From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To: Nathan Topham/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Chuck French/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Fred Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 12/07/2011 07:15 PM

Subject: Secondary Lead RTR -- Interagency comments

Hi Nate, 

Attached are interagency comments on the RTR risk assessment and preamble, along with a redline of the 

preamble. 

 

Please let me know if you have any questions. 

 

Regards, 

Cortney 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

1

Secondary Lead Risk Assessment:

• Page 5 EPA states: “However, with regard to the estimates of fugitive emissions, the data 

we received through the ICR were limited and uncertain.” It is unclear what this means for 

the purposes of how the data were used. Does this mean EPA ignored these data and used 

only their supplemental analysis? Where is this supplemental analysis found? What were its 

findings and how do the numbers in the EPA supplemental analysis track with the numbers 

from the “limited and uncertain” data provided by industry?

• Table 3.2-1, for maximum acute HQ, EPA presents the REL value only for Arsenic. Are there 

other AEGL or ERPG values that could be used? If not, please provide a footnote noting that 

only a REL is available. Are all other HQ’s under 1? If so please clarify that there were no 

exceedances with the AEGL or ERPG values.

• Also for this table and for discussion in 3.2, it is not clear what emissions/risks are from the 

stack vs from fugitives. Can EPA please provide a table showing what risks come from stacks 

and which from fugitives?

• Page 32 suggested edits: “In addition, this worst-case screening analysis estimates that the 

maximum acute HQ value for a facility in this source category could be up to 20, at two facilities in 

this source category largely due to stack emissions of arsenic at the Exide Baton Rouge facility and 

due to a combination of stack and fugitive dust emissions of arsenic at the Doe Run facility. “ It 

would also be helpful for EPA to more clearly explain % of emissions/risk coming from stack vs 

fugitive. Last sentence was deleted because it is our understanding that the risk assessments do not 

draw conclusions regarding risk.

• Page 33, states: “Results of this analysis, presented in Table 3.2-3, estimate that the NAAQS for lead 

could be exceeded at about 9 of 15 facilities, largely due to fugitive dust emissions.” Please clarify 

what extent of the exceedance is due to fugatives and what extent is due to stacks. It is also not 

clear where this analysis is presented. It our understanding that EPA did supplemental analysis and 

modeling to derive fugitive numbers.

• Page 33 suggested edits: “Moreover, this analysis estimates that 3-month maximum lead 

concentrations could be up to about 20 times the NAAQS for lead -A. As mentioned above, to 

evaluate the potential for adverse environmental effects, we also compared maximum 3-month 

rolling average atmospheric concentrations with the current secondary NAAQS for lead (which is 

identical to the primary, health-based standard). .”

• Page 34, in the column heading for table 3.2-3, please clarify that you are presenting the 

highest modeled lead concentration.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

2

• Section 3.3. is driven by the assumption that the risks are predominantly from fugitives. 

Again, it is hard to comment on this without seeing the breakdown of emissions from stack 

vs fugitives and without understanding the assumptions EPA used in place of fugitive data 

received from industry.

• Page 34/35: “Of these 2 facilities, 1 is projected to be very close to the NAAQS for lead. The 

other facility (Exide, CA) is estimated to be about 3 times above the NAAQS for lead 

(primarily driven by fugitive emissions).” Please replace this with specific numbers, so that it 

is clear what is meant by “very close” and “about 3 times”. In addition it may be helpful to 

provide a table showing how the concentrations (and NAAQS exceedances) changed at each 

facility which still exceeds the NAAQS. 

• Page 35: the last paragraph of section 3.3 is unclear. So post control there will be 2 facilities 

exceeding the acute HQ of 1. Is that correct? One is exceeding for Arsenic, based on the REL 

(please add language about EPRG and AEGL) and the other facility is exceeding for lead? 

Where is this seen in table 3.2-1. Please clarify.

Secondary Lead Preamble:

• Page 30/31- where language is consistent with risk assessment, please make conforming 

edits as suggested above. Additionally, please add discussion regarding the confidence and 

uncertainties in the fugitive data and the additional analysis that was conducted by EPA. 

Please also add language discussing what is meant by exceedances being “largely due to 

fugitive dust emissions). More should be added to discuss what comes from stack vs 

fugitives.

• Page 32, based on the comment, should the lead conc. value for Frisco battery recycling be 

modified?

• Page 33, if there is only a REL for arsenic and no other screening values are available, please 

clarify this in text. Otherwise please present other values.

• Page 33, EPA states that risks are unacceptable “primarily based on lead risk”. Please add 

discussion of what portions are due to stack vs fugitive. EPA notes that both must be 

reduced, but if the driver is primarily fugatives, why must the stack emissions be reduced? 

