 2011 

70 ppmv 10 ng/dscm 

Reverberatory and 12 ppmv 0.20 ng/dscm 
Page 191 of 192 

For vents from these 

processes... 

You must meet the following emissions 

limits...a

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

electric furnace that 

commence construction 

or reconstruction 

before May 19, 2011

Reverberatory and 

electric furnace that 

commence construction 

or reconstruction 

after May 19, 2011 

12 ppmv 0.10 ng/dscm 

aThere are no standards for dioxins and furans during periods of 

startup and shutdown. 

Table 3 to Subpart X of Part 63 – Toxic Equivalency Factors 

Dioxin/furan congener Toxic equivalency factor 

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzop-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 
Page 192 of 192 

Dioxin/furan congener Toxic equivalency factor 

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 
6560-50-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344; FRL-XXXX-X] 

RIN 2060–AQ68 

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Secondary Lead Smelting 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology 

review conducted for the Secondary Lead Smelting source category 

regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants. These final amendments include revisions to the 

emissions limits for lead compounds; revisions to the standards 

for fugitive emissions; the addition of total hydrocarbon and 

dioxin and furan emissions limits for reverberatory and electric 

furnaces; the addition of a work practice standard for mercury 

emissions; the modification and addition of testing and 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements; related 

notifications; and revisions to the regulatory provisions 

related to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction. 

DATES: This final action is effective on [INSERT THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 2 of 185 

incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the 

rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of 

[INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action 

under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344. All documents in the 

docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. 

Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., confidential business information (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 form. Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket 

Center, EPA West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of 

operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time 

(EST), Monday through Friday. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number 

for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 

566–1742. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 3 of 185 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final 

action, contact Mr. Nathan Topham, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541–0483; fax number: (919) 541-

3207; and email address: topham.nathan@epa.gov. For additional 

contact information, see the following SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 

section. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For specific information regarding 

the risk assessment and exposure modeling methodology, contact 

Dr. Michael Stewart, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Air Toxics 

Assessment Group (C504–06), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: 

(919) 541–7524; fax number: (919) 541–0840; and email address: 

stewart.michael@epa.gov. For information about the applicability 

of this NESHAP to a particular entity, contact the appropriate 

person listed in Table 1 to this preamble.

Table 1. List of EPA Contacts for the NESHAP Addressed in This 

Action 

NESHAP for: OECA Contacta

OAQPS Contactb

Secondary Lead 

Smelting 

Maria Malave 

(202) 564-7027 

malave.maria@epa.gov

Nathan Topham 

(919) 541-0483 

topham.nathan@epa.gov

a EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. 

b EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 4 of 185 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and 

abbreviations are used in this document. 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI confidential business information 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEMS continuous emission monitoring system 

CPMS continuous parameter monitoring system 

D/F dioxins and furans 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

HAP hazardous air pollutants 

HQ hazard quotient 

ICR information collection request 

lbs/yr pounds per year 

MACT maximum achievable control technology 

MIR maximum individual risk 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants 

ng/dscm nanograms per dry standard cubic meter 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

OP Office of Policy 

ppbv parts per billion by volume 

ppbw parts per billion by weight 

ppmv parts per million by volume 

ppmw parts per million by weight 

REL recommended exposure limit 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

RIN Regulatory Information Number 

RTR Risk and Technology Review 

SRF short rotary furnace 

TEF toxic equivalency factor 

TEQ toxic equivalency quotient 

THC total hydrocarbons 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

UPL upper prediction limit 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 5 of 185 

WWW World Wide Web 

Background Information Document. On May 19, 2011 (76 FR 

29032), the EPA proposed revisions to the Secondary Lead 

Smelting NESHAP based on evaluations performed by the EPA in 

order to conduct our risk and technology review. In this action, 

we are finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. Some of 

the significant comments and our responses are summarized in 

this preamble. A summary of the public comments on the proposal 

not presented in the preamble, and the EPA’s responses to those 

comments, is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344. A 

tracked changes version of the regulatory language that 

incorporates the changes in this action is available in the 

docket.

Organization of This Document. The following outline is 

provided to aid in locating information in the preamble. 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What is the affected source? 

C. Where can I get a copy of this document? 

D. Judicial Review 

II. Background 

III. Summary of the Final Rule 

A. What are the final rule amendments for the Secondary Lead 

Smelting source category? 

B. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards? 

C. What are the requirements for submission of performance test 

data to the EPA? 

IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 6 of 185 

A. Changes to the Risk Assessment Performed Under CAA Section 

112(f) 

B. Changes to the Technology Review Performed Under CAA Section 

112(d)(6) 

C. Other Changes Since Proposal 

V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses 

A. Use of Lead Primary NAAQS as a Measure of Acceptability of 

Risk for Public Health 

B. Total Enclosure Requirements 

C. Work Practice Standard Requirements 

D. Emission Standards for Organic HAP from Rotary Furnaces 

E. The EPA’s Risk Assessment Supporting the Proposed Rule 

F. Miscellaneous Changes to the Regulatory Text 

G. Emission Testing Methods and Frequency 

H. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected facilities? 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

E. What are the benefits? 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Orders 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 

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 

K. Congressional Review Act 

I. General Information 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 7 of 185 

A. Does this action apply to me?

Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially 

regulated by this action are shown in Table 2 of this preamble. 

Table 2. NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected By 

This Final Action 

NESHAP and Source Category 

NAICSa Code MACTb

Code

Secondary Lead Smelting 331492 0205 

a North American Industry Classification System. 

b Maximum Achievable Control Technology. 

Table 2 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, 

but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities 

likely to be affected by the final action for the source 

category listed. To determine whether your facility would be 

affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in the 

appropriate NESHAP. As defined in the source category listing 

report published by the 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.1 For clarification purposes, all reference to lead 

emissions in this preamble means “lead compounds” (which is a 

hazardous air pollutant) and all reference to lead production 

 

1 USEPA. Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List – 

Final Report, USEPA/OAQPS, EPA-450/3-91-030, July, 1992. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 8 of 185 

means elemental lead (which is not a hazardous air pollutant) as 

provided under CAA section 112(b)(7). 

If you have any questions regarding the applicability of 

any aspect of this NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person 

listed in Table 1 of this preamble in the preceding FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. What is the affected source?

The final rule applies to owners and operators of secondary 

lead smelters. The affected source for this subpart is any of 

the following sources at a secondary lead smelter: blast, 

reverberatory, rotary, and electric furnaces; refining kettles; 

agglomerating furnaces; dryers; process fugitive emissions 

sources; buildings containing lead bearing materials; and 

fugitive dust sources. A new affected source is any affected 

source at a secondary lead smelting facility of which the 

construction or reconstruction commenced after May 19, 2011. If 

components of an existing affected source are replaced such that 

the replacement meets the definition of reconstruction in 40 CFR 

63.2 and the reconstruction commenced on or after May 19, 2011, 

then the existing source becomes a reconstructed source and is 

subject to the relevant standards for a new affected source. The 

reconstructed source must comply with the requirements for a new 

affected source upon initial startup of the reconstructed 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 9 of 185 

source, or by [INSERT THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 

whichever is later. 

C. Where can I get a copy of this document?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic 

copy of this final action will also be available on the World 

Wide Web through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 

Following signature, a copy of the final action will be posted 

on the TTN’s policy and guidance page for newly proposed and 

promulgated rules at the following address: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/new.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 and 

other data that were used as inputs to the risk assessments. 

D. Judicial Review

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final 

action is available only by filing a petition for review in the 

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit by [INSERT THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 10 of 185 

PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Under 

CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this 

final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or 

criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the 

requirements. 

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that 

“[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised 

with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment 

(including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial 

review.” This section also provides a mechanism for us to 

convene a proceeding for reconsideration, “[i]f the person 

raising an objection can demonstrate to the EPA that it was 

impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for 

public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after 

the period for public comment (but within the time specified for 

judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance 

to the outcome of the rule.” Any person seeking to make such a 

demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration 

to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel 

Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, 

with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR 

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General 

Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 11 of 185 

Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, 

Washington, DC 20460. 

II. Background 

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 the EPA has 

identified categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAP 

listed in CAA section 112(b), section 112(d) calls for us to 

promulgate NESHAP for those sources. “Major sources” are those 

that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a 

rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any 

combination of HAP. For major sources, these technology-based 

standards must reflect the maximum degree of emission 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. 

For MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 

stringency requirements, which are referred to as floor 

requirements and may not be based on cost considerations. See 

CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be 

less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in 

practice by the best controlled similar source. The MACT 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 12 of 185 

standards for existing sources can be less stringent than floors 

for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the 

average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 

percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or 

the best-performing five sources for categories or subcategories 

with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT, we must also 

consider control options that are more stringent than the floor, 

under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish standards more 

stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of the cost 

of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality 

health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. In 

promulgating MACT standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs us to 

consider the application of measures, processes, methods, 

systems, or techniques that reduce the volume of or eliminate 

HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of 

materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes 

to eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when 

released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions 

point; and/or are design, equipment, work practice, or 

operational standards. 

In the second stage of the regulatory process, we undertake 

two different analyses, as required by the CAA: section 

112(d)(6) of the CAA calls for us to review these technology-
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 13 of 185 

based standards and to revise them “as necessary (taking into 

account developments in practices, processes, and control 

technologies)” no less frequently than every 8 years; and within 

8 years after promulgation of the technology standards, CAA 

section 112(f) calls for us to evaluate the risk to public 

health remaining after application of the technology-based 

standards and to revise the standards, if necessary, to provide 

an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to 

prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and 

other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. In 

doing so, the EPA may adopt standards equal to existing MACT 

standards if the EPA determines that the existing standards are 

sufficiently protective. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. 

Cir. 2008). 

On May 19, 2011, the EPA published a proposed rule in the 

Federal Register for the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP, 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart X that took into consideration the residual 

risk and technology review (RTR) analyses. Today’s action 

provides the EPA’s final determinations pursuant to the RTR 

provisions of CAA section 112 for the Secondary Lead Smelting 

source category, and also promulgates first-time standards under 

section 112 (d)(2) (MACT) for certain hazardous air pollutants 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 14 of 185 

emitted by secondary lead smelters. Specifically, we are taking 

the following actions: 

• Revising some requirements of the NESHAP related to control 

of metal HAP emissions based on our risk assessment and 

technology reviews. 

• Finalizing first-time total hydrocarbon (THC) and dioxin 

and furan (D/F) emissions limits and a plastic separation 

work practice standard to prevent dioxin formation. 

• Finalizing work practice standards for mercury. 

• Revising the requirements in the NESHAP related to 

emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction (SSM). 

• Incorporating the use of plain language into the rule. 

• Addressing technical and editorial corrections in the rule. 

III. Summary of the Final Rule 

A. What are the final rule amendments for the Secondary Lead 

Smelting source category?

EPA promulgated the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Secondary Lead Smelting on 

June 13, 1997 (62 FR 32216). The standards are codified at 40 

CFR part 63, subpart X. The secondary lead smelting industry 

consists of facilities that recycle lead-bearing scrap material, 

typically lead acid batteries, into elemental lead or lead 

alloys. The source category covered by this MACT standard 

currently includes 16 facilities, including one facility that is 

not currently operating and one facility that is in the process 

of being constructed. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 15 of 185 

This section describes the final amendments to the 

secondary lead smelting NESHAP. These revisions include changes 

to the stack and fugitive metal HAP emission standards, the 

addition of new THC and D/F emission limits, the addition of a 

work practice standard to separate plastics from automotive 

batteries to prevent dioxin emissions, the addition of work 

practice standards to minimize mercury emissions, and changes to 

the requirements that apply during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction. In addition to these changes described below, 

we are making minor changes to the regulatory text to correct 

editorial errors and to make plain language revisions. We have 

evaluated the cost, emissions reductions, energy implications 

and cost effectiveness of all of the standards being promulgated 

in this final rule and have determined that these measures are 

cost effective, technically feasible and will provide the public 

with an ample margin of safety from exposure to emissions from 

the secondary lead smelter source category. See Cost Impacts of 

the Revised NESHAP for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source 

Category, which is available in the docket, for information on 

the costs and cost effectiveness of each of the standards being 

promulgated in this final rule. 

1. Stack and Fugitive Metal HAP Emission Standards
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 16 of 185 

For the reasons provided in Section IV.A of this preamble 

and in the support documents in the docket, we have determined 

that the risks associated with emissions from this source 

category are unacceptable primarily due to fugitive emissions of 

lead. We have further determined that there have been 

developments in practices, processes, and control technologies 

that warrant revisions to the MACT standard (i.e. the standards 

promulgated pursuant to section 112 (d)(2) and (3)) for this 

source category. Therefore, to satisfy the requirements of CAA 

sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f), we are revising the MACT standard 

to include: 

• A facility-wide, flow-weighted average lead2 emissions 

limit from stacks of 0.20 mg/dscm and an individual stack 

lead emissions limit of 1.0 mg/dscm for each stack at 

existing sources. For new sources, a lead emissions limit 

of 0.20 mg/dscm applies to each individual stack at a 

modified or "greenfield" new facility. 

• A requirement for the facility to operate sources of 

fugitive lead emissions within total enclosures that are 

maintained under negative pressure and vented to a control 

device. These sources of fugitive emissions include the 

smelting furnaces, smelting furnace charging areas, lead 

taps, slag taps, molds during tapping, battery breakers, 

refining kettles, casting areas, dryers, material handling 

areas, and areas where dust from fabric filters, sweepings 

or used fabric filters are processed. The facilities are 

also required to adopt a list of specified work practice 

standards to minimize fugitive emissions. 

2. Organic HAP Emissions Standards

 

2 Throughout this preamble, all references to lead emissions means lead 

compounds as listed by Congress at section 112 (b)(1) of the Act. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 17 of 185 

To satisfy CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3), we are 

also revising the MACT standard to include first-time D/F and 

THC emission limits (with THC serving as a surrogate for nondioxin organic HAP). These emission limits are summarized in 

Table 3 of this preamble. 

Table 3. Summary of new THC and D/F emission limits. 

Source Type 

D/F Emission 

Limita

THC Emission 

Limitb

New and Existing Collocated 

Blast and Reverberatory Furnaces

0.50 20c

Existing Blast Furnaces 170 360c

New Blast Furnaces 10 70c

New and Existing Reverberatory 

and Electric Furnaces 

1.0 12 

a ng/dscm on a TEQ basis, corrected to 7% O2

b ppmv as propane, corrected to 4% CO2

c Emission limit is unchanged from 1997 NESHAP 

3. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the 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 (D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. 

denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (2010). Specifically, the Court vacated 

the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 

63.6(h)(1), that was part of a regulation, commonly referred to 

as the “General Provisions Rule,” that the EPA promulgated under 

CAA section 112. When incorporated into CAA section 112(d) 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 18 of 185 

regulations for specific source categories, these two provisions 

exempted sources from the requirement to comply with the 

otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standard during 

periods of SSM. 

We have eliminated the SSM exemption for secondary lead 

smelting facilities in this rule. Consistent with Sierra Club v. 

EPA, the EPA has established standards in this rule for all 

periods of operation. We have also revised Table 1 to subpart X 

(the General Provisions table) in several respects. For example, 

we have eliminated that incorporation of the General Provisions’ 

requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We have also 

eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting that 

related to the SSM exemption. The EPA has attempted to ensure 

that we have not included in the regulatory language any 

provisions that are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in 

the absence of the SSM exemption. 

In establishing the standards in this rule, the EPA has 

taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the 

reasons explained below, has established different standards for 

non-dioxin organic HAP during those periods. 

Information on periods of startup and shutdown in the 

industry indicate that lead emissions during these periods do 

not increase (consistent with our engineering judgment that lead 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 19 of 185 

emissions would not increase during these periods because leadbearing feed is not being smelted during these periods). 

Furthermore, all lead-emitting processes are controlled by 

either control devices or work practices and these controls 

would not typically be affected by startup or shutdown. 

Therefore, the EPA is not adopting separate lead-emission 

standards for periods of startup and shutdown.3 

The EPA has revised this final rule to require sources to 

meet a work practice standard that requires the development of 

standard operating procedures designed to minimize emissions of 

THC for each start-up and shutdown scenario anticipated for all 

units subject to THC limits. Temperature monitoring is the 

metric used to determine continuous compliance with emission 

standards for THC. This metric is inappropriate as a measure of 

the destruction efficiency of these organic pollutants during 

periods of startup and shutdown. 

The EPA is not including a standard for dioxins and furans 

during periods of startup and shutdown. This is because dioxins 

and furans will not be emitted during those periods. During 

startup and shutdown, scrap feed materials (including 

chlorinated plastics and flame retardants) that contain the 

 

3 Since startup and shutdown refers to the smelting process, and not to 

ancillary management activities, there are no startup and shutdown standards 

for process fugitive emissions since startup and shutdown do not occur for 

the activities generating such emissions. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 20 of 185 

precursors needed for dioxin formation are not introduced into 

the smelter4 so there are no conditions that could give rise to 

dioxin and furan emissions. 

The EPA determined that it is not technically and 

economically feasible for units subject to THC limits to perform 

stack testing for this pollutant during periods of startup and 

shutdown due to technical and economic impracticality associated 

with testing secondary lead smelting furnaces during these 

periods. The furnaces are heated during periods of startup 

through slow feeding of natural gas and small amounts of coke, 

with no lead acid batteries fed to the furnace during these 

periods. Test crews would have to be on-site prior to a period 

of startup or shutdown occurring and may need to break up a 

single test over multiple startups or shutdowns, the length of 

which could vary depending on the type of secondary lead 

smelting furnace being tested, that would happen infrequently to 

gather enough data to complete a three-run test. See also 

section V.G of this preamble discussing these standards further. 

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, 

 

4 “Shutdown” is defined as a period “when no lead bearing materials are being 

fed to the furnace and smelting operations have ceased...”. Section 63.542 

(definition of “shutdown”). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 21 of 185 

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). The 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 

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 emission limitation “achieved” 

by the best performing 12 percent of sources in the category. 

