556 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344; FRL–9610–9] 

RIN 2060–AQ68 

National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants From 

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 

January 5, 2012. The incorporation by 

reference of certain publications listed 

in the rule is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of January 5, 

2012. 

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 Web 

site. 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. 

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 contact a OAQPS contact b

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

malave.maria@epa.gov.

Nathan Topham, (919) 541– 

0483, 

topham.nathan@epa.gov. 

aEPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. 

bEPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 

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 

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? 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 557 

1USEPA. Documentation for Developing the 

Initial Source Category List—Final Report, USEPA/ 

OAQPS, EPA–450/3–91–030, July, 1992. 

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 

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 

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 

MACT b

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 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 

source, or by March 5, 2012, 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 

March 5, 2012. 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

558 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

2Note 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. 

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 

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 

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 bestperforming 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-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 (DC 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 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. 

This section describes the final 

amendments to the secondary lead 

smelting NESHAP.2 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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 559 

3Throughout this preamble, all references to lead 

emissions means lead compounds as listed by 

Congress at section 112(b)(1) of the Act. 4Since 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. 

5 ‘‘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’’). 

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 lead 3 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 

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 non-dioxin 

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 

limit a

THC Emission 

Limit b

New and Existing Collocated Blast and Reverberatory Furnaces ...................................................................... 0.50 c 20 

Existing Blast Furnaces ....................................................................................................................................... 170 c 360 

New Blast Furnaces ............................................................................................................................................ 10 c 70 

New and Existing Reverberatory and Electric Furnaces .................................................................................... 1.0 12 

a ng/dscm on a TEQ basis, corrected to 7 percent O2. b ppmv as propane, corrected to 4 percent CO2. cEmission 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 (DC 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) 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 nondioxin 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 

emissions would not increase during 

these periods because lead-bearing 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.4

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 

precursors needed for dioxin formation 

are not introduced into the smelter 5 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

560 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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, 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 

significant difficulties, as malfunctions 

are sudden and unexpected events. 

Further, accounting for malfunctions 

would be difficult, if not impossible, 

given the myriad different types of 

malfunctions that can occur across all 

sources in the category and given the 

difficulties associated with predicting or 

accounting for the frequency, degree, 

and duration of various malfunctions 

that might occur. As such, the 

performance of units that are 

malfunctioning is not ‘‘reasonably’’ 

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

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

(EPA typically has wide latitude in 

determining the extent of data-gathering 

necessary to solve a problem.) We 

generally defer to an agency’s decision 

to proceed on the basis of imperfect 

scientific information, rather than to 

‘‘invest the resources to conduct the 

perfect study’’. See also, Weyerhaeuser 

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

1978) (‘‘In the nature of things, no 

general limit, individual permit, or even 

any upset provision can anticipate all 

upset situations. After a certain point, 

the transgression of regulatory limits 

caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third 

parties’, such as strikes, sabotage, 

operator intoxication or insanity, and a 

variety of other eventualities, must be a 

matter for the administrative exercise of 

case-by-case enforcement discretion, not 

for specification in advance by 

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

best-controlled or best-performing 

source is to operate in such a way as to 

avoid malfunctions of the source and 

accounting for malfunctions could lead 

to standards that are significantly less 

stringent than levels that are achieved 

by a well-performing nonmalfunctioning source. 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). 

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, 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). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 561 

The EPA is including an affirmative 

defense in the final rule in an attempt 

to balance a tension, inherent in many 

types 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 

(DC 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 (DC Cir. 1973), the DC 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 ‘never to be 

exceeded’ standard currently in force.’’ 

See also, Portland Cement Association 

v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (DC Cir. 

1973). Though intervening case law 

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 (DC 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 January 5, 2012. For the 

MACT standards being addressed in this 

action, the compliance date for the 

revised SSM requirements is the 

effective date of the standards, January 

5, 2012. 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, January 6, 

2014. New sources must comply with 

the all of the standards immediately 

upon the effective date of the standard, 

January 5, 2012, 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 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 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 

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 Web site 

(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:// 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

562 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

6For 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. 