In addition, it is not clear where in the risk assessment or preamble, EPA discusses the 

number of people exposed to non-cancer risks from lead. Please add this discussion as the 

number of people exposed should be a factor. When discussing what EPA considers when 

evaluating non cancer risks, language that was used in the recent ferroalloys package can be 

added.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

3

• Page 47, is it true that EPA cannot provide the costs for enclosures without including costs 

for ambient monitoring? It is not clear that this makes sense. Similarly, the discussion 

regarding enclosure hoods is unclear. If we know that most fugitives come from sources 

that can be controlled by the hoods, even if they are not 100% effective, might they be 

effective enough?

• Page 49, it is not clear that the EPA response addresses the commenters concerns about the 

differential pressures. EPA has not responded to the concerns regarding substantial 

expenditures or the concerns regarding actually leading to greater emissions of lead.

• Page 67, EPA notes that the changes in fugitive emissions did not alter the decision under 

112F. Can EPA explain to us the impact the updated emissions had on the numbers?

• Page 73, states that fugitive dust is the major contributor to ambient lead near secondary 

smelters. Is this correct? Can EPA provide a table showing the contribution from fugatives vs 

stack emissions? 

• Page 88, is it correct that this rule only reduces lead by 0.5 tpy? If so, is there a way to 

incorporate the costs of the lead reductions in table 5? Additionally, we wonder if pages 94-

96 should be modified to focus on the HAP reductions, other than lead.

• Did EPA receive any comments on the multipathway assessment? If so, please point us to a 

document and section where they are addressed.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 1 of 168

E.O. 12866 Secondary Lead Smelting 2060-AQ68 Proposal 20111122

6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0344; FRL-XXXX-X]

RIN 2060–AQ68

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Secondary 

Lead Smelting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review 

conducted for the Secondary Lead Smelting source category regulated 

under national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants. These 

finalized amendments include revisions to the emissions limits for 

lead compounds, revisions to the standards for fugitive emissions, the 

addition of total hydrocarbon and dioxin and furan emissions limits 

for reverberatory and electric furnaces, the addition of a work 

practice standard for mercury emissions, the modification and addition 

of testing and monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, 

related notifications and revisions to the regulatory provisions 

related to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown and 

malfunction.

DATES: This final action is effective on [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION]. 

The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the 

rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of [INSERT 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 2 of 168

THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 

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

listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the 

index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential 

business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 

material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 

only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 3 of 168

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 Contact1 OAQPS Contact2

Secondary Lead 

Smelting 

Maria Malave 

(202) 564-7027 

malave.maria@epa.gov

Nathan Topham

(919) 541-0483

topham.nathan@epa.gov

1 EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. 

2 EPA’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 Emissions Reporting Tool 

HAP hazardous air pollutants 

ICR information collection request

lbs/yr pounds per year 

MACT maximum achievable control technology 

NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 4 of 168

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 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

RIN Regulatory Information Number 

RTR Risk and Technology Review

TEF toxic equivalency factor 

TEQ toxic equivalent

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-OAR2011-0344. A red-line 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?
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 5 of 168

B. What is the affected source?

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

D. Judicial Review

II. Background

III. Summary of the Final Rule

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

Smelting source category?

1. Stack and Fugitive Metal HAP Emission Standards

2. Organic HAP Emissions Standards

3. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction

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. Total Enclosure Requirements

B. Work Practice Standard Requirements

C. Emission Standards for Organic HAP from Rotary Furnaces

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

E. Miscellaneous Changes to the Regulatory Text

F. Emission Testing Methods and Frequency

G. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 6 of 168

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

Report, USEPA/OAQPS, EPA-450/3-91-030, July, 1992.

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. 

Table 2 – NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected By 

This Final Action

NESHAP and Source Category NAICS1 Code MACT2

Code

Secondary Lead Smelting 331492 0205

1 North American Industry Classification System

2 Maximum Achievable Control Technology

Table 2 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 leadbearing 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 7 of 168

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 [INSERT THE DATE 60 

DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 8 of 168

REGISTER], whichever is later.

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

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy 

of this final action will also be available on the World Wide Web 

through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a 

copy of the final action will be posted on the TTN’s policy and 

guidance page for newly proposed and promulgated rules at the 

following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/new.html. The TTN 

provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control.

Additional information is available on the residual risk and 

technology review (RTR) web page at 

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

includes source category descriptions and detailed emissions and 

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

D. Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial 

review of this final action is available only by filing a petition 

for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit by [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION].

Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 9 of 168

objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 

specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 

hearing) may be raised during judicial review.” This section also 

provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for 

reconsideration, “[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate 

to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within 

[the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection 

arose after the period for public comment (but within the time 

specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central 

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

a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to 

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

Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a 

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

INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the 

Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General 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 section 112(b) of 

the CAA, section 112(d) calls for us to promulgate NESHAP for those 

sources. “Major sources” are those that emit, or have the potential to 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 10 of 168

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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 11 of 168

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

an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent, 

taking into consideration costs, energy, safety and other relevant 

factors, an adverse environmental effect. In doing so, the EPA may 

adopt standards equal to existing MACT standards if the EPA determines 

that the existing standards are sufficiently protective. NRDC v. EPA, 

529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

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

Register for the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP, 40 CFR Part 63 

Subpart X that took into consideration the residual risk and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 12 of 168

technology review (RTR) analyses. This action provides the EPA’s final 

determinations pursuant to the RTR provisions of CAA section 112 for 

the Secondary Lead Smelting source category. As a result of our 

analyses, 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 new 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 13 of 168

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 

construction process.

This section describes the final amendments to the secondary lead 

smelting NESHAP. These revisions include changes to the stack and 

fugitive metal HAP emission standards, the addition of new THC and D/F 

emission limits, the addition of a work practice standard to separate 

plastics from automotive batteries to prevent dioxin emissions, the 

addition of work practice standards to minimize mercury emissions, and 

changes to the requirements during periods of startup, shutdown and 

malfunction. AIn addition to these changes described below, we are 

also making minor changes to the regulatory text to correct editorial 

errors and to make plain language revisions. We have evaluated the 

cost, emissions reductions 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. See Cost Impacts 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 14 of 168

associated with emissions from this source category are unacceptable 

primarily due to fugitive emissions of lead. AWe have further 

determined that there have been developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies that warrant revisions to the existing MACT 

standard for this source category. Therefore, to satisfy sections 

112(d)(6) and 112(f) of the CAA, we are revising the existing MACT 

standard to include:

• A facility-wide, flow-weighted average lead 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 an existing or new facility.

• A requirement for the facility to locateA sources of fugitive lead 

emissions within total enclosures that are maintained under 

negative pressure and vented to a control deviceA. These emissions 

sources 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 sections 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3) of the CAA, we are 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 15 of 168

also revising the existing MACT standard to include new 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 below.

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

Source Type D/F Emission 

Limit1

THC Emission 

Limit2

New and Existing Collocated Blast 

and Reverberatory Furnaces

0.50 203

Existing Blast Furnaces 170 3603

New Blast Furnaces 10 703

New and Existing Reverberatory and 

Electric Furnaces

1.0 12

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

2 ppmv as propane, corrected to 4% CO2

3 Emission limit is unchanged from 1997 NESHAP

3. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA’s CAA Section 

112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of 

startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM). Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 

1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). 

Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that was part of a regulation, 

commonly referred to as the “General Provisions Rule,” that the EPA 

promulgated under section 112 of the CAA. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 16 of 168

periods of SSM.

We have eliminated the SSM exemption in this rule. Consistent 

with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA has established standards in this 

rule for all times. We have also revised Table 1 (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 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. 

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, separate leademission standards for periods of startup and shutdown are not being 

promulgated. 

However, the EPA has revised this final rule to require sources 

to meet a work practice standard that requires the development of 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 17 of 168

standard operating procedures designed to minimize emissions of THC 

and D/F for each start-up scenario anticipated for all units subject 

to THC and D/F emission limits. We considered whether performance 

testing and, therefore, enforcement of numeric emission limits would 

be practicable during periods of startup and shutdown. The EPA 

determined that it is not technically and economically feasible for 

units subject to THC and D/F emission limits to perform stack testing 

for these pollutants during periods of startup and shutdown due to a 

number of technical challenges associated with testing 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. During these 

periods, many stack gas characteristics including temperature, flow 

rate, flow characteristics, moisture content and CO2 content of the 

gas change far more dramatically and rapidly than they would during 

steady-state sampling under normal operating conditions. These 

changing parameters must be accounted for during stack tests and 

require near-constant measurements and adjustment. 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 that would happen infrequently to gather enough data to 

complete a three run test. Additionally, testing for dioxins and 

furans requires isokinetic sampling which would be difficult or 

impossible to maintain during periods of turbulent gas flow and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 18 of 168

changing gas flow rates. Because of the technical and economic 

impracticability associated with attempting to perform stack tests 

during these periods, we have established a separate work practice 

standard for emissions of D/F and THC during periods of startup and 

shutdown.