There is nothing in section 112 that directs the agency to 

consider malfunctions in determining the level “achieved” by the 

best performing or best controlled sources when setting emission 

standards. Moreover, while the EPA accounts for variability in 

setting emissions standards consistent with the section 112 case 

law, nothing in that case law requires the agency to consider 

malfunctions as part of that analysis. Section 112 uses the 

concept of “best controlled” and “best performing” unit in 

defining the level of stringency that section 112 performance 

standards must meet. Applying the concept of “best controlled” 

or “best performing” to a unit that is malfunctioning presents 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 22 of 185 

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 (D.C.Cir. 1999) (EPA 

typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of datagathering 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 (D.C. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 23 of 185 

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 non-malfunctioning 

source. The EPA’s approach to malfunctions is consistent with 

CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the 

statute. In section 3.2.1 of the separate response to comment 

document, we respond to comments that emissions during 

malfunctions should be accounted for in assessing risk pursuant 

to CAA section 112 (f)(2). 

In the event that a source fails to comply with the 

applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the 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. The 

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). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 24 of 185 

Finally, the 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 

emission standard. (See, e.g., State Implementation Plans:

Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions During Malfunctions, 

Startup, and Shutdown (September 20, 1999); Policy on Excess 

Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and 

Malfunctions (February 15, 1983).) The EPA is therefore adding 

to the final rule an affirmative defense to civil penalties for 

exceedances of emission 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 have added 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 

63.552 (see 40 CFR 22.24). The criteria ensure that the 

affirmative defense is available only where the event that 

causes an exceedance of the emission limit meets the narrow 

definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 25 of 185 

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 63.552 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 emission 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 22.27). 

The EPA is including an affirmative defense in the final 

rule in an attempt to balance a tension, inherent in many types 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 26 of 185 

of air regulations, to ensure adequate compliance while 

simultaneously recognizing that despite the most diligent of 

efforts, emission limits may be exceeded under circumstances 

beyond the control of the source. The EPA must establish 

emission standards that “limit the quantity, rate, or 

concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous 

basis” 42 U.S.C. §7602(k)(defining “emission limitation and 

emission standard”). See generally Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 

1019, 1021 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Thus, the EPA is required to ensure 

that section 112 emissions limitations are continuous. The 

affirmative defense for malfunction events meets this 

requirement by ensuring that even where there is a malfunction, 

the emission limitation is still enforceable through injunctive 

relief. While “continuous” limitations, on the one hand, are 

required, there is also case law indicating that in many 

situations it is appropriate for the EPA to account for the 

practical realities of technology. For example, in Essex 

Chemical v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the 

D.C. Circuit acknowledged that in setting standards under CAA 

section 111 “variant provisions” such as provisions allowing for 

upsets during startup, shutdown and equipment malfunction 

“appear necessary to preserve the reasonableness of the 

standards as a whole and that the record does not support the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 27 of 185 

‘never to be exceeded’ standard currently in force.” See also,

Portland Cement Association v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 

(D.C.Cir. 1973). Though intervening caselaw such as Sierra Club 

v. EPA and the CAA 1977 amendments undermine the relevance of 

these cases today, they support the EPA’s view that a system 

that incorporates some level of flexibility is reasonable. The 

affirmative defense simply provides for a defense to civil 

penalties for excess emissions that are proven to be beyond the 

control of the source. By incorporating an affirmative defense, 

the EPA has formalized its approach to upset events. In a Clean 

Water Act setting, the Ninth Circuit required this type of 

formalized approach when regulating “upsets beyond the control 

of the permit holder.” Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 

1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977). But see Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 

F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal 

approach is adequate). The affirmative defense provisions give 

the EPA the flexibility to both ensure that its emission 

limitations are “continuous” as required by 42 U.S.C. §7602(k) 

and account for unplanned upsets and thus support the 

reasonableness of the standard as a whole. 

B. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in 

this action are effective on [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 28 of 185 

THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. For the MACT standards 

being addressed in this action, the compliance date for the 

revised SSM requirements is the effective date of the standards, 

[INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. The compliance date for existing sources for 

the revised stack lead emission limit and the revised fugitive 

emission standard including the requirement to adopt work 

practice standards and install total enclosures for specified 

process fugitive emission sources, and for the new D/F and THC 

emission limits, is 2 years from the effective date of the 

standard, [INSERT THE DATE 2 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION 

OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. New sources must 

comply with the all of the standards immediately upon the 

effective date of the standard, [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION 

OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or upon startup, 

whichever is later. 

C. What are the requirements for submission of performance test 

data to the EPA?

In this action, as a step to increase the ease and 

efficiency of data submittal and improve data accessibility, the 

EPA is requiring the electronic submittal of select performance 

test data. Specifically, the EPA is requiring owners and 

operators of secondary lead smelting facilities to submit 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 29 of 185 

electronic copies of performance test reports required under 40 

CFR 63.543 to the EPA’s WebFIRE database. The WebFIRE database 

was constructed to store performance test data for use in 

developing emission factors. A description of the WebFIRE 

database is available at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.

The 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, 

emission factor development, and annual emission rate 

determinations. In conducting these required reviews, the EPA 

has found it ineffective and time consuming, not only for us, 

but also for other regulatory agencies and for 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. 

One major advantage of submitting performance test data 

through the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) is a standardized 

method to compile and store much of the documentation required 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 30 of 185 

to be reported by this rule. Another advantage is that the ERT 

clearly states what testing information would be required. 

Another important benefit of submitting these data to the 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 the 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 results in 

a reduced burden on both affected facilities (in terms of 

reduced labor to respond to data collection requests) and the 

EPA (in terms of preparing and distributing data collection 

requests and assessing the results). 

State, local, and tribal agencies can also benefit from a 

more streamlined and accurate review of electronic data 

submitted to them. The ERT allows for an electronic review 

process rather than a manual data assessment making review and 

evaluation of the data and calculations easier and more 

efficient. 

As mentioned above, data entry will be through an 

electronic emissions test report structure called the Electronic 

Reporting Tool or ERT. The ERT will generate an electronic 

report which will be submitted using the Compliance and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 31 of 185 

Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The submitted report 

is transmitted through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) 

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/index.html and 

CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX website (www.epa.gov/cdx). 

The requirement to submit performance test data 

electronically to the EPA does not create any additional 

performance testing and would apply only to those performance 

tests conducted using test methods that are 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/index.html. We 

believe that industry will benefit from this new electronic data 

submittal requirement. Having these data, the EPA will be able 

to develop improved emission factors, make fewer information 

requests, and promulgate better regulations. The information to 

be reported is already required for the existing test methods 

and is necessary to evaluate the conformance to the test method. 

Finally, another benefit of submitting data to WebFIRE 

electronically is that these data will greatly improve the 

overall quality of the existing and new emission factors by 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 32 of 185 

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 

emission factors are outdated or not representative of a 

particular source category. With timely receipt and 

incorporation of data from most performance tests, the EPA will 

be able to ensure that emission 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 control activities, having 

an electronic database populated with performance test data will 

save industry, state, local, tribal agencies, and the EPA 

significant time, money, and effort while improving the quality 

of emission inventories and, as a result, air quality 

regulations. 

IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal 

A. Changes to the Risk Assessment Performed Under CAA Section 

112(f)

In the proposed rulemaking, the EPA presented a number of 

options for additional controls on the Secondary Lead Smelting 

source category. In that notice, the EPA solicited comment on 

the proposed options as well as on all of the analyses and data 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 33 of 185 

upon which the options were based, including the risk methods 

and results presented in the draft document: Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category. 

During the public comment period for the proposed rule, 

several parties submitted comments and suggested revisions 

regarding the emissions used for the risk assessment, and also 

submitted other information relevant to the risk assessment (see 

docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344 for all public comments). After 

considering these submissions, the EPA revised its analyses. 

Revised methods, model inputs, and risk results are presented in 

the report: Residual Risk Assessment for the Secondary Lead 

Smelting Source Category, which is available in the docket for 

this rulemaking. In addition, a discussion of the updated 

emissions information used in the final risk assessment can be 

found in the memorandum titled: Development of the RTR Emissions 

Dataset for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, which 

can also be found in the docket for this rulemaking. 

Considering the updated emissions information received 

during the public comment period for the proposed rule, our 

final risk analysis estimates that the primary NAAQS for lead, 

used in this rule as a measure of acceptable risk from air-borne 

lead emissions, could be exceeded at 9 of 15 facilities based on 

actual emissions, largely due to fugitive dust emissions (see 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 34 of 185 

Table 4). At these 9 facilities, fugitive dust emissions account 

for about 94 to 99 percent of the estimated 3-month maximum lead 

concentrations.5 Our analysis also estimates that approximately 

200 people live in areas around four of these facilities where 

3-month maximum lead concentrations are estimated to be above 

the lead NAAQS. Allowable stack emissions of lead also resulted 

in modeled concentrations exceeding the NAAQS, with modeled lead 

ambient air levels as high as 8 and 10 times above the NAAQS. 

This analysis also estimates that 3-month maximum lead 

concentrations from a secondary lead smelter could be up to 

about 20 times the NAAQS for lead based on actual emissions. The 

maximum lead exceedance at a populated census block centroid was 

between three and four times the NAAQS. There is some 

uncertainty associated with the fugitive emissions estimates 

that is derived from the uncertainty involved in determining the 

housekeeping and enclosure factors. This uncertainty could have 

important impacts on the estimated fugitive emissions and the 

resulting modeled ambient concentration. For example, if the 

level of control assumed through the use of full enclosure and 

robust housekeeping were both increased from 75% to 85%, the 

estimated fugitive emissions at the RSR facility would be about 

 

5 For all facilities, the percent contribution of fugitive and stack 

emissions to modeled ambient lead concentrations has only been estimated for 

the model receptor representing the site of maximum lead impact. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 35 of 185 

43 pounds (roughly three times lower than those estimated in 

this rule). If the level of control assumed through the use of 

full enclosure and robust housekeeping were both decreased from 

75% to 65%, the estimated fugitive emissions at the RSR facility 

would be about 240 pounds (roughly two times higher than those 

estimated in this rule). As shown in this example, changing the 

estimates of control efficiency achieved with full enclosure and 

robust housekeeping practices by 10% each could impact the 

resulting fugitive emission estimates for facilities employing 

that level of control by two to three times. These estimates 

could significantly impact the resulting risk estimates since 

most of the impact of lead emissions was due to fugitive dust 

emissions. While there are uncertainties associated with 

estimating fugitive emissions, we conclude that the methodology 

used in this rulemaking provided reasonable estimates of 

fugitive emissions for these sources. For further details, see 

Development of the RTR Emissions Dataset for the Secondary Lead 

Smelting Source Category, available in docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR2011-0344, which describes how we developed these fugitive 

emissions estimates and provides a presentation of our estimates 

compared to estimates submitted via the ICR and estimates 

reported to the TRI. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 36 of 185 

Table 4. Secondary Lead Smelting Facility Modeled Maximum 

Ambient Lead Concentrations Considering Actual Emissionsa 

(rolling 3-month average values) 

Facility Name City State

Highest 

Modeled Lead 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) 

Concentration 

is X times 

the NAAQS 

Doe Run CompanyBuick Mill Boss MO 2.38 20 

Sanders Lead Co. Troy AL 

2.16 10 

Exide 

Corporation Vernon CA 1.14 8 

Battery 

Recycling Co. Arecibo PR 0.76 5 

Gulf Coast 

Recycling, Inc. Tampa FL 0.38 3 

Exide 

TechnologiesCanon Hollow 

Plant 

Forest City MO 

0.47 3 

Gopher Resource 

Corp. Eagan MN 0.35 2 

Frisco Battery 

Recycling Frisco TX 0.23 2 

Exide 

Tech/Reading 

Smelter 

Reading PA 

0.25 2 

Quemetco, Inc. Industry CA 0.17 1 

Exide 

Technologies Muncie IN 0.15 1 

Exide 

Technologies/ B 

R Smelter 

Baton Rouge LA 

0.14 1 

Revere Smelting 

& Refining Corp Middletown NY 0.10 0.7 

Quemetco, Inc. Indianapolis IN 0.07 0.5 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 37 of 185 

Table 4. Secondary Lead Smelting Facility Modeled Maximum 

Ambient Lead Concentrations Considering Actual Emissionsa 

(rolling 3-month average values) 

Facility Name City State

Highest 

Modeled Lead 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) 

Concentration 

is X times 

the NAAQS 

East Penn Mfg. 

Co Inc/Smelter 

Plt 

Lyon Station PA 

0.02 0.1 

aValues of 1 or less in the last column indicate that modeled lead 

concentrations are at or below the NAAQS for lead. 

We also note that there were changes to our cancer, acute, 

and PB-HAP multipathway case study analyses (see section 3.4 of 

the risk assessment document) for non-lead HAP as a result of 

the updated risk assessment performed for the final rule. With 

respect to our updated cancer risk assessment, we estimate that 

the maximum individual risk (MIR) of cancer due to actual 

emissions is 50 in a million predominantly due to fugitive dust 

emissions of arsenic and cadmium as compared to the analysis at 

proposal of risk of 50 in a million but based on a different 

secondary lead facility. Moreover, approximately 700 people were 

estimated to have cancer risks above 10 in a million and 

approximately 80,000 people were estimated to have cancer risks 

above 1 in a million considering all facilities in this source 

category(as compared to the analysis at proposal of 1,500 above 

10 in a million and 128,000 above 1 in a million). In addition, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 38 of 185 

the MIR due to MACT allowable emissions remains 200 in a million 

predominantly from stack emissions of arsenic. The updated 

worst-case acute hazard quotient (HQ) value is 20 at two 

facilities (based on the REL for arsenic; the REL is the only 

available acute health benchmark value for arsenic and all other 

pollutants had HQ values less than or equal to 1), driven by 

both stack and fugitive dust emissions of arsenic (as compared 

to analysis at proposal of an acute HQ value of 30 based on the 

REL for arsenic at one facility driven by emissions from 

stacks). Finally, the risk assessment supporting the final 

rulemaking estimates that the cancer MIR values from both 

multipathway case study analyses (i.e., in Frisco, TX and 

Middletown, NY; see section 3.2 of the final risk assessment 

document) are less than 1 in a million (as compared to an 

estimated multipathway MIR of 30 in a million and less than 1 in 

a million in the Frisco, TX and Middletown, NY multipathway case 

study analyses for the proposed rule). Notably, the reduction in 

multipathway risks resulted from updated emissions information 

received during the public comment period with respect to these 

facilities. 

Taking into account all the results of the final risk 

assessment, and similar to the proposed rulemaking, we conclude 

that risks to public health due to emissions from this source 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 39 of 185 

category are unacceptable. Our conclusion is primarily based on 

risk from exposure to air-borne lead emissions but also 

considers other risk metrics such as cancer and non-cancer risks 

associated with actual and allowable stack emissions of non-lead 

HAPs, especially arsenic and cadmium. As mentioned above, actual 

lead emissions resulted in modeled concentrations of lead above 

the lead NAAQS at 9 of 15 facilities. Thus, we note that 

allowable stack emissions and fugitive emissions of lead and 

other HAP metals must be reduced to assure that lead 

concentrations in ambient air beyond the facility fenceline are 

acceptable – that is, do not exceed the lead NAAQS (the measure 

of risk acceptability for exposure to air-borne lead in this 

rule). The fact that maximum individual cancer risks due to 

actual emissions are above 1 in a million also contributes to 

our determination of unacceptability, but to a lesser extent. 

While the estimated maximum individual cancer risks due to 

actual emissions would, by themselves, not generally lead us to 

a determination that risks are unacceptable, the fact that they 

occur along with the exceedences of the lead primary NAAQS adds 

to our concern about these exposures, and further supports our 

proposed determination that risks are unacceptable. To provide 

acceptable levels of risk with an ample margin of safety, we are 

finalizing the requirement that secondary lead smelting 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 40 of 185 

facilities must operate the following fugitive dust emissions 

sources within total enclosures that must be maintained at 

negative pressure at all times and vented to a control device 

designed to capture lead particulate: smelting furnaces, 

smelting furnace charging areas, lead taps, slag taps, molds 

during tapping, battery breakers, refining kettles, casting 

areas, dryers, material handling areas managing lead bearing 

materials, and areas where dust from fabric filters, sweepings, 

or used fabric filters are processed. As further described in 

Section IV.C of this preamble, based on public comments, we are 

not adopting the proposed alternative to demonstrate compliance 

by monitoring lead at or near the property boundary based on a 

3-month rolling average in lieu of constructing total 

enclosures. (See 76 FR 29056.) We are finalizing the proposed 

requirement for facilities to conduct fugitive emission work 

practices as well as to enclose fugitive emission sources. As 

further described in Section IV.C of this preamble, we are also 

promulgating a revised list of required work practices based on 

a number of comments received regarding the necessity, efficacy, 

and safety of the work practices which the EPA proposed. 

We are also finalizing the proposed requirement limiting 

stack lead emissions to 0.2 mg/dscm as a facility-wide emissions 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 41 of 185 

average and limiting stack lead emissions from any single stack 

to 1.0 mg/dscm. 

After implementation of the controls required in this final 

rule, we estimate that there will be no one living in an area 

exposed to ambient concentrations above the NAAQS and the cancer 

MIR due to actual emissions will decrease from 50 in a million 

to 7 in a million. 

B. Changes to the Technology Review Performed Under CAA Section 

112(d)(6)

Based on the technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6), 

the EPA proposed to change the stack lead emission limits from 

2.0 mg/dscm for any individual stack to a facility-wide, flowweighted average emission limit of 0.20 mg/dscm with a limit of 

1.0 mg/dscm applicable to any individual stack. The proposed 

limit was based on emissions data collected from industry, which 

indicated that well-performing baghouses currently used by much 

of the industry are capable of achieving outlet lead 

concentrations significantly lower than the limit of 2.0 mg/dscm 

adopted in the 1997 MACT standard. We have considered the public 

comments on this issue and are adopting the limits as proposed. 