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 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 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 Table 4). 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 200 people 

live in areas around three of these 

facilities where 3-month maximum lead 

concentrations are estimated to be 

between one and three times 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 

exceedances at populated census block 

centroids were between one and three 

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 percent to 85 percent, the estimated 

fugitive emissions at the RSR facility 

would be about 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 percent to 

65 percent, 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 percent 

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–OAR–2011–0344, 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 563 

TABLE 4—SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING FACILITY MODELED MAXIMUM AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS CONSIDERING

ACTUAL EMISSIONS a

[Rolling 3-month average values] 

Facility name City State 

Highest 

modeled 

lead concentration 

(μg/m3) 

Concentration is X 

times the 

NAAQS 

Doe Run Company-Buick Mill .................................... Boss ........................................................................... MO 2.36 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 Technologies–Canon 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 

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, 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 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 of lead and other HAP metals 

and fugitive emissions of lead 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 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

564 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 facilitywide 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 at a 

census block centroid exposed to 

ambient concentrations above the 

NAAQS due to these facilities 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, 

flow-weighted 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 

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. 

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. 

• 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 565 

• 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. 

• 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 

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 

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. 

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 mg/m3 (1987) to 0.06 

mg/m3 (1993) after all of the point source 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

566 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 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 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 

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 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 

in-draft 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 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 567 

Response: We agree with the 

commenters that monitoring of both 

building differential pressure and indraft 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 in-draft 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 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 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 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.’’ 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

568 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 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 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. 

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. 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 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 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 569 

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 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, 

off-road 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 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 lead-acid 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 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 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 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 specialtytype 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

570 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 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, 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 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 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 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 571 

7The 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. 

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 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.7

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 

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 one 

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 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 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

572 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 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 

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 lead-bearing. 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 

percent) 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 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. 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 573 

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. 

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 lead-bearing 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). 

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 (DC 

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. 

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). 

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 

consistent with testing requirements 

that exist in many facility permits. 

Response: We agree that facilities 

should be given the option of using EPA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

574 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 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 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 processrelated 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 offgases. 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 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 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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 575 

8Total metal HAP consists of antimony, arsenic, 

beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, 

nickel and selenium. 

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 flame-retardants 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? 

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 baseline emissions 

(for a total annual reduction of 13.6 tons 

per year). The expected annual 

reduction in total metal HAP 8 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 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, 

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). 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

576 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 flowweighted, 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 

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 emissions limit ... 11.5 2.7 8.2 of metal HAP a (7.2 of which is 

lead).

$0.33 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 29.6 b ................................................. $0.01 MM per ton. 

Additional testing and monitoring ...... 0.3 0.79 N/A .................................................... N/A. 

a Metal 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 

cost-effectiveness 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 Impact 

Analysis for this rulemaking that is in 

docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 577 

9http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/ 

finalpbriach5.pdf. 

10 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. 

11U.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>. 

12U.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. 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 Web site) 9 described 

monetized benefits calculated for that 

action associated with reduced exposure 

to lead. 

As noted in that RIA, there were also 

several other lead-related 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 

sections 107–110), nonetheless these 

rules will aid in the attainment of the 

lead NAAQS.10

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 cobenefit 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).11 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) 12. 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 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 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 plant 

employees, and document the events 

surrounding a malfunction that has 

caused an exceedance of an emissions 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

578 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 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 back-end process operations. The 

total burden for the federal government 

(averaged over the first 3 years after the 

effective date of the standard) is 

estimated to be 1,150 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 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-for-profit 

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 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 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 579 

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. 

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

580 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 January 

5, 2012. 

