Memorandum 

Subject: Teleconference with the Association of Battery Recyclers (ABR) 

Location: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, RTP, NC 

Date: September 16, 2011 

Participants: Chuck French, EPA 

Nate Topham, EPA 

Colin Boswell, EPA 

Russell Kemp, ENVIRON 

Mark DeLaquil, Baker Law 

Robert Steinwurtzel, Baker Law 

Mike Burr, ERG 

Donna Lazzari, ERG 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) met via telephone with representatives of the 

Association of Battery Recyclers (ABR). The meeting was requested by ABR to discuss a letter 

dated June 24, 2011 in which ABR submitted a request for EPA to issue a supplemental notice of 

rulemaking for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Secondary Lead 

Smelting. A brief summary of the key points that were discussed is outlined below. 

• ABR provided background information describing their role as interveners in litigation 

for the RTR schedule developed by EPA and Sierra Club. 

• ABR stated its position that the proposed rule for secondary lead smelters has a number 

of substantive flaws that would make it impossible to defend. ABR stated that their 

ultimate goal is for the Agency to consider a supplemental notice. 

• The main issues identified by ABR include: 

1. EPA failed to consider emissions from The Battery Recycling Company 

(TBR) in Arecibo, Puerto Rico when developing the proposed rule. ABR 

stated their understanding that TBR was sent a limited Information Collection 

Request and that no stack testing was requested. ABR contends that TBR 

should have received the same ICR that all other facilities received. ABR 

stated that information from this facility is especially important since they are 

unique in the fact that they operate a rotary furnace. ABR further stated that 

the ICR that was sent to TBR was not docketed, nor was the response. 

Interested parties should have had an opportunity to review and comment on 

any data submitted by TBR in response to the limited ICR that they received. 
2. An explanation of how EPA determined fugitive emissions for Exide’s Frisco, 

TX facility is not included in the docket. ABR stated that the calculations 

made for the facility based on ICR data was not apparent and visible in the 

docket. Additionally, a letter from Fred Ganster to Chuck French regarding 

Exide Frisco’s dioxin emissions was not included in the docket. 

3. ABR stated that there are fundamental flaws with EPA’s fugitive emission 

estimation methodology. First, EPA double counted the fugitive emissions 

reported by Exide Frisco for one emissions point. Second, EPA used the 

wrong common denominator when scaling Exide Frisco’s fugitive emissions 

in order to estimate fugitive emissions at the other secondary lead smelters. 

ABR stated that they had no specific alternative methodology to propose since 

they had insufficient time to develop any alternative methodology. 

4. ABR stated that EPA overestimated emissions of dioxins and furans from the 

Exide Frisco facility. The facility submitted a stack test report showing that 

emissions of dioxins and furans were approximately 69 times lower than the 

estimates used by EPA for their multipathway risk assessment. ABR further 

stated their understanding that additional testing has been submitted or will be 

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

facility. 

• ABR concluded the meeting by requesting that EPA inform ABR ASAP as to 

whether the Agency plans on granting an extension for promulgation of the final rule 

for secondary lead smelters.