Under CAA section 112(d)(6), we also proposed a fugitive 

emission standard requiring operation of the following process 

fugitive emission sources in total enclosures that are 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 42 of 185 

maintained under negative pressure at all times and vented to a 

control device: smelting furnaces, smelting furnace charging 

areas, lead taps, slag taps, and molds during charging, battery 

breakers, refining kettles, casting areas, dryers, agglomerating 

furnaces and agglomerating furnace product taps, material 

handling areas for any lead bearing materials, and areas where 

dust from fabric filters, sweepings, or used fabric filters are 

processed. This proposed requirement was based on information 

collected from the industry that indicated that several 

operating facilities currently enclose most or all of their 

process fugitive emission sources, and that the ambient lead 

concentrations near these facilities are significantly lower 

than those facilities that do not have enclosures. We have 

considered the public comments on this issue, and have decided 

to adopt the requirements largely as proposed. This requirement 

is identical to that adopted to eliminate unacceptable risk for 

fugitive emissions pursuant to CAA section 112 (f)(2). However, 

as described in Section IV.C of this preamble, based on public 

comments, we are not adopting the proposed alternative to 

demonstrate compliance by monitoring lead at or near their 

property boundary based on a 3-month rolling average in lieu of 

constructing total enclosures. (See 76 FR 29056.) We are 

finalizing the proposed requirement for facilities to conduct 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 43 of 185 

fugitive emission work practices as well as to enclose fugitive 

emission sources. As further described in Section IV.C of this 

preamble, we are also promulgating a revised list of required 

work practices based on a number of comments received regarding 

the necessity, efficacy, and safety of the work practices which 

the EPA proposed. 

We are also finalizing the requirement limiting stack lead 

emissions to 0.2 mg/dscm as a facility-wide emissions average 

and limiting stack lead emissions from any single stack to 1.0 

mg/dscm as proposed. 

We note that although we have adopted the same standards 

under both CAA sections 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6), these standards 

rest on independent statutory authorities and independent 

rationales. Consequently, these standards remain independent and 

legally severable. 

C. Other Changes Since Proposal

We received over 30 public comments on the proposed rule. 

After considering these comments, we are making the following 

additional changes to the proposal. The rationale for these and 

any other significant changes can be found in this preamble and 

in the comment response document available in the docket. 

1. Stack Emission Limits
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 44 of 185 

• The EPA is not adopting numerical limits for THC and D/F 

emissions from rotary furnaces pending further datagathering and analysis for this furnace type. 

• For units constructed after June 9, 1994, the EPA is adding 

a limit for THC and D/F for collocated blast and 

reverberatory furnaces when the reverberatory furnace is 

not operating, and is amending the D/F limits for blast 

furnaces for units that commenced construction after June 

9, 1994. We also added a THC and D/F new source limit for 

blast furnaces that commence construction or reconstruction 

after May 19, 2011. 

2. Definitions

• Definitions have been added for “affected source” and “new 

source” to clarify when the standards for new sources would 

apply. 

• A definition of “lead-bearing material” has been added to 

the rule to clarify requirements for material handling area 

enclosures and work practices for fugitive emissions. 

• The definition of “material storage and handling” has been 

revised to exclude transfer of raw materials in enclosed 

containers. 

• The definition of “plant roadway” has been revised to 

exclude roadways inside total enclosures. 

• The definition of “process vent” has been revised to 

specify that it includes only vents from lead processing 

equipment and from buildings containing lead bearing 

material. 

• Definitions for “leeward,” “windward,” and “natural draft 

opening” have been added to the rule to clarify the 

differential pressure and monitoring requirements and the 

requirement to maintain an inward flow of air through 

enclosure openings. 

• The definition of “total enclosure” was modified by 

specifically including modified text from 40 CFR 265.1101 

and EPA method 204 “Criteria for and Verification of a 

Permanent or Temporary Total Enclosure” rather than citing 

the reference to the requirements for a hazardous waste 

containment area. We also clarified the requirement for 

total enclosures to be vented to a control device designed 

to capture lead particulates. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 45 of 185 

3. Enclosure Requirements

• The proposed requirement to maintain an in-draft velocity 

of 300 feet per minute at enclosure openings (see 76 FR 

29072) was replaced with a requirement to maintain an 

inward flow of air through all natural draft openings. 

• The proposed requirement for a back-up power source for the 

differential pressure monitors required for the total 

enclosures (see 76 FR 29077) was eliminated, and a 

reporting requirement was added to identify periods when 

the power was lost to the monitoring system. 

• The proposed rule (see 76 FR 29072) has been modified to 

clarify that activities required for inspection of fabric 

filters and maintenance of filters that are in need of 

removal and replacement are not required to be conducted 

inside of total enclosures. 

• Lead ingot product handling, storm water and wastewater 

treatment, intact battery storage areas, and clean battery 

casing plastic handling activities are not subject to the 

total enclosure requirement. 

4. Fugitive Emission Work Practice Requirements

• The proposed maintenance requirements (see 76 FR 29073) 

have been modified to allow emergency repairs of ductwork 

or structure leaks to occur outside of enclosures if the 

time to construct a temporary enclosure would exceed the 

time to make a temporary or permanent repair. The proposed 

rule has been modified to extend the deadline for required 

maintenance and repair on total enclosures to one week 

after identification of any gaps, breaks, separations, leak 

points or other possible routes for emissions of lead to 

the atmosphere. The final rule also clarifies that once an 

item that is not otherwise subject to total enclosure 

requirements has been cleaned, its maintenance is no longer 

subject to the enclosure requirement. 

• The proposed rule has been edited to allow for existing 

control devices to treat the ventilation from temporary 

enclosures constructed for maintenance purposes if the 

device and its permit account for increased airflow and 

emissions for this activity. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 46 of 185 

• The roof washing proposed work practice (see 76 FR 29073) 

has been removed from the list of required fugitive 

emission work practices. 

• The specific proposed water application rate of 0.48 

gallons per square yard (see 76 FR 29073) has been removed 

from the road washing requirement. 

• The proposed battery storage area inspection frequency (see 

76 FR 29073) has been changed from twice per day to once 

per week to maintain consistency with inspection frequency 

required under other regulatory programs. 

• The proposed requirement to collect wash water in a 

container that is not open to the atmosphere (see 76 FR 

29073) has been removed. 

• The proposed rule (see 76 FR 29073) has been revised to 

clarify that lead-bearing dust must be collected and 

transported within closed conveyor systems or in sealed, 

lead-proof containers while other lead bearing material 

must be contained and covered in a manner that prevents 

spillage or dust formation. 

• The proposed requirement for cleaning after an accidental 

release (see 76 FR 29073) has been clarified to include 

only those releases that exceed the CERCLA reportable 

quantity for lead (e.g., 10 pounds). 

5. Testing and monitoring requirements

• The performance testing requirements (see 76 FR 29074) have 

been modified to allow facilities to use EPA Method 12 or 

Method 29 for lead compounds. 

• A provision was added allowing for biannual testing of lead 

compounds and THC for sources that demonstrate 

concentrations that are less than 50 percent of the 

applicable limit. 

• An exemption was provided for THC testing if a facility has 

installed and is using a THC CEMS. 

• The time between D/F testing (see 76 FR 29072) was changed 

from once every 5 years to once every 6 years, in 

anticipation that most facilities would be on a biannual 

testing schedule for lead and THC, and this schedule would 

allow coordination of the two required tests. 

• The conditions for the performance tests (see 76 FR 29072) 

were changed from “under such conditions as the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 47 of 185 

Administrator specifies...” to “maximum representative 

operating conditions for the process”. 

• The EPA also added a provision stating that sources which 

operate a HEPA filter or WESP system downstream of a 

primary particulate (lead) control device are not subject 

to a bag leak detection system (BLDS) requirement. 

6. Other changes 

• A provision was added for sources to develop procedures to 

minimize emissions of THC limits during periods of startup 

and shutdown. 

• We modified the proposed plastic separation work practice 

requirement (see 76 FR 29072) to include only plastic 

battery casing materials from automotive batteries (which 

comprise the vast majority of input plastics). 

• The proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements were 

revised to be consistent with the other changes made to the 

rule. 

A tracked changes version of the regulatory language 

incorporating the changes in this action is available in the 

docket. Additionally, a summary of the public comments that are 

not in the preamble can be found in the comment response 

document available in the docket. 

V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses 

A. Use of Lead Primary NAAQS as a Measure of Acceptability of 

Risk for Public Health

Commenters from both the environmental and industry sectors 

challenged the EPA’s use of the lead primary NAAQS as a measure 

of acceptability of risk in this rule. The EPA disagrees with 

these comments. The EPA has reasonably applied the lead primary 

NAAQS as a measure of evaluating acceptability or 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 48 of 185 

unacceptability of risk from exposure to lead emissions from 

sources in this category. The lead primary NAAQS targets 

protection to children living near sources, such as secondary 

lead smelters, who are exposed at the level of the standard -- 

the population most sensitive to the health impacts of these 

emissions. Moreover, using the lead primary NAAQS to assess 

acceptability of risk does not amount to an impermissible 

implementation of the lead primary NAAQS as industry commenters 

would have it. Full responses to these comments are found in the 

Response to Comment Document for this rulemaking, available in 

docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344. 

B. Total Enclosure Requirements

Comment: Several commenters supported a requirement for 

total enclosures of enumerated sources of fugitive emissions. 

Some of those commenters did not support the alternative that 

would have allowed ambient monitoring in lieu of total 

enclosures. 

According to one commenter, “The purpose of establishing 

emission standards and control technology regulations is to 

reduce, by empirically proven technical means, the release of 

hazardous air pollutants into the atmosphere.” The commenter 

therefore recommended that the EPA require enclosures in all 

instances to limit fugitive emissions. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 49 of 185 

According to another commenter, “The non-cancer and cancer 

risk reductions associated with total enclosures of all lead 

bearing processes to reduce fugitive emissions are clearly 

demonstrated for all facilities in the post control scenario 

contained in the residual risk assessment. These benefits also 

have been observed based on our experience with total enclosures 

that are under negative pressure and vented to air pollution 

controls....The annual geometric mean of lead measured [in ambient 

air near the facility] dropped from a high of 0.71 μg/m3 (1987) 

to 0.06 μg/m3 (1993) after all of the point source and fugitive 

emission controls were in place. The benefits of requiring total 

enclosures as demonstrated by the ambient monitoring results 

were clearly apparent to the Department and surrounding 

community. Based on that experience, we do not support the 

alternative of allowing partial enclosures with an air 

monitoring requirement option in this rulemaking.”

Another commenter stated “We do not support allowing 

partial enclosures with an air monitoring requirement option, 

since the total enclosures have been shown to be extremely 

effective in reducing fugitive emissions of lead and the other 

metal HAPs from these sources.”

One commenter indicated that neither proposed alternative 

(total enclosure or the ambient monitoring alternative) complies 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 50 of 185 

with CAA section 112(d)(6) but did state that “additional health 

risk reductions would occur if a facility used total enclosure.” 

This commenter also stated that the EPA should require total 

enclosures and work practice standards beyond those included in 

the proposed rule to control fugitive dust emissions of arsenic 

and cadmium and achieve reductions in cancer and non-cancer 

risks from these pollutants. 

Alternatively, one commenter disagreed that total enclosure 

is the most effective method to reduce emissions. According to 

the commenter, “Capturing emissions from secondary lead smelting 

sources at the point of emission and controlling such emissions 

through the use of baghouses equipped with secondary HEPA 

filtration systems represents a better alternative to 

constructing and maintaining total enclosures around secondary 

lead smelting sources.”

Response: As explained at 76 FR 29059 in the proposed rule 

and below, the EPA is amending the NESHAP for fugitive emissions 

of lead both because these emissions pose an unacceptable risk 

under CAA section 112(f) and because it is technically 

appropriate and necessary to do so pursuant to section 

112(d)(6). With respect to what changes to adopt, we agree with 

those commenters who argued that total enclosures maintained 

under negative pressure are the most effective means by which to 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 51 of 185 

reduce fugitive emissions. Facilities in this source category 

that implement total enclosures as a means of controlling 

fugitive emissions are able to achieve significantly lower 

ambient lead concentrations near the boundaries of their 

facilities, as clearly demonstrated in the Summary of Ambient 

Lead Monitoring Data Around Secondary Lead Smelting Facilities

document available in docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344. About half 

of the existing facilities currently have such full enclosures, 

and a few other facilities are currently constructing such 

enclosures. The prevalence of total enclosures in the secondary 

lead smelting source category suggests that this measure is cost 

effective and it is clearly technically feasible. There is more 

certainty that fugitive emissions are well controlled through 

the use of total enclosures than would exist with the proposed 

alternative to use fenceline ambient monitoring. The work 

practice standards in the final rule have been revised from 

those proposed to ensure that there are no requirements that 

pose safety hazards, are unnecessary to achieve emission 

reductions, or result in duplicative burden on regulated 

facilities. The work practice standards in the final rule are 

already implemented at some of the facilities. 

Furthermore, we assumed at proposal that total enclosures 

would be required at all facilities regardless of which option 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 52 of 185 

they chose. The facilities that do not operate total enclosures 

are unlikely to achieve fenceline ambient concentrations at or 

below the lead primary NAAQS. The monitoring data just mentioned 

and the ICR responses indicated that the facilities which have 

totally enclosed their processes are generally achieving ambient 

concentrations substantially lower than those which have not 

totally enclosed. Since we based our analysis at proposal on the 

assumption that all facilities would have to construct total 

enclosures and assumed that the rule would impose those costs on 

all sources which have not yet installed total enclosures, our 

cost analysis has already accounted for the cost of total 

enclosure. See 76 FR at 29064 and the cost impacts memo that 

supported the proposed rule (docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0040 

at page 8). The total enclosure requirements in section 63.544 

ensure that process fugitive emissions sources and other 

fugitive dust emissions sources will not generate fugitive 

emissions that escape the facility uncontrolled. The work 

practice standards for process fugitive emissions sources and 

fugitive dust emissions sources in section 63.545 ensure that 

fugitive dust is not generated outside of total enclosures and 

that fugitive dust generated inside total enclosures is not 

carried outside of those enclosures. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 53 of 185 

We note that one commenter’s statements appear to pertain 

to process fugitive emissions from secondary lead smelters that 

are captured by enclosure hoods and vented to a control device. 

We agree that enclosure hoods near sources of process fugitive 

emissions (e.g., lead taps, charging hoppers, etc.) can be an 

effective method to control emissions from these sources. We 

also recognize that these devices are important to minimize 

exposure of workers to lead dust. However, we note that the 

enclosure hoods are not 100 percent effective at controlling 

these emissions, and that process fugitives that are amenable to 

control with hoods are not the only source of fugitive emissions 

from secondary lead processes. We thus disagree that enclosure 

hoods without total enclosures represent a better alternative 

for controlling all fugitive emissions.

Comment: Several commenters objected to requiring 

monitoring of both building pressure differential and the indraft velocity at building openings for the total enclosures and 

stated that the duplicate monitoring requirements are redundant 

and unjustified. The commenters also requested that the EPA 

abandon its proposed specific minimum velocity requirement at 

doorway openings or lower the proposed requirement of 300 feet 

per minute. Two commenters stated that “A number of the existing 

total enclosures in this industry do not meet the proposed 300 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 54 of 185 

feet per minute in-draft velocity requirement, and their 

modification to achieve 300 feet per minute would require 

substantial expenditures.” One commenter stated that much larger 

volumes of air would be exhausted from the smelter buildings and 

that “the greater the volume of air exhausted, the greater the 

emissions of lead. Therefore increasing exhaust volumes above 

current levels could possibly have negative impacts.” The 

commenters requested an exemption from demonstration of 

compliance with the in-draft requirements for access points that 

are normally closed. One commenter requested clarification of 

the use of the terms “leeward” and “windward” in the context of 

the differential pressure monitoring. 

One commenter stated that they have demonstrated that none 

of these total enclosure monitoring requirements and continuous 

monitoring systems are necessary to reduce actual emissions of 

HAP. The commenter recommended continued compliance with the 

original 1997 NESHAP, which requires facilities to demonstrate 

that total enclosures were maintained under constant negative 

pressure by maintaining process enclosure hoods at the 

prescribed face velocities. As an alternative, measurements of 

face velocity at doorways and windows and pressure measurements 

at prescribed intervals would provide a viable monitoring 

option. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 55 of 185 

Response: We agree with the commenters that monitoring of 

both building differential pressure and in-draft velocity at 

building openings is unnecessary. However, we disagree that 

continuous monitoring of differential pressure is overly 

prescriptive. We believe that monitoring of building 

differential pressure is the most accurate means by which to 

ensure that the building is under negative pressure at all 

times. This method provides direct measurements that the 

building is indeed maintained at negative pressure. Some 

commenters stated persuasively that specifying doorway 

velocities could require substantial additional in-draft, which 

could cause strain to building structures, wind chill problems 

for workers, and pilot lights being extinguished. We have 

therefore not adopted the proposed requirement to measure indraft velocity at the openings of the total enclosures but have 

retained the continuous differential pressure monitoring 

requirement. However, we have altered the differential pressure 

requirement from 0.02 mm of mercury to 0.013 mm of mercury to be 

consistent with EPA Method 204’s criteria for verification of a 

permanent or temporary total enclosure. With regard to the 

comment that increased volumes of air exhausted through control 

devices would increase overall emissions, it is unclear to us 

how directing previously uncontrolled fugitive emissions through 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 56 of 185 

a fabric filter would increase the overall emissions from a 

structure.

Comment: Several commenters objected to requiring a back-up 

power source for the differential pressure monitors. According 

to the commenters, during a power outage, the “negative pressure 

would not be maintained and the pressure drop monitors would 

simply be measuring and documenting this known and predictable 

fact.... The same information could be obtained by requiring 

facilities to note periods when power has been lost to the 

ventilation fans such that negative pressure could not be 

maintained.” One commenter recommended requiring an 

uninterruptible power supply for the control device as well as 

the total enclosure monitoring system or removing the current 

requirement. 

Response: We agree with the commenters’ assessment that a 

back-up power source for the building differential pressure 

monitors is not needed. We also agree with the commenters’ 

suggestion to include a recordkeeping provision for power 

outages that occur for the building ventilation systems. The 

regulatory text has been edited accordingly.