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: December 16, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, part 63 of title 40, chapter I, 

of the Code of Federal Regulations is 

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. Revise subpart X to read as follows: 

Subpart X—National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants From 

Secondary Lead Smelting 

Sec. 

63.541 Applicability. 

63.542 Definitions. 

63.543 What are my standards for process 

vents? 

63.544 What are my 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. 

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. 

(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, 

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. 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 581 

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. 

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 lead-containing exhaust. 

(3) Metal cutting or welding that 

penetrates the metal structure of any 

equipment, and its associated 

components, used to process leadcontaining material such that lead dust 

within the internal structure or its 

components can become fugitive lead 

dust. 

(4) Resurfacing, repair or removal of 

ground, pavement, concrete, or asphalt. 

Materials storage and handling area 

means any area of a secondary lead 

smelter in which lead-bearing materials 

(including, but not limited to, broken 

battery components, reverberatory 

furnace slag, flue dust, and dross) are 

stored or handled between process steps 

including, but not limited to, areas in 

which materials are stored in 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 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. 

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 lead-bearing 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 high-temperature (greater 

than 980 Celsius) furnaces including, 

but not limited to, blast furnaces, 

reverberatory furnaces, rotary furnaces, 

and electric furnaces. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

582 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

closest representative meteorological 

station. 

§ 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: 

Where: 

CFWA = Flow-weighted average concentration 

of all process vents. 

n = Number of process vents. 

Fi = Flow rate from process vent i in dry 

standard cubic feet per minute, as 

measured during the most recent 

compliance test. 

Ci = Concentration of lead in process vent i, 

as measured during the most recent 

compliance test. 

(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. 

(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. 

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. 

(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 (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. 

(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 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 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER05JA12.000</GPH> ER05JA12.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 583 

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 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 (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. 

(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 (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). 

(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 leadbearing 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 (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 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 (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). 

(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. 

(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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

584 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 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 January 6, 2014. 

(b) For affected sources that 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction after May 19, 2011, you 

must demonstrate compliance with the 

requirements of this subpart by January 

5, 2012 or upon startup of operations, 

whichever is later. 

§ 63.547 Test methods. 

(a) You must use the test methods 

from appendix A of part 60 as listed in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (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 (4) of this 

section, as specified, to determine 

compliance with the 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 (3) of this 

section. 

(1) If the measured percent carbon 

dioxide is greater than 0.4 percent in 

each compliance test, you must 

determine the correction factor using 

Equation 2 of this section. 

Where: 

F = Correction factor (no units). 

CO2 = Percent carbon dioxide measured 

using EPA Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–2, where the 

measured carbon dioxide is greater than 

0.4 percent. 

(2) If the measured percent carbon 

dioxide is equal to or less than 0.4 

percent, you must use a correction 

factor (F) of 10. 

(3) You must determine the corrected 

total hydrocarbons concentration by 

multiplying the measured total 

hydrocarbons concentration by the 

correction factor (F) determined for each 

compliance test. 

(d) You must use the following test 

methods in appendix A of part 60 listed 

in paragraphs (d)(1) through (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. 

(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 (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. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER05JA12.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 585 

Where: 

Cadj = Dioxins and furans concentration 

adjusted to 7 percent oxygen. 

Cmeas = Dioxins and furans concentration 

measured in nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter. 

(20.9–7) = 20.9 percent oxygen—7 percent 

oxygen (defined oxygen correction 

basis). 

20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent. 

%O2 = Oxygen concentration measured on a 

dry basis, percent. 

(2) For each dioxins and furans 

congener measured as specified in 

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

the congener concentration by its 

corresponding toxic equivalency factor 

specified in Table 3 to this subpart. 

(3) Sum the values calculated as 

specified in paragraph (e)(2) of this 

section to obtain the total concentration 

of dioxins and furans emitted in terms 

of toxic equivalency. 

§ 63.548 Monitoring requirements. 