Comment: Several commenters objected to the enclosure 

requirement at all areas where fabric filters are handled or 

processed. One commenter stated that “This is impractical in 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 57 of 185 

that all baghouses are not and cannot be located within 

enclosures. Therefore, in the replacement of used bag filters, 

there will always be a point in which the bags must be handled 

in order to get them into a closed container for transport.” Two 

commenters stated that “The first point at which used fabric 

filters are ‘handled’ is upon removal from the baghouse cell, 

usually on a catwalk running along the side of the baghouse. It 

is not appropriate to require all such areas to be placed within 

total enclosures. Best practices in the industry when replacing 

fabric filters are to place the used filter bags in sealed 

plastic bags or other closed containers in the cell while the 

filters are being replaced, but prior to removing the used 

filters to the catwalk.”

Response: We agree that the proposed requirement to enclose 

all areas where fabric filters are handled or processed may be 

impractical at times, the enclosure of a catwalk being an 

example. We also agree that fabric filters cannot be enclosed 

under the circumstances described in these comments. We have 

therefore revised the regulatory text to require used fabric 

filters to be placed in sealed plastic bags or containers before 

removal from the baghouse cell. 

C. Work Practice Standard Requirements for Fugitive Emissions
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 58 of 185 

Comment: Several industry respondents expressed concern 

about the proposed requirement to perform all maintenance 

activities for any equipment potentially contaminated with lead 

bearing material inside an enclosure. 

Two commenters requested clarification that once an item 

that is not already subject to total enclosure requirements has 

been cleaned, its maintenance or repair is not subject to the 

enclosure requirements. Both commenters also gave an example of 

circumstances where the best course of action would be to make 

an immediate repair on a leak in an elevated duct rather than 

wait until a temporary structure was constructed. One commenter 

expressed concern that inspection and maintenance of filters 

that are in need of removal and replacement would need to be 

performed within a total enclosure. 

Two commenters stated that 72 hours to make repairs to any 

gaps or leak points in enclosures or structures was not feasible 

to implement. One commenter suggested that the rule “be changed 

to require initiation of repairs within 24 hours of discovery 

and completion of repairs as soon as practicable. Rather than 

seeking and obtaining approval for extensions from the 

Administrator, the source should be required to file and to keep 

a record listing when the problem was discovered, when the 

repair was initiated and when the repair was completed.” Another 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 59 of 185 

commenter stated that “the presence of leak points is irrelevant 

to collection as long as the size and location of these leak 

points does not change over time. Once a facility documents that 

any total enclosure criteria (for negative pressure) are met, 

the presence of existing leak points is irrelevant.” 

One commenter requested that the EPA allow facilities to 

route emissions from partial or temporary enclosures to control 

devices that meet the performance requirements stated in the 

rule. According to the commenter, “This compliance option is 

requested, because as written, the provisions would require 

manufacturer’s specification alone and not allow use of an 

otherwise compliant control device.”

Response: With regard to the comment that the proposed 

maintenance practices were overly prescriptive, we have revised 

the regulatory text to require performance of maintenance “in a 

manner that minimizes emissions of fugitive dust” that includes 

several options to control fugitive emissions. With regard to 

the comment pertaining to inspection and maintenance of fabric 

filters, we have edited the regulatory text such that this 

enclosure requirement does not apply to inspection and 

maintenance practices for fabric filters.

We also agree with commenters that making prompt and timely 

repairs for leaks is often more effective than first 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 60 of 185 

constructing a total enclosure around the leak. However, we 

believe that the formulation to initiate repairs “as soon as 

practicable” is too vague. We have edited the regulatory text to 

require completion of repairs to enclosures within one week and 

inserted language allowing facilities to initiate immediate 

repairs of ductwork or structure leaks without an enclosure 

provided that the time necessary to construct a temporary 

enclosure would exceed the time necessary to make a temporary or 

permanent repair. This change ensures that the requirement is 

technically practicable and the most cost-effective means for 

fixing leaks while minimizing the period during which the leak 

causes emissions. 

We disagree with the commenter that the presence of a leak 

point is irrelevant to collection as long as the size and 

location of these leak points do not change over time. Total 

enclosures are designed with openings of specific size and 

location to provide appropriate airflow into a building and to 

maintain the negative pressure at all locations. Multiple leak 

points at different locations of non-uniform size would be 

difficult to measure and document. It would also be difficult to 

ensure that the building negative pressure is uniform at all 

locations.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 61 of 185 

We agree with the commenter that facilities should be 

allowed to route emissions from partial temporary enclosures to 

existing control devices that meet the performance specification 

stated in the rule provided the control device has the 

capability to accommodate the additional air flow and that its 

permit accounts for the additional air flow and emissions. The 

regulatory text has been edited accordingly. 

Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns about the 

requirement in the proposed rule for cleaning of building 

rooftops. The commenters stated that the EPA did not provide a 

basis to demonstrate that roof washing is effective or 

necessary. One commenter stated that roof cleaning was 

unnecessary to operate in compliance with the current lead 

NAAQS, and that current work practices are sufficient to meet 

the standard. Several commenters also stated that roof cleaning 

is potentially dangerous to workers and in some cases not 

possible due to the rooftop construction and weather conditions. 

Several commenters noted that the requirement unnecessarily 

applied at all times, even when natural precipitation makes 

cleaning unnecessary.

Response: We agree that the proposed roof washing 

requirement may not be feasible and may cause worker safety 

hazards in some cases, and we have therefore removed this 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 62 of 185 

activity from the list of required fugitive emission work 

practices.

Comment: Several commenters opposed the specific 

requirement for a mobile vacuum sweeper used for pavement 

cleaning when a water flush is used. The commenters stated that 

the EPA provides no justification for the minimum water 

application rate of 0.48 gallons per square yard of pavement 

cleaned or evidence that equipment currently used could achieve 

this rate. The commenters suggested that this specific 

requirement be replaced with a “requirement that pavement be 

periodically cleaned, leaving methods, and minimum water 

application rates to individual facilities and, as relevant, 

their permitting authorities.” According to the commenter, “EPA 

should further exempt pavement cleaning 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.” 

Two commenters also expressed concerns that the rule 

requires pavement cleaning in the battery breaking, furnace, 

refining and casting areas when a total enclosure is not used. 

According to the commenters, certain locations within these 

areas are not capable of being cleaned on a routine basis due to 

safety, access, or other reasons. The commenters give an example 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 63 of 185 

of paved areas under process equipment as being an area that is 

not safe to access during operation of the equipment. One 

commenter also stated that roadway cleaning and washing of truck 

tires and undercarriages are redundant requirements with no 

incremental benefit. 

Response: We agree with the commenters’ suggestion to 

remove the minimum water application rate requirement from the 

regulatory text. We note that the proposal did include an 

exemption for cleaning 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. 

That exemption remains in the final rule. See 40 CFR 

63.545(c)(2).

With regard to the comments regarding pavement cleaning 

requirements when total enclosures are not used, we note that 

the final rule requires total enclosures rather than including 

them as an option. Furthermore, it is our understanding that in 

the cases where mobile sweeping or wet washing equipment is not 

feasible (e.g., underneath process equipment), facilities can 

utilize hand held vacuum equipment to clean these areas. 

Therefore, we do not believe it is appropriate to exempt these 

areas from the cleaning requirements since these areas contain 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 64 of 185 

fugitive lead which can be emitted and reach human and 

environmental receptors.

We disagree with the commenter that roadway cleaning and 

undercarriage washing are redundant requirements. While truck 

tires may be a significant source of lead bearing material on 

the roadway, we understand that they are not the only source. 

Therefore, we have maintained both requirements in the final 

rule.

Comment: One commenter recommended modifying the 

requirement to pave “all areas subject to vehicle traffic” to 

“all areas subject to routine vehicle traffic.” The commenter 

noted that areas not subject to routine traffic do not have the 

potential to generate significant quantities of fugitive dust 

and that paving these areas would increase the amount of storm 

water generated.

Response: We agree with the commenter that there may be 

some instances where paving and cleaning a roadway is 

impractical. We have included an exemption in the rule for 

limited access and limited use roadways that access remote, 

infrequently used locations on the facility’s property. See 40 

CFR 63.545(c)(2).

Comment: Two commenters objected to the proposed frequency 

of inspection of the unenclosed battery storage areas. One 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 65 of 185 

commenter “finds this requirement to impose an administrative 

burden of minimal value.” According to the commenter, “Spent 

lead acid batteries, even if accidentally broken and leaking, 

pose minimal potential for generation of fugitive dust 

containing HAPs. Inspection of these areas is typically required 

on a weekly basis as part of the facilities’ Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act obligations and such frequency is 

sufficient to satisfy the intent of this proposed rule as well.” 

One commenter suggests that identifying and mitigating leaks 

within 72 hours will prevent generation of fugitive lead 

emissions. The commenter also states that it is unclear whether 

batteries stored in partial enclosures are exempted from the 

twice daily inspection requirement and proposes the following 

regulatory language incorporating both of these issues. 

You must inspect any batteries that are not stored in 

a partial or total enclosure once each day and move 

any broken batteries to a partial or total enclosure 

within 72 hours of detection. You must also clean 

residue from broken batteries within 72 hours of 

identification. Storage of batteries in trucks and 

railcars consistent with Department of Transportation 

requirements are specifically exempted from these 

requirements. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 66 of 185 

Response: We agree with the commenters that requiring 

inspection of these areas on a twice daily basis is not 

necessary. We have modified the regulatory text to require 

inspection of these areas once per week – consistent with 

requirements implementing the hazardous waste subtitle of RCRA 

(see 40 CFR sections 264.174 and 264.1101(c)(4) (and the EPA 

sees no reason to deviate from these long-standing requirements 

here, given that they were adopted to be “protective of human 

health and the environment” from management of hazardous waste) 

- with removal of broken batteries within 72 hours of detection. 

We have also clarified that the inspection requirement does not 

apply to battery storage areas that are in a total enclosure. We 

do not believe that an exemption for storage of batteries in 

trucks and railcars is necessary since the inspection frequency 

was reduced to once per week.

Comment: One commenter objected to the requirement to 

collect wash water in a container that is not open to the 

atmosphere. The commenter stated that “Covering of these 

collection tanks is not necessary because lead dissolved and/or 

suspended in water does not have a pathway for becoming a 

fugitive emission.” 

Response: We agree with the commenter that so long as the 

contents in the container are wet, there should be no fugitive 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 67 of 185 

emissions. We have removed the requirement to collect wash water 

in a sealed container. 

Comment: Two commenters requested changes to the 

requirement to transport lead bearing materials in sealed leakproof containers. One commenter proposed that containers be 

“covered” rather than “sealed leak-proof” and that an exemption 

be made for off-road dump trucks. The suggestion was made 

because “sealed leak-proof containers ...cannot be attained, but 

covers can be for most trucks used in such transport....no 

approved sealing covers are made for the 30-ton, 6-wheel, offroad dump trucks used at the facility.” One commenter supported 

the requirement for transporting lead bearing materials within 

an enclosure or in a sealed container, but suggested that lead 

bearing materials with little potential for production of 

fugitive lead dust from transportation should be excluded, 

including intact batteries, raw materials with lead content that 

is not considered recoverable such as iron, caustic, coal, wood, 

sulfur and other similar materials, and products from the 

recycling process. 

Response: We agree that the proposed requirement for 

material transport should be modified. The intent of the 

proposed requirement was to prevent fugitive lead dust formation 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 68 of 185 

outside of a total enclosure. We have therefore modified the 

requirement at 63.545(c)(7) to read as follows: 

“You must transport all lead bearing dust within 

closed conveyor systems or in sealed, leak-proof 

containers, unless the transport activities are contained 

within an enclosure. All other lead bearing material must 

be contained and covered for transport outside of a total 

enclosure in a manner that prevents spillage or dust 

formation. Intact batteries and lead ingot product are 

exempt from the requirement to be covered for transport.” 

The definition of lead bearing material in the rule 

clarifies that lead bearing materials must contain at least 100 

ppm of lead (measured via Toxicity Characteristic Leaching 

Procedure (EPA Method 1311) lead test results <5 mg/l). Intact 

batteries and lead ingot product are excluded from this 

requirement. 

Comment: Some commenters agreed that the secondary lead 

facilities operate a separation process at their battery 

breakers to separate polypropylene battery case material as a 

valuable recyclable commodity. However, not all spent lead acid 

batteries are amenable to separation. Certain battery types such 

as small sealed-lead-acid batteries and certain industrial leadacid batteries are fed into the blast furnace without ever 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 69 of 185 

passing through the facility’s battery breaker. These batteries 

are either too small or too large to be broken by the automated 

battery breaking equipment. One commenter requested that the EPA 

estimate the cost of the systems that would be required. Another 

commenter offered that mandatory separation could be used for 

facilities that are not meeting TEQ limits as one of several 

options to reduce emissions. Two commenters stated that the 

current dioxin emission levels pose no incremental health risk 

presented by background dioxin and that there is no valid 

justification for imposing this burden.

Response: Based on these comments, we have revised the 

proposed plastics separation work practice requirement to be 

specific to automotive batteries, which should be amenable to 

separation based on current practices used in the industry. We 

agree with the commenters that some industrial batteries are not 

easily processed in battery breakers and that the retrofits or 

additional equipment required to process such batteries are not 

justified since automotive batteries make up the vast majority 

of lead acid batteries processed at these facilities. We believe 

that plastics separation from automotive batteries is sufficient 

to minimize emissions of organic HAP. We further note that the 

use of battery breakers to separate plastics from automotive 

batteries is clearly a development in practices that limits 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 70 of 185 

emissions of organic HAP, including dioxin, and is therefore an 

appropriate part of a standard under CAA section 112(d)(6). 

D. Emission Standards for Organic HAP from Rotary Furnaces

Comment: We received several comments on the proposed D/F 

and THC MACT floor limits for the rotary furnace subcategory 

that were based on data (two test runs, see 76 FR at 29049) from 

the slag-processing rotary furnace at RSR’s Middletown, NY 

facility. One commenter stated that rotary furnace standards 

should not be based on emissions that are not from stand-alone 

rotary furnace operations. The commenter stated that the EPA 

should not derive standards for rotary furnaces from performance 

of a different source type or subcategory that includes a 

furnace combination (i.e., reverberatory/short rotary furnace). 

The commenter also contends that there are insufficient data 

available to establish limits for D/F and THC from rotary 

furnaces. The commenter contends that the EPA used one source 

that is not representative of or similar to true rotary furnace 

operation to establish the limits for “rotary furnaces.” The 

commenter stated that the emissions limit established in the 

proposed rule is arbitrary because it is not based on operations 

of rotary furnaces using lead bearing materials from lead acid 

batteries as feedstock.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 71 of 185 

The commenter notes that RSR’s Middletown, NY facility, 

whose test data were used as the basis for the THC and D/F 

limits, only uses their rotary furnace to process one type of 

lead bearing material, reverberatory slag, and this furnace is 

not representative of the full capabilities of rotary furnace 

operation. The commenter notes that JCI’s Florence Recycling 

Center plans to utilize stand-alone rotary furnaces to process 

lead paste, battery components, and “other materials with 

recoverable quantities of lead.” The commenter further notes 

that the emissions from RSR’s short rotary furnace (SRF) and 

drying kiln are combined, and it is unclear from information in 

the docket whether testing of the SRF occurred at a location 

prior to the combination of these exhaust streams.

The commenter also stated that JCI and RSR differ in raw 

materials used in the facilities’ operations. RSR’s Title V 

application for its Middletown facility indicates that RSR may 

process automotive, industrial, and specialty-type lead-acid 

batteries as well as lead bearing materials received from leadacid battery manufacturing plants and scrap metal in its 

reverberatory furnace. JCI’s furnace feed is from automotive and 

marine batteries and from lead bearing materials from other JCI 

facilities. The commenter contends that, since the EPA 

considered no data representative of a rotary furnace operation 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 72 of 185 

such as that which will be operated at the JCI Florence 

Recycling Center, a numeric limit for this category cannot be 

assigned.

One commenter also stated that the stack test for RSR’s SRF 

that was used to develop D/F and THC emission limits for “rotary 

furnaces” included only two successful test runs and therefore 

must be considered inadequate for setting emission limits since 

40 CFR 63.7(e)(3) requires three test runs for compliance 

demonstration purposes.

One commenter supports the individual stack emission limits 

for THC and D/F but provides comment on the EPA’s consideration 

of statistical variability for the rotary furnace subcategory. 

The commenter stated that the Upper Prediction Limit (UPL) tends 

to inflate the variability because the statistical procedure 

attempts to accommodate the highest emission measurement at the 

same facility and not necessarily the variability between 

facilities as the MACT floor is intended to achieve. 

Additionally, the UPL is very dependent on the number of valid 

samples. The commenter contends that, when a suitable number of 

samples have been collected, the 99 percent confidence limit 

(CL) represents a range for which there is 99 percent certainty 

that the interval contains the true mean. The commenter suggests 

that caution be used when determining a MACT floor from limited 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 73 of 185 

test data and that the 99 percent CL is more appropriate for 

this particular industry.

One commenter noted that the EPA did not consider a 

secondary lead smelting facility in Puerto Rico that operates a 

stand-alone rotary furnace. The commenter contends that even if 

it were appropriate to set MACT floor emission rates or 

standards for rotary furnaces, the EPA would have to obtain and 

consider data from the Puerto Rico facility. According to the 

commenter, failure to consider data from the facility 

“undermines the RTR Proposed Rule and any attempt by EPA to 

establish emission standards for the rotary furnace 

subcategory.” The commenter contends that the EPA should issue a 

separate ICR for the Puerto Rico facility and publish a 

supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking that takes into 

account the emission information for this facility.

Response: The EPA agrees that rotary furnaces fueled by 

natural gas could be different from rotary furnaces operating 

using different fuel types, and that rotary furnaces processing 

slag could be different types of rotary furnaces than those 

processing lead acid batteries. More basically, the EPA simply 

has insufficient data on which to promulgate organic HAP 

standards for rotary furnaces. The proposed standards for THC 

and D/F were based on less than one single complete test, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 74 of 185 

consisting only of two test runs from the natural gas fueled 

rotary furnace processing slag. See 76 FR at 29049-29050. (A 

complete test consists of three test runs.) When calculating 

variability using a limited dataset (in this case, the two test 

runs) the effect of variability can be substantial. Id. The 

proposed THC and D/F standards likewise were based on two test 

runs and similarly reflected enormous statistical variability 

due to the limited data. Id. at 29049/1. The EPA does not 

believe that these data are sufficient to adopt a standard even 

for the rotary furnace which was tested, much less a rotary 

furnace which may be different. Accordingly, we are not adopting 

standards for organic HAP emissions from rotary furnaces at this 

time and instead we intend to issue CAA section 114 information 

requests to sources operating rotary furnaces to obtain more 

representative emission data and plan to propose standards for 

organic HAP in a future action. However, we note that the lead 

emission standards included in this action do apply to rotary 

furnaces processing slag or lead acid batteries. 

E. The EPA’s Risk Assessment Supporting the Proposed Rule

Comment: Two commenters stated that the EPA’s methodology 

is unreliable and incorrect. The commenters stated that the EPA 

overestimated the baseline fugitive emissions for the Exide 

Frisco facility whose (faulty) estimates then became the basis 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 75 of 185 

for estimating all other facilities’ fugitive emission rates. 

The commenter stated that the EPA scaled Exide’s reported 

fugitive emissions of 0.296 tpy for the blast and reverberatory 

furnace fugitive emissions to 0.32 tpy based on the assumption 

that fugitives would not be on the same operating schedule as 

process emissions. The commenter contends that this scaling is 

inappropriate since furnace fugitives can only occur when the 

associated process furnaces are operating. The commenter further 

stated that the EPA also double-counted the fugitives of 0.32 

tpy by assigning the value to each of the blast and 

reverberatory furnaces, despite the fact that Exide reported the 

value as combined emissions for both the reverberatory and blast 

furnace.

Response: The commenter is correct in both respects. The 

EPA has accordingly adjusted its calculation of the fugitive 

emissions from Exide’s Frisco facility (thereby reducing the 

facility’s fugitive dust emissions estimate) and adjusted the 

emissions estimates for each facility to reflect the revised 

estimate of the Frisco facility. The resulting risk results have 

also been adjusted. We note that the updated emissions estimates 

and risk results did not substantively alter our decisions under 

section 112(f). The modeling showed 9 of 15 facilities above the 

lead NAAQS, down from 12 of 14 facilities at proposal. The 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 76 of 185 

maximum modeled lead concentration in the source category 

decreased from about 23 times the NAAQS to about 16 times the 

NAAQS. We still find that risks from this source category are 

not acceptable and that revisions under section 112 (f)(2) are 

therefore required, and further find that it is necessary under 

section 112(d)(6) to revise the standards for fugitive emissions 

considering the developments in cost-effective control 

technologies for their control.

Comment: Three commenters stated that the EPA’s 

multipathway risk estimates are incorrect because they relied on 

incorrect dioxin and furan emissions from Exide’s Frisco, Texas 

facility. The commenters contend that a dioxin and furan test 

conducted in October 2010 at the Frisco facility revealed an 

emissions rate of 6.2E-08 tons/year on a toxic equivalency 

quotient (TEQ) basis, 69 times lower than the estimate used by 

the EPA. One commenter noted that the exact effect that the 

difference in emissions would have on the calculated risks is 

unknown since the EPA has not placed the full methodology behind 

its multipathway risk calculations in the record. However, the 

commenter noted that assuming the relationship between emissions 

and risk is approximately linear, the EPA’s calculated risk 

would be approximately 69 times lower than that estimated at 

proposal and less than 1 in a million. The commenter further 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 77 of 185 

requested that the EPA disclose its multipathway risk 

calculation methodology and allow for public notice-and-comment. 

Another commenter stated that the EPA’s overestimation of dioxin 

and furan emissions may lead to unwarranted public concern about 

the Frisco facility. The commenter requested that the EPA 

include a clarifying explanation regarding the Frisco emissions 

data and the lower multipathway risk in the final rule as well 

as in the risk assessment document.

Response: As noted in previous responses, the final risk 

assessment reflects updated emission information received during 

the public comment period for the proposed rule. We also note 

that the updated dioxin/furan test data were not made available 

to the EPA, despite repeated requests, until June 2011. With 

respect to the estimated emissions of D/F, the commenter is 

correct that EPA overestimated these emissions at proposal by a 

factor of 69 for the reasons stated. Considering this updated 

emissions information, the EPA estimates that multipathway risk 

associated with the Exide Frisco facility is less than 1 in a 

million (and so contributes very little to the estimates of risk 

posed by this source category, and is not a driver of the 

determination that risks from this source category are 

unacceptable). See Residual Risk Assessment for the Secondary 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 78 of 185 

Lead Smelting Source Category, available in the docket, at pages 

32-33. 

This additional information does not warrant any reopening 

of the proposed rule or comment period, however. First, the EPA 

fully disclosed its multipathway risk methodology; the 

commenter’s assertions to the contrary are simply mistaken. 

Thus, the risk assessment document along with its appendices was 

available in the docket for the proposed rulemaking and 

describes in detail the methodology used in the assessment. See

the Residual Risk Assessment for the Secondary Lead Smelting 

Source Category, at page 10, available in the docket. Also see 

docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0037 for a thorough discussion of 

the EPA’s human health multipathway risk assessment methodology. 

Second, the new information reinforces the tentative 

conclusion the EPA reached at proposal: risks associated with 

emissions of dioxin and furans from the secondary lead source 

category are not primary drivers in the unacceptable risks from 

this source category (i.e. dioxin and furan emissions are not 

the reason that risks from secondary lead smelter emissions are 

unacceptable). See 76 FR at 29055/2. The new analysis reinforces 

that risks posed by dioxin and furan emissions are acceptable, 

since emission levels are 69 times less than estimated at 

proposal (when risks from CDD and CDFs were already considered 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 79 of 185 

to be at an acceptable level). Thus, this already acceptable 

level of risk is less than estimated and less than one in a 

million. The EPA does not agree that further comment on this 

issue is warranted, since further comment would not have a 

practical effect on the rule.6

Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA inappropriately 

summed risks from the inhalation and multipathway risk 

assessments at the Exide Frisco facility. The commenter noted 

that it is impossible for the person with the highest chronic 

inhalation cancer risk to also be the same person with the 

highest individual multipathway cancer risk since the two MIR 

values are location dependent and are at locations that are 

widely separated. The commenter further noted that the EPA has 

indicated in other contexts that when populations are exposed 

via more than one pathway, the combination of exposures across 

pathways must also represent a reasonable maximum exposure. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. While 

highly unlikely (and noted as being highly unlikely in the risk 

assessment document), it is theoretically possible for the 

person with the highest chronic inhalation cancer risk to also 

be the same person with the highest individual multipathway 

 

6 The comment that EPA’s standards for dioxin and furans do not result in 

significant risk reduction is misplaced given that the EPA is not adopting 

any risk-based (i.e. section 112 (f)(2)) standards based on the need for 

reduction of emissions of dioxin and furan. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 80 of 185 

cancer risk. The EPA notes that the multipathway risk assessment 

does not provide a specific location for the MIR; thus, it is 

possible (although highly unlikely) that the person with the 

highest inhalation MIR is also consuming fish (at the fish 

ingestion rates described in the multipathway report) from the 

theoretically contaminated lake. That being said, however, we 

note that considering updated emissions information for this 

facility, updated multipathway results indicate multipathway 

risk associated with the Exide Frisco facility are well below 1-

in a million. Considering these updated results, multipathway 

risk would not appreciable add to any inhalation risk associated 

with this facility. 

Comment: Commenter 94 stated that the EPA improperly 

calculated the inhalation cancer MIR for the Exide Frisco 

facility in a vacant field to the north of the facility within 

the facility’s property line. The commenter noted that the 

lifetime cancer risk of the MEI cannot be at a location within 

the facility property line. 

Response: The commenter is correct and the EPA has 

corrected the receptor location resulting in a change in the 

results in the final risk assessment. The MIR for this facility 

is now located at a populated census block (based on the 2001 

census).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 81 of 185 

F. Miscellaneous Changes to the Regulatory Text

Comment: Three commenters requested that the EPA replace 

the term “modified source” with “reconstructed source.” Neither 

the proposed rule nor the EPA’s general Part 63 regulations 

define the term “modified source.” The term is defined in the 

CAA, but that definition would require a source to install 

maximum achievable control technology and impose a “new source” 

requirement like CEMS on a modified source, rather than 

appropriately imposing the existing source provisions that do 

not require installation of a CEMS.

Response: The term “modified source” appeared in the 

proposed rule at 40 CFR 63.548(l) under the proposed requirement 

to install a CEMS for measuring lead emissions on all new or 

modified sources. We agree with the commenter that the 

terminology of “reconstructed” source would be more appropriate 

for this requirement and have changed the regulatory language 

accordingly. 

Comment: Three commenters requested clarification of the 

term “affected source” as used in the proposed rule. The 

proposed rule uses the terms “new sources”, “existing source” 

and “modified source” without clarifying whether it is referring 

to secondary lead smelters generally, or to potential emissions 

sources within secondary lead smelters. There is a seeming 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 82 of 185 

contradiction between the use of the term “affected source” in 

the proposed rule and the definition in 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 

A general provisions. One commenter also understands that the 

terms “new sources” and “existing sources”, as used in the 

proposed rule, are consistent with the definitions as used in 

CAA § 112(a). The commenter “understands EPA intends to address 

any addition of units to an “existing source” consistent with 

the provisions of the CAA” and understands that the analysis as 

explained in Nine Metal Fabrication and Finishing Area Source 

Categories, 40 CFR Part 63 (6X) NESHAP, Questions and Answers, 

April 2011 would apply with respect to implementation of any 

amendments to subpart X requirements. The Q&A explains that the 

“CAA uses the word ’source’ to mean the entire facility in terms 

of the classification of ’new’ vs. ’existing’ whereas for the 

Subpart 6X rule, what is referred to as the ’affected source’ is 

actually one of the processes at the facility”.

Response: The EPA has clarified the application of these 

terms in the final rule. The definition in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart A requires each relevant standard to define the 

“affected source,” as the collection of equipment, activities, 

or both within a single contiguous area and under common control 

that is included in a CAA section 112(c) source category or 

subcategory for which a section 112(d) standard or other 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 83 of 185 

relevant standard is established pursuant to CAA section 112 

unless a different definition is warranted based on a published 

justification as to why this definition would result in 

significant administrative, practical, or implementation 

problems and why the different definition would resolve those 

problems. We have adopted a definition of “affected source” in 

this rulemaking as any of the listed individual sources at a 

secondary lead smelter. This application of the term “affected 

source” is the same as was used in the 1997 NESHAP for secondary 

lead. The term “affected source” is used in the final rule 

primarily in the context of new sources. This definition is 

appropriate for the secondary lead source category because the 

chief source of emissions from these facilities are the 

furnaces, and as these furnaces are replaced or reconstructed, 

the replacement equipment would be subject to the standard for a 

new source.

A “new source” has also been defined as any affected source 

at a secondary lead facility that undergoes construction or 

reconstruction after May 19, 2011, the date of the proposed CAA 

section 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6) rules. A building that is 

constructed for the purpose of controlling fugitive emissions 

from an existing source is not considered to be a new source 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 84 of 185 

because it is effectively a control device for fugitive 

emissions.

Comment: One commenter noted that the last sentence in the 

current definition of “Materials storage and handling area” has 

been deleted in the proposed definition. This sentence reads: 

“Materials storage and handling area does not include areas used 

exclusively for storage of blast furnace slag.” The commenter 

disagreed with the EPA’s assessment that this is a minor change. 

“EPA should provide an explanation of what changed circumstances 

justify a new rule.” Two other commenters requested that the 

definition be modified to exclude the transfer of raw materials 

of any type in enclosed conveyors. The commenter stated that “as 

currently worded, the enclosure requirement proposed would apply 

to handling of fabric filter dust in enclosed conveyors, 

containers, or in wet slurried form, which is unnecessary.” The 

commenter suggested revising the definition to include the 

following: “Material storage and handling area shall not include 

any closed containers or enclosed mechanical conveyors.”

Response: A definition of “lead bearing material” has been 

added to the final rule. Rather than include or exclude any one 

particular material in the definition of “materials storage and 

handling area” based on the originating process, this definition 

establishes lead content as the criterion for determining 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 85 of 185 

whether materials must be handled in such a manner as to prevent 

lead dust formation. The definition of “materials storage and 

handling area” remains essentially unchanged from the definition 

in the proposed rule. 

Fugitive dust formation has been identified as the major 

contributor to ambient lead concentrations near secondary lead 

smelters. Piles where lead bearing materials are stored were 

identified as one of the major sources of fugitive lead 

emissions. However, there was no definition for lead-bearing 

material in the proposed rule that could be used to make a 

determination of which materials needed to be handled in a 

manner that prevents dust formation. By adding a definition of 

“lead bearing material” to the rule, we have clarified and 

quantified the definition of “materials storage and handling 

area.” 

The EPA is using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching 

Procedure (TCLP), EPA Method 1311 to measure which materials are 

lead-bearing, and using the characteristic level of 5.0 mg/l (in 

the extract from the test) as the specific level for being leadbearing. See 40 CFR 261.24. This assures that only materials 

with at least 100 ppm total lead will be considered to be ‘leadbearing’. See EPA Method 1311 section 2.2 which describes that 

the liquid to solid ratio of material tested should be 20:1 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 86 of 185 

(i.e. 5 mg/l in the TCLP extract is equal to at least 100 ppm in 

the material being tested). The specific definition of lead 

bearing material chosen ensures that materials that contain 

relatively substantial amounts of lead (0.01%) are included 

while minimizing additional testing burden for facilities who 

must determine what does or does not meet the definition. 

Testing burden is minimized because facilities already use the 

TCLP to determine whether or not the wastes they manage are 

hazardous, pursuant to subtitle C of the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act. Imposing a different threshold for defining 

material as “lead bearing” could thus impose duplicative or 

conflicting requirements between subpart X and other regulatory 

regimes. Furthermore, the TCLP is a test protocol which includes 

a grinding step, which is a conservative measure of determining 

whether a material could generate fugitive emissions. See Method 

1311 steps 7.1.3 and 7.2.10. 

To address the concern that fabric filter dust in enclosed 

conveyors, containers or wet slurries must be additionally 

handled only inside an enclosure, we have added an exemption 

from the enclosure requirement for materials that are “lead 

bearing” but are not expected to generate fugitive lead dust. 

While these materials do contain lead in amounts that could 

otherwise meet the definition of lead bearing material, they are 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 87 of 185 

either in a stabilized form that will not create fugitive dust 

or in a container that prevents fugitive dust formation. These 

materials include: lead ingot products, stormwater and 

wastewater, intact batteries, lead bearing material that is 

stored in closed containers or enclosed mechanical conveyors, 

and clean battery casing material. 

Comment: One commenter requested a change to the definition 

of “plant roadway” specifically to exclude finished lead product 

storage areas and roadways or traffic areas located within 

enclosed buildings.

Response: We accept the commenter’s suggestion to exclude 

roadways or traffic areas located within enclosed buildings from 

the definition of “plant roadway.” However, we do not believe 

that it is appropriate to exclude finished lead product storage 

areas since these areas may be located in close proximity to 

areas that may require cleaning (e.g., slag storage areas).

Comment: One commenter requested a change to the definition 

of process vent. As currently drafted, it appears overly broad 

and could lead to confusion concerning the ventilation systems 

that must be tested. 

Response: We have made revisions to the regulatory text to 

clarify that the term “process vent” includes various process 

vents and vents from buildings containing lead bearing material. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 88 of 185 

Vents from office or other non-process areas are not considered 

to be process vents. 

Comment: Two comments were received on the terminology used 

for a lead CEMS. According to the commenter, “Paragraph 

63.548(m) specifies that lead CEMS be ‘continuous emission rate

monitors." The standard is a concentration standard, not an 

emission rate standard, so the term "continuous emission rate

monitor" is not appropriate”. Since flow and concentration 

monitors are needed to calculate compliance with the flow 

weighted average, one commenter recommended a requirement for 

flow and concentration monitors rather than citing a type of 

monitoring system that is not applicable to the standard.

Response: We agree with the commenter that the term 

continuous emissions rate monitor is not appropriate. We have 

replaced the term “continuous emissions rate monitor” with 

“continuous emissions monitoring system”. 

Comment: Two commenters noted that the term “accidental 

release” is not defined in the rule. The commenters recommended 

that the EPA use the CERCLA reportable quantity threshold of 10 

pounds to define an accidental release of lead-containing dust. 

Two commenters recommended that the requirement to initiate 

cleaning within one hour of a release be changed to require that 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 89 of 185 

the facility initiate cleaning activities within one hour after 

discovery of an accidental release.

Response: We accept the commenters’ suggestion to use the 

CERCLA reportable quantity threshold of 10 pounds to define an 

accidental release of lead-containing dust. We also accept the 

commenters’ suggestion to require initiation of cleaning within 

one hour of discovery of an accidental release.

Comment: One commenter recommended that the definition of 

“maintenance activity” be changed from “any of the following 

routine maintenance and repair activities that generate fugitive 

lead dust:” to “any of the following maintenance and repair 

activities when they generate fugitive lead dust:” 

Response: We do not agree with the commenter’s proposed 

change to the definition of “maintenance activity.” If this 

definition was adopted, the facility would be allowed to proceed 

with a maintenance activity and then, if the activity began 

generating dust, controls would need to be adopted but 

otherwise-controllable lead emissions would be released to 

ambient air. However, we have modified the definition to read 

“any of the following routine maintenance and repair activities 

that could generate fugitive lead dust.” This definition ensures 

that proactive, rather than reactive, actions would be taken for 

activities with the potential to generate lead dust. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 90 of 185 

Comment: One commenter stated that a definition of leadbearing material should be added and should include such 

characteristics as the material should be semi-granular, have a 

lead content of greater than 10 percent, and produce visible 

fugitive emissions when handled or transported.