(a) You must prepare, and at all times 

operate according to, a standard 

operating procedures manual that 

describes in detail procedures for 

inspection, maintenance, and bag leak 

detection and corrective action plans for 

all baghouses (fabric filters or cartridge 

filters) that are used to control process 

vents, process fugitive, or fugitive dust 

emissions from any source subject to the 

lead emissions standards in §§ 63.543, 

63.544, and 63.545, including those 

used to control emissions from building 

ventilation. 

(b) You must submit the standard 

operating procedures manual for 

baghouses required by paragraph (a) of 

this section to the Administrator or 

delegated authority for review and 

approval. 

(c) The procedures that you specify in 

the standard operating procedures 

manual for inspections and routine 

maintenance must, at a minimum, 

include the requirements of paragraphs 

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

(1) Daily monitoring of pressure drop 

across each baghouse cell. 

(2) Weekly confirmation that dust is 

being removed from hoppers through 

visual inspection, or equivalent means 

of ensuring the proper functioning of 

removal mechanisms. 

(3) Daily check of compressed air 

supply for pulse-jet baghouses. 

(4) An appropriate methodology for 

monitoring cleaning cycles to ensure 

proper operation. 

(5) Monthly check of bag cleaning 

mechanisms for proper functioning 

through visual inspection or equivalent 

means. 

(6) Monthly check of bag tension on 

reverse air and shaker-type baghouses. 

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

(spring loaded) devices. 

(7) Quarterly confirmation of the 

physical integrity of the baghouse 

through visual inspection of the 

baghouse interior for air leaks. 

(8) Quarterly inspection of fans for 

wear, material buildup, and corrosion 

through visual inspection, vibration 

detectors, or equivalent means. 

(9) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(g) and (h) of this section, continuous 

operation of a bag leak detection system, 

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 (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 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. 

(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 (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. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER05JA12.003</GPH>
586 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse 

compartment. 

(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection 

system probe, or otherwise repairing the 

bag leak detection system. 

(vi) Shutting down the process 

producing the particulate emissions. 

(g) 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 (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 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 (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 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-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 

(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. 

(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. 

(l) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(l)(2) or (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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 587 

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 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 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 approval of these plans and 

procedures. You must submit this 

notification no later than January 7, 

2013. For sources that commenced 

construction or reconstruction after 

January 5, 2012, you must submit this 

notification no later than 180 days 

before startup of the constructed or 

reconstructed secondary lead smelter, 

but no sooner than January 5, 2012. For 

an affected source that has received a 

construction permit from the 

Administrator or delegated authority on 

or before January 5, 2012, you must 

submit this notification no later than 

January 7, 2014. 

§ 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 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 (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). 

(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. 

(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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

588 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(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. 

(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 (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 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 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. 

(i) As of January 1, 2012 and within 

60 days after the date of completing 

each performance test, as defined in 

§ 63.2 and as required in this subpart, 

you must submit performance test data, 

except opacity data, electronically to 

EPA’s Central Data Exchange by using 

the Electronic Reporting Tool (see 

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

tool.html/). Only data collected using 

test methods compatible with the 

Electronic Reporting Tool are subject to 

this requirement to be submitted 

electronically into EPA’s WebFIRE 

database. 

(ii) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each CEMS performance 

evaluation test, as defined in § 63.2 and 

required by this subpart, you must 

submit the relative accuracy test audit 

data electronically into EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange by using the Electronic 

Reporting Tool as mentioned in 

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

data collected using test methods 

compatible with the Electronic 

Reporting Tool are subject to this 

requirement to be submitted 

electronically into EPA’s WebFIRE 

database. 

(iii) All reports required by this 

subpart not subject to the requirements 

in 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 

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 (4) of this section. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 589 

(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. 

§ 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. 

(iv) Were not part of a recurring 

pattern indicative of inadequate design, 

operation, or maintenance. 

(2) Repairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when the 

applicable emissions limitations were 

being exceeded. Off-shift and overtime 

labor were used, to the extent 

practicable to make these repairs. 