Response: As noted above, we have added a definition of 

lead-bearing material to the regulatory text. However, we 

believe that a 10 percent lead content is too high. We have 

defined lead-bearing material in the rule as material with lead 

content of 5 mg/l or greater as measured by the TCLP (Method 

1311), which means that materials would need to contain at least 

100 ppm of lead. This is equivalent to the toxicity 

characteristic level for a hazardous waste containing lead as 

defined at 40 CFR 261.24.

Comment: One commenter noted that 40 CFR 63.544(d) of the 

proposed rule makes reference to the requirements in subsections 

(d)(1) through (d)(4). However, as the commenter points out, 

there are eight subsections applicable to 40 CFR 63.544(d) and 

subsection (d)(2) further refers to meeting requirements through 

(d)(8).

Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter and has made 

the suggested change in the regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.544(d). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 91 of 185 

Comment: One commenter noted that proposed 40 CFR 63.543(i) 

requires that sources conduct testing for process vents, “...under 

such conditions as the administrator specifies based on 

representative performance of the affected source for the period 

being tested.” The commenter requested that the EPA replace this 

“cumbersome” language with “...under normal operating conditions.”

Response: We have modified the text to require sources to 

conduct testing “under maximum representative operating 

conditions for the process.” The term maximum is included to 

ensure that the testing occurs during a time period of full 

production at the facility that is representative of normal 

operation. This language allows sources to develop test 

conditions which approximate the variability they can reasonably 

encounter during normal operation. Parametric monitoring 

requirements, based on parameters measured during the 

performance test, would then reasonably reflect this operating 

variability and afford the source flexibility in its day-to-day 

operation. Cf. Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 

F.855, 866-67 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (upholding use of such data to 

set MACT standards under CAA section 112 (d)(3)).

Comment: One commenter noted that Table 3 of the proposed 

rule is improperly labeled, “table 3 to Subpart X of Part 60 – 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 92 of 185 

Toxic Equivalency Factors.” As the commenter points out, the 

table is included in 40 CFR part 63, not 40 CFR part 60.

Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter and has made 

the suggested change to Table 3 of the proposed rule.

Comment: Two commenters pointed out that there is a 

typographical error in Equation 2 of the proposed rule at 40 CFR 

63.543(c). The definition of the term CELI includes the word 

lead, though the equation is not applicable to lead.

Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter and has 

adjusted the definition of the term CELI in Equation 2 of 40 CFR 

63.543(c) accordingly.

G. Emission Testing Methods and Frequency

Comment: Two commenters stated their support for biannual 

testing for well performing facilities. One commenter contends 

that the East Penn facility currently conducts biannual testing 

for lead and still maintains compliance with the lead NAAQS and 

applicable subpart X emission standards. The commenter further 

argued that the EPA has not demonstrated any environmental 

benefits associated with annual testing versus biannual testing 

for well controlled facilities. The commenter contends that the 

East Penn facility has made strategic decisions to invest 

capital resources to reduce lead emissions and that the removal 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 93 of 185 

of the biannual testing exemption would unnecessarily increase 

the annual operating costs of the facility.

Response: We agree with the commenter that a biannual 

testing exemption for well performing facilities can be retained 

in this NESHAP. We have added an exemption for any stacks that 

report a lead concentration of 0.1 mg/dscm or lower allowing 

biannual testing. The concept of decreased testing frequency for 

well-performing sources was discussed in the proposal as a part 

of the fenceline monitoring approach (see 76 FR at 29057). 

Comment: Two commenters disagreed with the annual testing 

requirement for total hydrocarbons (THC). One commenter stated 

that since the risk assessment did not identify significant 

risks drivers among the organic HAP represented by THC, the THC 

testing should be conducted concurrently with the dioxin and 

furan tests every 5 years with continuous compliance 

demonstrated via afterburner temperature monitoring. Another 

commenter stated that requiring annual THC tests is redundant 

and unnecessary if a CEMS is installed and operated per 40 CFR 

63.543(k).

Response: We disagree with the commenter that THC testing 

should be conducted on the same schedule as dioxins and furans. 

Testing for THC is substantially less expensive than testing for 

dioxins and furans and we do not believe annual THC testing 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 94 of 185 

presents an unnecessary burden. However, we have added an 

exemption allowing biannual testing of THC for any stack that 

reports concentrations that are less than half of the applicable 

emissions limit. Annual stack testing is obviously not required 

if a THC CEMS is used.

Comment: Three commenters stated that the EPA should allow 

facilities to use EPA Method 12 for lead compounds to calculate 

compliance with the process vent limitations in order to be 

consistent with testing requirements that exist in many facility 

permits.

Response: We agree that facilities should be given the 

option of using EPA Method 12. The regulatory text has been 

edited accordingly.

Comment: Three commenters stated that the BLDS exemption 

for baghouses equipped with HEPA filters should be retained. One 

commenter stated that to install BLDS’s on HEPA filtered stacks 

is excessive and unwarranted. The commenter also believes that 

annual stack testing for sources equipped with HEPA filtration 

is not necessary. Another commenter argued that the cost 

associated with using BLDS is not commensurate with their 

limited ability. The commenter stated that BLDS’s are inherently 

reactive whereas baghouses equipped with HEPA filtration 

actually prevent emissions in the event of a bag failure. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 95 of 185 

Further, the commenter argued that HEPA secondary collection 

pressure differential is an effective method to monitor baghouse 

performance. The commenter contends that the BLDS requirement 

will pose an unnecessary and redundant burden on facilities that 

proactively chose to install HEPA filtration systems and that 

the proposed revisions are a disincentive for facilities to 

install HEPA filters. Finally, the commenter stated that the 

proposed BLDS requirement and the elimination of the BLDS 

exemption for HEPA filters are arbitrary and not supported by 

test data.

Response: We agree with the commenters that baghouses 

equipped with HEPA filters do not need bag leak detection 

systems as well. The measurement of pressure drop across a HEPA 

filter provides the indicia of superior performance for 

determining continuous compliance. However, we disagree that 

sources should be exempt from annual stack testing based solely 

on the use of a HEPA filter. The emission standard includes 

calculation of a facility-wide emission average and testing the 

process vents subject to that limit is needed to determine 

compliance. Monitoring pressure drop across HEPA filters is a 

means for determining continuous compliance, similar to a bag 

leak detection system in baghouses without HEPA filters. In both 

cases, periodic stack tests are necessary to ensure that lead 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 96 of 185 

emissions are below the applicable emission standard. However, 

we note that we have included a biannual testing exemption for 

stacks that report lead concentrations less than 0.1 mg/dscm.

H. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

Comment: One commenter expressed concerns related to the 

total hydrocarbon (THC) standard during start-up periods. 

According to the commenter, it will be impossible to meet the 

minimum temperature at which compliance with the THC standard 

has been demonstrated during startup of a furnace. The blast 

furnace crucible must be heated for up to 12 hours before raw 

materials can be charged. The reverberatory furnace cold 

startups occur over an extended period also. There is no 

introduction of feedstock during the warm-up process and, 

therefore, no emissions of process-related THC emissions. 

Emissions during this time period will consist entirely of 

combustion products associated with the fuels natural gas and 

foundry coke. The afterburner or post combustion system are 

equipped with rudimentary burners that provide supplementary 

heat but rely on the excess heat contained within the combined 

furnace exhaust gases during production operations to achieve an 

afterburner temperature that assures the efficient combustion of 

the process off-gases. The afterburner supplementary burners are 

not sufficient to maintain the required temperature during 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 97 of 185 

furnace startup and shutdown sequences. The proposed revisions 

to subpart X should include definitions of startup and shutdown 

for collocated blast and reverberatory furnaces that clearly 

define when alternative THC standards would apply and how 

compliance with an alternative standard is monitored. 

Response: The EPA has revised this final rule to require 

sources to meet a work practice standard that requires the 

development of standard operating procedures designed to 

minimize emissions of THC for each start-up and shutdown 

scenario anticipated for all units subject to THC emission 

limits. We considered whether temperature (the metric used to 

determine continuous compliance for the THC standard in this 

rule) or performance testing and enforcement of numeric emission 

limits would be practicable during periods of startup and 

shutdown. The EPA determined that there are a number of 

significant technical challenges associated with emissions 

measurements of THC emissions during periods of startup and 

shutdown for this industry. These challenges make establishing 

and complying with numerical emissions limits impracticable. 

There are multiple factors informing this decision. 

Temperature is obviously an inappropriate measure to determine 

continuous compliances for these furnaces during periods of 

startup and shutdown when the furnaces are being heated during 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 98 of 185 

startup (or cooled during shutdown) from ambient to the steady 

state operating temperature. The furnaces are heated during 

periods of startup through slow feeding of natural gas and small 

amounts of coke with no lead acid batteries fed to the furnace. 

It is impossible for furnace exhaust to be maintained within the 

window prescribed by 40 CFR 63.548(h)(4) during periods of 

startup and shutdown. However, the inability to maintain this 

temperature in secondary lead smelter furnace exhaust does not 

indicate high emissions of THC during these periods. In fact, 

the emissions are likely minimal because there are no plastics 

being fed to the furnace and minimal fuel use (mostly natural 

gas). Temperature is thus not the appropriate measure of 

continuous compliance during these periods and we are unaware of 

another metric that can be used to determine continuous 

compliance with a numerical standard for these furnaces during 

startup and shutdown. In terms of staff scheduling, test crews 

would have to be on-site and ready to begin THC testing at the 

beginning of a period of startup or shutdown, have multiple test 

crews on site for startup or shutdown periods lasting longer 

than 12 hours, and be prepared to stop and restart measurements 

to coincide with process trips that can occur during startup and 

shutdown of secondary lead smelting furnaces. Since startups and 

shutdowns of these furnaces are not necessarily scheduled long 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 99 of 185 

in advance, scheduling such testing to coincide with the 

beginning of startup or shutdown periods would require having 

testing crews on-site nearly full time. These staff resource 

issues would dramatically increase the cost of testing during 

startup and shutdown periods. 

For these technical and economic reasons, we have 

determined that conducting manual test methods during these 

secondary lead furnace startup or shutdown periods for THC to be 

impracticable within the meaning of CAA section 112(h)(2)(B). As 

a result, we have established a separate work practice standard 

for emissions of THC during periods of startup and shutdown. 

This work practice standard requires the development of standard 

operating procedures designed to minimize emissions of THC for 

each start-up and shutdown scenario anticipated for all units 

subject to THC limits. 

This startup and shutdown work practice applies only to the 

THC emission limits. We have no reason to provide startup or 

shutdown provisions for emissions of lead from any source 

because the fabric filters used to control particulate and lead 

emissions are not less effective during startup or shutdown 

periods (nor would we expect sources to have any difficulty 

meeting the lead standard since lead-bearing feed is not charged 

during either startup or shutdown conditions). Additionally, the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 100 of 185 

metrics for determining continuous compliance with these 

standards are appropriate for periods of startup and shutdown. 

Therefore, we have established the separate work practice 

standard only for THC for periods of startup and shutdown. 

During these periods, we do not believe dioxins and furans 

can form because there are no chlorinated plastics or flameretardants being fed as these materials are only introduced as 

impurities with the lead feed material. Therefore, we have not 

included a standard for dioxins and furans during periods of 

startup and shutdown because these pollutants are not emitted. 

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). The EPA has determined that malfunctions should not be 

viewed as a distinct operating mode and, therefore, any 

emissions that occur at such times do not need to be factored 

into development of CAA section 112(d) standards, which, once 

promulgated, apply at all times.

VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected facilities?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 101 of 185 

We anticipate that the 15 secondary lead smelting 

facilities currently or recently operating in the continental 

United States and Puerto Rico as well as one facility currently 

under construction in South Carolina will be affected by this 

final rule. 

B. What are the air quality impacts?

The EPA estimated the emissions reductions that are 

expected to result from these final amendments to the 1997 

NESHAP compared to the 2009 baseline emissions estimates 

calculated based on ICR data. The ICR data and RTR emissions 

memo are available in the docket to this action. A detailed 

documentation of the analysis can be found in the document in 

the docket titled: 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 

final rule will cut lead and arsenic emissions by an estimated 

68 percent from current actual emission levels based on the ICR 

data collected for this rulemaking. The final rule will result 

in estimated annual lead emissions reductions of 7.2 tpy from 

process and process fugitive sources and annual lead emissions 

reductions of 6.4 tpy from fugitive dust sources from 2009 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 102 of 185 

baseline emissions (for a total annual reduction of 13.6 tons 

per year). The expected annual reduction in total metal HAP7 is 

8.2 tpy from process and process fugitive sources and the 

expected annual reduction is 7.2 tpy from fugitive dust sources 

(total annual metal HAP reductions are estimated at 15.4 tons). 

We estimate that these controls will also reduce emissions of 

particulate matter (PM) (combined total of fine and coarse PM) 

by 135 tpy. 

Based on the emissions data available to the EPA, we 

believe that all facilities will be able to comply with the 

final emissions limits for THC and D/F without additional 

controls. However, we expect that emissions reductions will 

occur due to increased temperatures of afterburners and from 

improved work practices. Nevertheless, it is difficult to 

estimate accurate reductions from these actions and, therefore, 

we are not providing quantified estimates of reductions for THC 

and D/F. 

C. What are the cost impacts?

As a result of this final rule, certain 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 

 

7 Total metal HAP consists of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, 

chromium, lead, manganese, nickel and selenium. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 103 of 185 

bags in existing baghouses with better-performing materials, 

construction of new enclosures for processes not currently 

enclosed, modification of partially enclosed structures to meet 

the requirements of total enclosure, and installation of fabric 

filters on enclosures. 

The capital costs for each facility were estimated based on 

the number and types of upgrades we estimate that facility will 

require. Each facility was evaluated for its ability to meet the 

final limits for lead emissions, THC emissions, D/F emissions, 

and fugitive dust emissions. The memorandum titled: 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 this action are for purchasing new enclosures and the 

associated control devices that would be required for these 

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 facilities, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 104 of 185 

particularly the storage areas, to reduce the footprint of areas 

subject to total enclosure requirements. 

Based on our analysis of the facility configurations, seven 

facilities were considered already to be totally enclosed. Two 

facilities are currently installing enclosure structures and 

equipment that we anticipate will meet the requirements. 

Consequently, the capital costs do not include estimates for 

these nine facilities. We estimate that the remaining six 

facilities will require new building installations, thereby 

incurring capital costs. For the one facility currently under 

construction, we estimated one additional baghouse would be 

required. 

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 installations submitted by 

facilities in the ICR survey. The total capital cost estimate 

for the enclosures, the ductwork system, and control devices at 

the seven facilities is approximately $38 million, at an 

annualized cost of $6.4 million in 2009 dollars (an average of 

about $1 million per facility). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 105 of 185 

We also estimated annual costs for the required work 

practices in this action. Based on the ICR survey information, 

we estimated that additional costs would be required to 

implement the work practices at 12 of the 16 facilities. The 

total annual costs to implement the fugitive emissions work 

practices are approximately $3 million per year. 

For compliance with the stack lead concentration limit, we 

compared each stack emission point’s lead concentration 

(reported to the EPA under the ICR) to the requirement of 1.0 

mg/dscm of lead for any one stack. If the reported concentration 

exceeded 0.5 mg/dscm (one half the standard), we assumed that 

the facility would either upgrade the baghouse with new bags and 

additional maintenance or completely replace the baghouse, 

depending on the age of the baghouse (as explained further 

below). This cost estimate presents an upper-end estimate of the 

cost impacts of the final rule that assumes facilities will 

strive to operate well below the standard to ensure process 

variability does not cause emission rates approaching the 

maximum level allowed by the standard. If the baghouse was less 

than 10 years old and the lead concentration in the outlet was 

not appreciably over one half the standard (i.e., 0.5 mg/dscm), 

we assumed that the baghouse would require maintenance and bag 

replacement. If the baghouse was more than 10 years old and the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 106 of 185 

lead concentration was appreciably over the standard, we assumed 

the baghouse would be replaced. We then compared each facility’s 

emissions with the 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. These 

analyses indicate that nine baghouses would need to be replaced, 

and two baghouses would require additional maintenance. 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 

nine new baghouses at five facilities is estimated to be 

approximately $11.5 million, and total annual costs were 

estimated to be approximately $2.7 million. 

New limits are being promulgated for THC and D/F emissions 

from reverberatory and electric furnaces. We anticipate all 

operating affected units will be able to meet the 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 107 of 185 

continuous compliance with the standards. (We also considered 

this additional energy use as part of our analysis of whether 

the standards are warranted under CAA section 112(d)(6). See 

Cost Impacts of the Revised NESHAP for the Secondary Lead 

Smelting Source Category, available in docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–

2011–0344, at page 7). 

The capital cost estimated for additional differential 

pressure monitors for total enclosures is $106,000. The cost for 

all additional monitoring and recordkeeping requirements, 

including the baghouse monitoring, is estimated at $791,000. 

The total annualized costs for the final rule are estimated 

at $13.4 million (2009 dollars). Table 5 of this preamble 

provides a summary of the estimated costs and emissions 

reductions associated with the final amendments to the Secondary 

Lead Smelting NESHAP presented in today’s action. More detail on 

the estimated costs of today’s final rule can be found in Cost 

Impacts of the revised NESHAP for the Secondary Lead Smelting 

Source Category, available in the docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–

0344. 

Table 5. Estimated Costs and Reductions for the Promulgated 

Standards in this Action 

Final 

Amendment 

Estimated 

Capital 

Cost 

($MM) 

Estimated 

Annual 

Cost 

($MM) 

Total HAP 

Emissions 

Reductions 

(tons per year)

Cost Effectiveness 

in $ per ton total 

HAP reduction 

($ per pound) 

Revised stack 

lead 

11.5 2.7 8.2 of metal $0.33 MM per ton 

($170 per pound) 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 108 of 185 

emissions 

limit 

HAPa (7.2 of 

which is lead) 

Total 

enclosure of 

fugitive 

emissions 

sources 

38 6.4 5.2 of metal 

HAPa (4.6 of 

which is lead) 

$1.0 MM per ton 

($500 per pound) 

Fugitive 

control work 

practices 

0 3.0 2.0 of metal 

HAPa (1.8 of 

which is lead) 

$1.5 MM per ton 

($750 per pound) 

THC and D/F 

concentration 

limits 

0 0.3 29.6b $0.01 MM per ton 

Additional 

testing and 

monitoring 

0.3 0.79 N/A N/A 

aMetal HAP consisting of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, 

chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium. 

bBased on total organic HAP reductions as a co-benefit of 

compliance with standards for dioxins and furans. 