(3) The frequency, amount and 

duration of the excess emissions 

(including any bypass) were minimized 

to the maximum extent practicable 

during periods of such emissions. 

(4) If the excess emissions resulted 

from a bypass of control equipment or 

a process, then the bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 

personal injury, or severe property 

damage. 

(5) All possible steps were taken to 

minimize the impact of the excess 

emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health. 

(6) All emissions monitoring and 

control systems were kept in operation 

if at all possible, consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices. 

(7) All of the actions in response to 

the excess emissions were documented 

by properly signed, contemporaneous 

operating logs. 

(8) At all times, the affected source 

was operated in a manner consistent 

with good practices for minimizing 

emissions. 

(9) A written root cause analysis has 

been prepared, the purpose of which is 

to determine, correct, and eliminate the 

primary causes of the malfunction and 

the excess emissions resulting from the 

malfunction event at issue. The analysis 

shall also specify, using best monitoring 

methods and engineering judgment, the 

amount of excess emissions that were 

the result of the malfunction. 

(b) Notification. The owner or 

operator of the affected source 

experiencing an exceedance of its 

emissions limit(s) during a malfunction, 

shall notify the Administrator by 

telephone or facsimile transmission as 

soon as possible, but no later than two 

business days after the initial 

occurrence of the malfunction, it wishes 

to avail itself of an affirmative defense 

to civil penalties for that malfunction. 

The owner or operator seeking to assert 

an affirmative defense, shall also submit 

a written report to the Administrator 

within 45 days of the initial occurrence 

of the exceedance of the standard in this 

subpart to demonstrate, with all 

necessary supporting documentation, 

that it has met the requirements set forth 

in paragraph (a) of this section. The 

owner or operator may seek an 

extension of this deadline for up to 30 

additional days by submitting a written 

request to the Administrator before the 

expiration of the 45-day period. Until a 

request for an extension has been 

approved by the Administrator, the 

owner or operator is subject to the 

requirement to submit such report 

within 45 days of the initial occurrence 

of the exceedance. 

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

Reference Applies to subpart X Comment 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

63.6(e)(1)(i) ....................................................................... No. ...................................... See 63.543(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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

590 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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

Reference Applies to subpart X Comment 

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

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

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

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

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

63.9(a), (b), (c), (e), (g), (h)(1)through (3), (h)(5) and (6), 

(i) and (j).

Yes. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

taken during malfunction. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

63.10(d)(5) ........................................................................ No. ...................................... See 63.550(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. 

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 furnaces (new and existing) ........... 20 ppmv ......................................... 0.50 ng/dscm. 

Collocated blast and reverberatory furnaces 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 furnaces when the reverberatory 

furnace is not operating for units that commence construction or reconstruction after June 9, 1994.

70 ppmv ......................................... 170 ng/dscm. 

Blast furnaces 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 furnaces that commence construction or reconstruction before May 19, 2011.12 ppmv ......................................... 0.20 ng/dscm. 

Reverberatory and electric furnaces 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 dibenzo-p-dioxin ............................................................................................................................................ 1 

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ........................................................................................................................................ 0.5 

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ...................................................................................................................................... 0.1 

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ...................................................................................................................................... 0.1 

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ...................................................................................................................................... 0.1 

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin .................................................................................................................................. 0.01 

octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.001 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 591 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART X OF PART 63—TOXIC EQUIVALENCY FACTORS—Continued 

Dioxin/furan congener Toxic equivalency factor 

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran .................................................................................................................................................. 0.1 

2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran ............................................................................................................................................. 0.05 

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzofuran ............................................................................................................................................. 0.5 

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran ........................................................................................................................................... 0.1 

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran ........................................................................................................................................... 0.1 

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzofuran ........................................................................................................................................... 0.1 

[FR Doc. 2011–32933 Filed 1–4–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2