The EPA notes that the cost effectiveness of the controls 

for stack emissions of metal HAP are within the range of values 

the agency has determined to be reasonable in other section 112 

rules. Indeed, EPA determined that a value of $175 per pound of 

metal HAP removed was reasonable when determining standards for 

the iron and steel foundry source category, an area source 

standard reflecting the less rigorous Generally Available 

Control Technology under section 112(d)(5). See 73 FR at 249. 

Thus, EPA regards the cost effectiveness of the standards for 

metal HAP here as reasonable, for purposes of the standards 

adopted pursuant to sections 112 (f)(2) (ample margin of safety 

determination) and 112 (d)(6). The measures required to control 

fugitive emissions are also cost effective, based largely on the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 109 of 185 

fact that much of the industry has implemented some or all of 

the measures required in this final rule. The cost effectiveness 

for THC and D/F is presented as a point of information. Since 

those standards are MACT floor standards adopted pursuant to 

sections 112 (d)(3), considerations of cost and costeffectiveness played no part in EPA’s consideration. 

D. What are the economic impacts?

We performed an economic impact analysis for secondary lead 

consumers and producers nationally. Most secondary lead 

producers will incur annual compliance costs of much less than 1 

percent of their sales, but one firm will incur costs of greater 

than 1 percent. Both demand and supply in this sector are 

generally inelastic to price changes as shown in the Economic 

Impact Analysis at page 4. Thus, if producers could pass through 

the entire cost of the rule to consumers, we would expect prices 

to increase by no more than one percent, with no change in 

output. Conversely, if producers could not pass through any of 

the cost by increasing the price, we would expect output to 

decline by less than one percent. 

Hence, the overall economic impact of this proposed rule 

should be low on most of the affected industry and its 

consumers. For more information, please refer to the Economic 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 110 of 185 

Impact Analysis for this rulemaking that is in docket ID EPA–HQ–

OAR–2011–0344. 

E. What are the benefits?

The estimated reductions in lead emissions that will be 

achieved by this final rule will provide significant benefits to 

public health. For example, 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 

website)8 described monetized benefits calculated for that 

action associated with reduced exposure to lead. 

As noted in that RIA, there were also several other leadrelated health effects for which the EPA was unable to quantify 

a monetized benefit--particularly among adults. These potential 

impacts included hypertension, non-fatal strokes, reproductive 

effects and premature mortality, among others. 

When viewed in this context, the reductions in 

concentrations of ambient lead that will be achieved with this 

RTR for secondary lead smelters are expected to provide 

important benefits to both children and adults. The EPA did not 

quantify these benefits because this rule did not trigger the 

requirement for conducting an RIA under Executive Order 12866, 

in addition to resource and data limitations for this rule. 

 

8 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/finalpbriach5.pdf
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 111 of 185 

However, as noted at proposal, this rule should result in areas 

attaining the lead NAAQS where the secondary lead smelting 

source dominates the areas’ ambient lead concentrations. See 76 

FR at 29063-64. Although these standards are not adopted to 

implement the lead NAAQS, and rest on legal and policy 

justifications that are unrelated to the requirements for 

adopting, revising, and implementing a NAAQS (e.g. CAA sections 

112 (d) (2), (3), 6 and CAA section 112 (f)(2) as opposed to CAA 

sections 107-110), nonetheless these rules will aid in the 

attainment of the lead NAAQS.9

In addition to the benefits likely to be achieved for lead 

reductions, we also estimate that this final RTR rule will 

achieve about 39 to 63 tons of reductions in PM2.5 emissions as a 

co-benefit of the HAP reductions annually. See Development of 

the RTR Emissions Dataset for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source 

Category at section 8.3, which is available in the docket for 

information on how the PM2.5 emission reductions were calculated 

based on total PM reductions. Reducing exposure to PM2.5 is 

associated with significant human health benefits, including 

avoiding mortality and respiratory morbidity. Researchers have 

 

9 It is possible that SIPs may require some of the same types of controls on 

these sources (or may rely on the controls in these rules as part of a 

control strategy). EPA cannot, of course, pre-judge the SIP process. What 

is clear is that this rule should contribute significantly to attainment of 

the lead NAAQS. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 112 of 185 

associated PM2.5 exposure with adverse health effects in numerous 

toxicological, clinical and epidemiological studies (U.S. EPA, 

2009)10. When adequate data and resources are available and an 

RIA is required, the EPA generally quantifies several health 

effects associated with exposure to PM2.5 (e.g., U.S. EPA, 

2010)11. These health effects include premature mortality for 

adults and infants, cardiovascular morbidities such as heart 

attacks, hospital admissions, and respiratory morbidities such 

as asthma attacks, acute and chronic bronchitis, hospital and 

emergency department visits, work loss days, restricted activity 

days, and respiratory symptoms. Although the EPA has not 

quantified certain outcomes including adverse effects on birth 

weight, pre-term births, pulmonary function and other 

cardiovascular and respiratory effects, the scientific 

literature suggests that exposure to PM2.5 is also associated with 

these impacts (U.S. EPA, 2009). 

Finally, the final rule will provide human health benefits 

through reductions in arsenic and cadmium emissions, as well as 

 

10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. Integrated Science 

Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA-600-R-08-139F. National 

Center for Environmental Assessment—RTP Division. 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546>. 

11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010. Regulatory Impact 

Analysis for the Proposed Federal Transport Rule. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/proposaltrria_final.pdf>. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 113 of 185 

reductions in emissions of organic HAP (including dioxins and 

furans). 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Orders 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.” This action is 

a significant regulatory action because it raises novel legal 

and policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under 

Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 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 the EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 1686.09.

The information collection requirements are not enforceable 

until OMB approves them. The information requirements are based 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 114 of 185 

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 the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality 

is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set forth in 

40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

We are promulgating new paperwork requirements to the 

Secondary Lead Smelting source category in the form of stack 

testing for THC and D/F as described in 40 CFR 63.543(h)-(k). In 

conjunction with setting THC limits for reverberatory and 

electric 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(and received no comments to indicate 

otherwise). Additionally, increased monitoring is required for 

demonstrating negative pressure in all total enclosures. 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, the EPA has provided 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 115 of 185 

administrative adjustments to this ICR to show what the 

notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements 

associated with the assertion of the affirmative defense might 

entail. The 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 the EPA. The 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 the EPA has no 

basis currently for estimating the number of malfunctions for 

which an affirmative defense to penalties might be asserted. 

Current historical records would be an inappropriate basis, as 

source owners or operators previously operated their facilities 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 116 of 185 

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 assert 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 information on 

such events in the future and will revise this estimate as 

better information becomes available. We estimate 16 regulated 

entities are currently subject to subpart X and will be subject 

to all 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 $790,000 per year. This includes 1,600 labor 

hours per year at a total labor cost of $347,000 per year, and 

total non-labor capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) 

costs of $440,000 per year. This estimate includes performance 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 117 of 185 

tests, notifications, reporting, and recordkeeping associated 

with the new requirements for front-end process vents and backend 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 1,150 hours per year at 

a total labor cost of $52,000 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 the 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. 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 118 of 185 

entities include small businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final 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 action). 

After considering the economic impacts of today’s final 

rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 119 of 185 

entities. Two of the eight parent companies affected are 

considered a small entity per the definition provided in this 

section. However, we estimate that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on those companies (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 final rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on 

small entities. To reduce the impacts, we are promulgating stack 

limits for lead that allow sources to meet a standard based on 

aggregated emissions that are based on a weighted average 

approach (with each stack required to achieve a specified 

minimum level of control) and have been established at the least 

stringent levels that we estimate will still result in 

acceptable risks to public health with an ample margin of 

safety. Moreover, the 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 

standards. For more information, please refer to Small Business
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 120 of 185 

Analysis for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, which 

is available in docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This action 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 action 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 action imposes no enforceable duties on any State, 

local or tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, this 

action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 

of the UMRA. 

This action 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 action 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 121 of 185 

various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 

13132. These final rules primarily affect private industry, and 

do not impose significant economic costs on State or local 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It 

will not have substantial direct effect on tribal governments, 

on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian 

tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 

between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

This action 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. 

Children living near secondary lead smelters are the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 122 of 185 

subpopulation most susceptible to effects of air-borne lead, as 

explained in detail in section V.A above. The primary NAAQS for 

lead targets protection to this population, and is a reasonable 

measure for evaluating acceptability of risk here, again as 

explained in section V.A. Modeled ambient air lead 

concentrations, based on actual emission levels, from about 9 of 

the 15 facilities in this source category are in excess of the 

NAAQS for lead. Also, the results of the demographic analysis 

indicate that of the 84,000 people exposed to a cancer risk 

greater than 1-in-1 million, the age 0 to 17 demographic 

percentage (of 30 percent) is 3 percentage points higher than 

the corresponding national percentage for this demographic group 

(of 27 percent). This suggests that children may be at a 

slightly disproportionate risk of exposure to cancer risks from 

this source category. However, the control measures promulgated 

in this notice will result in lead concentration levels at or 

below the lead NAAQS at all facilities, thereby mitigating the 

risk of future adverse health effects to children. See Section 

V.A of this preamble and the Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, which is available in 

the docket for this action, for discussions of post-control 

risks. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 123 of 185 

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 

in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because 

it is not likely to have a significant adverse energy effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action will not 

create any new requirements for sources in the energy supply, 

distribution, or use sectors. Further, we have concluded that 

these final rules are not likely to have any adverse energy 

effects (and indeed, rejected certain types of control options, 

such as standards based on use of wet electrostatic 

precipitators, in part because of adverse energy implications). 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) 

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the 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, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA 

directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 124 of 185 

This action involves technical standards. The EPA requires 

use of 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. 

Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the 

General Provisions, a source may apply to the 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 final 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 125 of 185 

activities on minority populations and low-income populations in 

the United States. 

The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of environmental protection for 

all affected populations without having any disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any 

population, including any minority or low-income population. 

To examine the potential for any environmental justice 

issues that might be associated with each source category, we 

evaluated the distributions of HAP related 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 development of demographic 

analyses to inform the consideration of environmental justice 

issues in EPA rulemakings is evolving. 

In the case of Secondary Lead Smelting, we focused on 

populations within 50 km of the 15 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 ambient air lead 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 126 of 185 

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 the technical report: Risk and Technology Review -

Final Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living 

Near Secondary Lead Smelting Facilities which can be found in 

the docket for this rulemaking. The actions in today’s final 

rule will significantly decrease the risks due to HAP emissions 

from this source category for all demographic groups and 

mitigate any disproportionate risks due to those emissions. 

K. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as 

added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

of 1996, generally provides that, before a rule may take effect, 

the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, 

which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA 

will submit a report containing this final rule and other 

required information to the United States Senate, the United 

States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of 

the United States prior to publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (12/15/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote 

or Release During Review*** 

Page 127 of 185 

after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is 

not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final 

rules will be effective on [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 

THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions for 

Secondary Lead Smelting 

Page 128 of 185

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and 

procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, 

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 

______________ 

Dated: XXXXX XX, 2011 

________________________ 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 
Page 129 of 185 

For12 the reasons stated in the preamble, part 63 of title 

40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is 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. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph (p)(2) to 

read as follows: 

§63.14 Incorporations by reference.

* * * * * 

(p) * * * 

(2) Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards (OAQPS), 

Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA–454/R–98–015, 

September 1997, IBR approved for §§63.548(e)(4), 63.7525(j)(2), 

and 63.11224(f)(2). 

* * * * * 

3. 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 

63.541 Applicability. 

63.542 Definitions. 

63.543 What are my standards for process vents? 

 

12 Note that the EPA is reprinting portions of the language from the 1997 

NESHAP here so the entire rule appears in one place, for readers’ 

convenience. The EPA is not amending, reopening or otherwise reconsidering 

these reprinted portions of the 1997 rule. 
Page 130 of 185 

63.544 What are my total 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 to Civil Penalties for Exceedance of 

Emissions Limit During Malfunction 

Tables to Subpart X 

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 63—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 affected sources at a secondary lead 

smelter: blast, reverberatory, rotary, and electric furnaces; 

refining kettles; agglomerating furnaces; dryers; process 

fugitive emissions sources; buildings containing lead bearing 

materials; and fugitive dust sources. The provisions of this 

subpart do not apply to primary lead processors, 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. 
Page 131 of 185 

(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: 

Affected source means any of the following sources at a 

secondary lead smelter: blast, reverberatory, rotary, and 

electric furnaces; refining kettles; agglomerating furnaces; 

dryers; process fugitive emissions sources; buildings containing 

lead bearing materials; and fugitive dust sources. 

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, 
Page 132 of 185 

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 Celsius) 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. 
Page 133 of 185 

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 Celsius) that lead 

compounds are reduced to elemental lead metal. 

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, lead bearing material handling transfer 

points, lead bearing material transport areas, lead bearing 

material storage areas, other lead bearing material process 

areas, and buildings. 

Furnace and refining/casting area means any area of a 

secondary lead smelter in which: 

(1) Smelting furnaces are located; 

(2) Refining operations occur; or 

(3) Casting operations occur. 

Lead alloy means an alloy in which the predominant 

component is lead. 
Page 134 of 185 

Lead bearing material means material with a lead content 

equal to or greater than 5 mg/l as measured by EPA Method 1311 

(Under Method 1311, only materials with at least 100 ppm lead 

will be considered to be lead bearing). 

Leeward wall means the furthest exterior wall of a total 

enclosure that is opposite the windward wall. 

Maintenance activity means any of the following routine 

maintenance and repair activities that could generate fugitive 

lead dust: 

(1) Replacement or repair of refractory, or any internal or 

external part of equipment used to process, handle or control 

lead-containing materials. 

(2) Replacement of any duct section used to convey leadcontaining exhaust. 

(3) Metal cutting or welding that penetrates the metal 

structure of any equipment, and its associated components, used 

to process lead-containing 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, 
Page 135 of 185 

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 open piles, bins, or 

tubs, and areas in which material is prepared for charging to a 

smelting furnace. 

Natural draft opening means any permanent opening in an 

enclosure that remains open during operation of the facility and 

is not connected to a duct in which a fan is installed. 

New source means any affected source at a secondary lead 

smelting facility the construction or reconstruction of which is 

commenced after May 19, 2011. A building that is constructed for 

the purpose of controlling fugitive emissions from an existing 

source is not considered to be a new source. 

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 

outside of a total enclosure that is subject to vehicle traffic, 

including traffic by forklifts, front-end loaders, or vehicles 
Page 136 of 185 

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 emissions 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, vents 

from buildings containing lead bearing material, 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. 
Page 137 of 185 

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 Celsius) 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 Celsius) that lead 

compounds are chemically reduced to elemental lead metal. 

Secondary lead smelter means 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. 

Shutdown means the period when no lead bearing materials 

are being fed to the furnace and smelting operations have ceased 

during which the furnace is cooled from steady-state operating 

temperature to ambient temperature. 

Smelting means the chemical reduction of lead compounds to 

elemental lead or lead alloys through processing in hightemperature (greater than 980 Celsius) furnaces including, but 

not limited to, blast furnaces, reverberatory furnaces, rotary 

furnaces, and electric furnaces. 
Page 138 of 185 

Startup means the period when no led bearing materials have 

been fed to the furnace and smelting operations have not yet 

commenced during which the furnace is heated from ambient 

temperature to steady-state operating temperature. 

Total enclosure means a containment building that is 

completely enclosed with a floor, walls, and a roof to prevent 

exposure to the elements and to assure containment of lead 

bearing material with limited openings to allow access and 

egress for people and vehicles. The total enclosure must provide 

an effective barrier against fugitive dust emissions such that 

the direction of air flow through any openings is inward and the 

enclosure is maintained under constant negative pressure. 

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. 

Windward wall means the exterior wall of a total enclosure 

that is most impacted by the wind in its most prevailing 

direction determined by a wind rose using available data from 

the closest representative meteorological station. 
Page 139 of 185 

§63.543 What are my standards for process vents?

(a) For existing sources, 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 smelting 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 using the most recent test data available. 

(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: 

∑

∑=

×

= n

i

i

n

i

i i

FWA

F

F C

C

1

(Eq. 1) 

Where: 
Page 140 of 185 

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. 

(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 using Equation 1 of this section. 

(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 rate must be 

used rather than the most recent compliance test data. 

(b) For new sources that begin construction or 

reconstruction after May 19, 2011 you must maintain the 

concentration of lead compounds in any process vent gas at or 

below 0.20 milligrams of lead per dry standard cubic meter 

(0.000087 grains of lead per dry standard cubic foot). 

(c) You must meet the applicable emissions limits for total 

hydrocarbons and dioxins and furans from furnace sources 

specified in Table 2 of this subpart. There are no standards for 

dioxins and furans during periods of startup and shutdown. 
Page 141 of 185 

(d) 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 of this section. 

∑

∑=

×

= n

i

i

n

i

i ELi

EL

F

F C

C

1

(Eq. 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 pollutant in 

furnace vent i as specified in Table 2 of this 

subpart. 

(e) 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 (c) of this section 

at a location downstream from the point at which the two 

emissions streams are combined. 
Page 142 of 185 

(f) 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 and corrected to 4 

percent carbon dioxide. 

(g) Following the initial performance or compliance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the lead emissions limits specified 

in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, you must conduct 

performance tests according to the schedule in paragraph (g)(1) 

or (g)(2) of this section. 

(1) 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 meeting the requirements of §63.8. 

(2) If an annual compliance test demonstrates that a 

process vent emitted lead compounds at 0.10 milligram of lead 

per dry standard cubic meter or less during the time of the 

annual compliance test, you may submit a written request to the 

Administrator applying for an extension of up to 24 calendar 

months from the previous compliance test to conduct the next 

compliance test for lead compounds. 
Page 143 of 185 

(h) Following the initial performance or compliance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the total hydrocarbons emissions 

limits in paragraphs (c) and (f) of this section, you must 

conduct an annual performance test for total hydrocarbons 

emissions from each process vent that has established limits for 

total hydrocarbons (no later than 12 calendar months following 

the previous compliance test), unless you install and operate a 

CEMS meeting the requirements of §63.8. If an annual compliance 

test demonstrates that a process vent emitted total hydrocarbons 

at less than 50 percent of the allowable limit during the time 

of the annual compliance test, you may submit a written request 

to the Administrator applying for an extension of up to 24 

calendar months from the previous compliance test to conduct the 

next compliance test for total hydrocarbons. 

(i) Following the initial performance or compliance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the dioxins and furans emissions 

limits specified in paragraph (c) of this section, you must 

conduct a performance test for dioxins and furans emissions from 

each process vent that has established limits for dioxins and 

furans at least once every 6 years following the previous 

compliance test. 

(j) You must conduct the performance tests specified in 

paragraphs (g) through (i) of this section under maximum 

representative operating conditions for the process. During the 
Page 144 of 185 

performance test, you may operate the control device at maximum 

or minimum representative operating conditions for monitored 

control device parameters, whichever results in lower emission 

reduction. Upon request, you must make available to the 

Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 

conditions of performance tests. 

(k) 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. 

(l) If you own or operate a unit subject to emission limits 

in Table 2 of this subpart, you must minimize the unit’s startup 

and shutdown periods following the manufacturer’s recommended 

procedures, if available. You must develop and follow standard 

operating procedures designed to minimize emissions of total 

hydrocarbon for each startup or shutdown scenario anticipated. 

You must submit a signed statement in the Notification of 

Compliance Status report that indicates that you conducted 
Page 145 of 185 

startups and shutdowns according to the manufacturer’s 

recommended procedures, if available, and the standard operating 

procedures designed to minimize emissions of total hydrocarbons. 

(m) 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 from all automotive batteries prior to introducing 

feed into a furnace. 

§63.544 What are my total enclosure standards?

(a) You must operate the process fugitive emissions sources 

and fugitive dust 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 and vented to a control device 

designed to capture lead particulate. The total enclosure must 

meet the requirements specified in paragraph (c) 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. 
Page 146 of 185 

(8) Material handling areas for any lead bearing materials 

except those listed in paragraph (b) of this section. 

(9) Areas where dust from fabric filters, sweepings or used 

fabric filters are processed. 

(b) Total enclosures are not required in the following 

areas: lead ingot product handling areas, stormwater and 

wastewater treatment areas, intact battery storage areas, areas 

where lead bearing material is stored in closed containers or 

enclosed mechanical conveyors, and areas where clean battery 

casing material is handled. 

(c) You must construct and operate total enclosures for the 

sources listed in paragraph (a) of this section as specified in 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section. The total 

enclosure must be free of significant cracks, gaps, corrosion or 

other deterioration that could cause lead bearing material to be 

released from the primary barrier. Measures must be in place to 

prevent the tracking of lead bearing material out of the unit by 

personnel or by equipment used in handling the material. An area 

must be designated to decontaminate equipment and any rinsate 

must be collected and properly managed. 

(1) You must ventilate the total enclosure continuously to 

ensure negative pressure values of at least 0.013 mm of mercury 

(0.007 inches of water). 
Page 147 of 185 

(2) You must maintain an inward flow of air through all 

natural draft openings. 

(d) You must inspect enclosures and facility structures 

that contain any lead-bearing materials at least once per month. 

You must repair any gaps, breaks, separations, leak points or 

other possible routes for emissions of lead to the atmosphere 

within one week of identification unless you obtain approval for 

an extension from the Administrator before the repair period is 

exceeded. 

§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)(7) of this section. 

(1) Plant roadways. 

(2) Plant buildings. 

(3) Accidental releases. 

(4) Battery storage area. 

(5) Equipment maintenance. 

(6) Material storage areas. 

(7) Material handling areas. 

(b) You must submit the standard operating procedures 

manual to the Administrator or delegated authority for review 
Page 148 of 185 

and approval when initially developed and any time changes are 

made. 

(c) The controls specified in the standard operating 

procedures manual must at a minimum include the requirements 

specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(7) 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. 

Limited access and limited use roadways such as unpaved roads to 

remote locations on the property may be exempt from this 

requirement if they are used infrequently (no more than one 

round trip per day). 

(3) Accidental releases. You must initiate cleaning of all 

affected areas within one hour after detection of any accidental 

release of lead dust that exceeds 10 pounds (the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 

reportable quantity for lead at 40 CFR 302.4). 
Page 149 of 185 

(4) Battery storage areas. You must inspect any batteries 

that are not stored in a total enclosure once each week and move 

any broken batteries to an enclosure within 72 hours of 

identification. You must clean residue from broken batteries 

within 72 hours of identification. 

(5) 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. 

(6) Equipment maintenance. You must perform all maintenance 

activities that could generate lead dust in a manner that 

minimizes emissions of fugitive dust. This must include one or 

more of the following: 

(i) Performing maintenance inside a total permanent 

enclosure maintained at negative pressure. 

(ii) Performing maintenance inside a temporary enclosure 

and use a vacuum system either equipped with a filter rated by 

the manufacturer to achieve a capture efficiency of 99.97 

percent for 0.3 micron particles or routed to an existing 

control device permitted for this activity. 

(iii) Performing maintenance inside a partial enclosure and 

use of wet suppression sufficient to prevent dust formation. 
Page 150 of 185 

(iv) Decontamination of equipment prior to removal from an 

enclosure. 

(v) Immediate repair of ductwork or structure leaks without 

an enclosure if the time to construct a temporary enclosure 

would exceed the time to make a temporary or permanent repair, 

or if construction of an enclosure would cause a higher level of 

emissions than if an enclosure were not constructed. 

(vi) Activities required for inspection of fabric filters 

and maintenance of filters that are in need of removal and 

replacement are not required to be conducted inside of total 

enclosures. Used fabric filters must be placed in sealed plastic 

bags or containers prior to removal from a baghouse. 

(7) Material transport. You must collect and transport all 

lead bearing dust (i.e. lead bearing material which is a dust) 

within closed conveyor systems or in sealed, leak-proof 

containers unless the collection and transport activities are 

contained within a total enclosure. All other lead bearing 

material must be contained and covered for transport outside of 

a total enclosure in a manner that prevents spillage or dust 

formation. Intact batteries and lead ingot product are exempt 

from the requirement to be covered for transport. 

(d) Your standard operating procedures manual must specify 

that records be maintained of all pavement cleaning, vehicle 
Page 151 of 185 

washing, 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, limited 

access and limited use roadways). 

(f) As provided in §63.6(g), as an alternative to the 

requirements specified in 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 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 

[INSERT THE DATE TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS 

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 [INSERT THE 

DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] 

or upon startup of operations, whichever is later. 

§63.547 Test methods.
Page 152 of 185 

(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) and (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 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 12 or 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 
Page 153 of 185 

emissions standards for total hydrocarbons specified in 

§63.543(c) through (f). 

(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. 

2

4.0

CO

F = (Eq. 2) 
Page 154 of 185 

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(c). 

(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. 
Page 155 of 185 

(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. 

(20.9 % 2)

(20.9 7)

O

Cmeas Cadj

−

−

= (Eq. 3) 

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. 
Page 156 of 185 

%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. 

§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 
Page 157 of 185 

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 shakertype baghouses. Such checks are not required for shaker-type 

baghouses using self-tensioning (spring loaded) devices. 

(7) Quarterly confirmation of the physical integrity of the 

baghouse through visual inspection of the baghouse interior for 

air leaks. 

(8) Quarterly inspection of fans for wear, material 

buildup, and corrosion through visual inspection, vibration 

detectors, or equivalent means. 

(9) Except as provided in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this 

section, continuous operation of a bag leak detection system, 
Page 158 of 185 

unless a system meeting the requirements of paragraph (m) of 

this section for a continuous emissions monitoring system is 

installed for monitoring the concentration of lead. 

(d) The procedures you specify 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. 

(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 
Page 159 of 185 

Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance” EPA-454/R-98-015, September 

1997 (incorporated by reference, see §63.14) 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. 
Page 160 of 185 

(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. 
Page 161 of 185 

(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or 

otherwise repairing the bag leak detection system. 

(vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate 

emissions. 

(g) Baghouses equipped with high efficiency particulate air 

(or HEPA) filters as a secondary filter used to control 

emissions from any source subject to the lead emission standards 

in §65.543(a) or (b), are exempt from the requirement to be 

equipped with a bag leak detection system. You must monitor and 

record the pressure drop across each HEPA filter system daily. 

If the pressure drop is outside the limit(s) specified by the 

filter manufacturer, you must take appropriate corrective 

measures, which may include but not be limited to those given in 

paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this section. 

(1) Inspecting the filter and filter housing for air leaks 

and torn or broken filters. 

(2) Replacing defective filter media, or otherwise 

repairing the control device. 

(3) Sealing off a defective control device by routing air 

to other control devices 

(4) Shutting down the process producing the particulate 

emissions. 

(h) Baghouses followed by a wet electrostatic precipitator 

used as a secondary control device for any source subject to the 
Page 162 of 185 

lead emission standards in §63.543(a) or (b), are exempt from 

the requirement to be equipped with a bag leak detection system. 

(i) If you use a wet scrubber to control particulate matter 

and metal hazardous air pollutant emissions from a process vent 

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) or 

(b). 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. 

(j) You must comply with the requirements specified in 

paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(4) of this section to demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the total hydrocarbons and dioxins 

and furans emissions standards. During periods of startup and 

shutdown, the requirements of paragraph (j)(4) of this section 

do not apply. Instead, you must demonstrate compliance with the 

standard for total hydrocarbon by meeting the requirements of 

§63.543(l). 

(1) Continuous temperature monitoring. You must install, 

calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate a device to 
Page 163 of 185 

monitor and record the temperature of the afterburner or furnace 

exhaust streams consistent with the requirements for continuous 

monitoring systems in §63.8. 

(2) Prior to or in conjunction with the initial performance 

or compliance test to determine compliance with §63.543(c), 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 (j)(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 (j)(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-
Page 164 of 185 

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 

°Celsius (50 °Fahrenheit) below the average established in 

paragraph (j)(3) of this section. 

(k) You must install, operate, and maintain a digital 

differential pressure monitoring system to continuously monitor 

each total enclosure as described in paragraphs (k)(1) through 

(k)(5) 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. 
Page 165 of 185 

(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 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 

millimeters mercury (0.005 to 0.11 inches of water) with a 

minimum accuracy of plus or minus 0.001 millimeters of 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. 
Page 166 of 185 

(l) Except as provided in paragraphs (l)(2) or (l)(3) of 

this section, all new or reconstructed sources subject to the 

requirements under §63.543 must install, calibrate, maintain, 

and operate a CEMS for measuring lead emissions. In addition to 

the General Provisions requirements for CEMS in §63.8(c) that 

are referenced in Table 1 to this subpart, you must comply with 

the requirements for CEMS specified in paragraph (m) of this 

section. 

(1) Sources subject to the emissions limits for lead 

compounds under §63.543(b) must install a CEMS for measuring 

lead emissions within 180 days of promulgation by the EPA of 

performance specifications for lead CEMS. 

(2) Prior to 180 days after the EPA promulgates performance 

specifications for CEMS used to measure lead concentrations, you 

must use the procedure described in §63.543(g)(1) to determine 

compliance. 

(3) Vents from control devices that serve only to control 

emissions from buildings containing lead bearing materials are 

exempt from the requirement to install a CEMS for measuring lead 

emissions. 

(m) If a CEMS is used to measure lead emissions, you must 

install a continuous emissions 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 
Page 167 of 185 

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 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 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 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 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 
Page 168 of 185 

or quality control activities including, as applicable, 

calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments. 

(5) If you have a CEMS to measure lead emissions, you must 

calculate the average lead concentration and flow rate monthly 

to determine compliance with §63.543(a). 

(6) When the continuous emissions 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. Electronic notifications are encouraged 

if suitable for the specific case (e.g., by electronic media 

such as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy), and when 

required by this subpart. 

(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 
Page 169 of 185 

approval of these plans and procedures. You must submit this 

notification no later than [INSERT THE DATE ONE YEAR AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. For 

sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after 

[INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS 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 [INSERT THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THIS 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 THE 

DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 

you must submit this notification no later than [INSERT THE DATE 

ONE YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF THIS 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 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 if 

suitable for the specific case (e.g., by electronic media such 
Page 170 of 185 

as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy), and when required by 

this subpart. 

(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)(13) 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). 
Page 171 of 185 

(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(i). 

(5) Electronic records of the output from the continuous 

temperature monitor required in §63.548(j)(1), and an 

identification of periods when the 3-hour average temperature 

fell below the minimum established under §63.548(j)(4), and an 

explanation of the corrective actions taken. 

(6) Electronic records of the continuous pressure monitors 

for total enclosures required in §63.548(k), and an 

identification of periods when the pressure was not maintained 

as required in §63.544(c)(1). 

(7) Records of any time periods power was lost to the 

continuous pressure monitors for total enclosures required in 

§63.548(k) and records of loss of power to the air handling 

system maintaining negative pressure on total enclosures. 

(8) Records of the inspections of facility enclosures 

required in §63.544(d). 

(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. 
Page 172 of 185 

(10) Electronic records of the output of any CEMS installed 

to monitor lead emissions meeting the requirements of 

§63.548(m). 

(11) Records of the occurrence and duration of each 

malfunction of operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air 

pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment. 

(12) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction 

to minimize emissions in accordance with §63.543(k), including 

corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air 

pollution control and monitoring equipment to its normal or 

usual manner of operation. 

(13) Records of any periods of startup or shutdown of a 

furnace and actions taken to minimize emissions during that 

period in accordance with §63.543(l). 

(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. 
Page 173 of 185 

(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), except during the first year when the 

concentration is calculated using the method described in 

§63.543(a)(2). 

(2) Records of the concentration of total hydrocarbon and 

dioxins and furans in each process vent that has established 

limits for total hydrocarbon and dioxins and furans as required 

in §63.543(c). 

(3) Records of all periods when monitoring using a CEMS for 

lead or total hydrocarbon was not in compliance with applicable 

limits. 

(4) Records of all alarms from the bag leak detection 

system specified in §63.548. 

(5) A description of the procedures taken following each 

bag leak detection system alarm pursuant to §63.548(f)(1) and 

(2). 

(6) A summary of the records maintained as part of the 

practices described in the standard operating procedures manual 
Page 174 of 185 

for baghouses required under §63.548(a), including an 

explanation of the periods when the procedures were not followed 

and the corrective actions taken. 

(7) 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(i), and an explanation of the corrective actions taken. 

(8) Records of the temperature monitor output, in 3-hour 

block averages, for those periods when the temperature monitored 

pursuant to §63.548(j) fell below the level established in 

§63.548(j)(4). 

(9) Certification that the plastic separation process for 

battery breakers required in §63.543(m) was operated at all 

times the battery breaker was in service. 

(10) Records of periods when the pressure was not 

maintained as required in §63.544(c) or power was lost to the 

continuous pressure monitoring system as required in §63.548(k). 

(11) 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 during a malfunction 
Page 175 of 185 

of an affected source to minimize emissions in accordance with 

§63.543(k), including actions taken to correct a malfunction. 

(12) 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). 

(13) Records of any periods of startup or shutdown of a 

furnace including an explanation of the periods when the 

procedures required in §63.543(l) were not followed and the 

corrective actions taken. 

(14) You must submit records pursuant to paragraphs 

(e)(14)(i) through (iii) of this section below. 

(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 
Page 176 of 185 

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 paragraph (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 paragraph 

(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 
Page 177 of 185 

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 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. 
Page 178 of 185 

§63.552 Affirmative Defense to Civil Penalties 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. 
Page 179 of 185 

(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. 
Page 180 of 185 

(9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the 

purpose of which is 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 
Page 181 of 185 

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(k) 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(j) 

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(k) 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 
Page 182 of 185 

Reference 

Applies to 

subpart X Comment 

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

hrough (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(e)(11) 

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 
Page 183 of 185 

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...a

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 

(new and existing) 

20 ppmv 0.50 ng/dscm 

Collocated blast and 

reverberatory furnace 

when the 

Reverberatory furnace 

is not operating for 

units that comments 

construction or 

reconstruction before 

June 9, 1994 

360 ppmv 170 ng/dscm 

Collocated blast and 

reverberatory furnace 

when the 

reverberatory furnace 

is not operating for 

units that commence 

construction or 

reconstruction after 

June 9, 1994 

70 ppmv 170 ng/dscm 

Blast furnace that 

commence construction 

or reconstruction 

before June 9, 1994 

360 ppmv 170 ng/dscm 

Blast furnaces that 

commence construction 

or reconstruction 

after June 9, 1994 

70 ppmv 170 ng/dscm 

Blast furnaces that 

commence construction 

or reconstruction 

after May 19, 2011 

70 ppmv 10 ng/dscm 

Reverberatory and 

electric furnace that 

12 ppmv 0.20 ng/dscm 
Page 184 of 185 

For vents from these 

processes... 

You must meet the following emissions 

limits...a

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

commence construction 

or reconstruction 

before May 19, 2011 

Reverberatory and 

electric furnace that 

commence construction 

or reconstruction 

after May 19, 2011 

12 ppmv 0.10 ng/dscm 

aThere are no standards for dioxins and furans during periods of 

startup and shutdown. 

Table 3 to Subpart X of Part 63 – Toxic Equivalency Factors 

Dioxin/furan congener Toxic equivalency factor 

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzop-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 0.5 
Page 185 of 185 

Dioxin/furan congener Toxic equivalency factor 

dibenzofuran 

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