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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 19 of 168

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 

(D.C.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 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (“ In the nature of things, no 

general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can 

anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the 

transgression of regulatory limits caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of 

third parties,’ such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or 

insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 20 of 168

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 section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation of the 

statute. We respond in section IV.G below to comments that emissions 

during malfunctions should be accounted for in assessing risk pursuant 

to 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 

section 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 21 of 168

sometimes cause an exceedance of the relevant emission standard. (See, 

e.g., State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excessive 

Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup and Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); 

Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance and 

Malfunctions (Feb. 15, 1983).) 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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 22 of 168

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 section 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 Section 113 of the Clean Air Act (see also 40 CFR Part 

22.27). 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 23 of 168

(D.C. Cir. 2008). Thus, the EPA is required to ensure that section 112 

emissions limitations are continuous. The affirmative defense for 

malfunction events meets this requirement by ensuring that even where 

there is a malfunction, the emission limitation is still enforceable 

through injunctive relief. While “continuous” limitations, on the one 

hand, are required, there is also case law indicating that in many 

situations it is appropriate for the EPA to account for the practical 

realities of technology. For example, in Essex Chemical v. 

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

acknowledged that in setting standards under CAA section 111 “variant 

provisions” such as provisions allowing for upsets during startup, 

shutdown and equipment malfunction “appear necessary to preserve the 

reasonableness of the standards as a whole and that the record does 

not support the ‘never to be exceeded’ standard currently in force.” 

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

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

and the CAA 1977 amendments undermine the relevance of these cases 

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

some level of flexibility is reasonable. The affirmative defense 

simply provides for a defense to civil penalties for excess emissions 

that are proven to be beyond the control of the source. By 

incorporating an affirmative defense, the EPA has formalized its 

approach to upset events. In a Clean Water Act setting, the Ninth 

Circuit required this type of formalized approach when regulating 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 24 of 168

“upsets beyond the control of the permit holder.” Marathon Oil Co. v. 

EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977). But see Weyerhaeuser Co. 

v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that an 

informal approach is adequate). The affirmative defense provisions 

give the EPA the flexibility to both ensure that its emission 

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

account for unplanned upsets and thus support the reasonableness of 

the standard as a whole.

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

The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this 

action are effective on [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION]. For the MACT 

standards being addressed in this action, the compliance date for 

the revised SSM requirements is the effective date of the standards, 

[INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION]. The compliance date for existing 

sources for the revised stack lead emission limit and the revised 

fugitive emission standard including the requirement to adopt work 

practice standards and install total enclosures for specified 

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

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

[INSERT DATE 2 YEARS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION]. New sources must 

comply with the standard within two years from the effective date of 

the standard, [INSERT DATE 2 YEARS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION], or 

upon startup, whichever is later.

C. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 25 of 168

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 section §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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 26 of 168

One major advantage of submitting performance test data through 

the ERT is a standardized method to compile and store much of the 

documentation required to be reported by this rule. Another advantage 

is that the ERT clearly states what testing information would be 

required. Another important 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 

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 27 of 168

Data Exchange (CDX) network for storage in the WebFIRE database making 

submittal of data very straightforward and easy. A description of the 

ERT can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html and 

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

The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to 

the EPA does not create any additional performance testing and would 

apply only to those performance tests conducted using test methods 

that are supported by the ERT. The ERT contains a specific electronic 

data entry form for most of the commonly used EPA reference methods. A 

listing of the pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT is 

available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html. We believe 

that industry will benefit from this new electronic data submittal 

requirement. Having these data, the EPA will be able to develop 

improved emission factors, make fewer information requests, and 

promulgate better regulations. The information to be reported is 

already required for the existing test methods and is necessary to 

evaluate the conformance to the test method.

Finally, another benefit of submitting data to WebFIRE 

electronically is that these data will greatly improve the overall 

quality of the existing and new emission factors by 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 28 of 168

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: Draft 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 number: EPA-HQOAR-2011-0344 for all public comments). After considering these 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 29 of 168

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, results of the final risk 

analysis estimate that the NAAQS for lead could be exceeded at 10 of 

15 facilities, largely due to fugitive dust emissions (see Table 1)A. 

This analysis also estimates that 3-month maximum lead concentrations 

could be up to about 20 times the NAAQS for leadA

Table 1 - Secondary Lead Smelting Facility Modeled Maximum Ambient Lead 

Concentrations

(rolling three-month average values)

Facility Name City State Highest Lead 

Concentration 

(μg/m3)A

Concentration 

is X times 

higher than 

the NAAQS

DOE RUN COMPANYBUICK MILLBOSS MO 2.5 20

SANDERS LEAD CO TROY AL 2.16 10

EXIDE CORPORATION VERNON CA 1.14 8

EXIDE 

TECHNOLOGIES/B R 

SMELTER

BATON ROUGE LA 0.92 6
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 30 of 168

BATTERY RECYCLING 

CO. 

ARECIBO PR 0.76 5

GULF COAST 

RECYCLING, INC.

TAMPA FL 0.52 4

EXIDE TECHNOLOGIESCANON HOLLOW PLANTFOREST CITY MO 0.47 3

GOPHER RESOURCE 

CORP

EAGAN MN 0.35 2

FRISCO BATTERY 

RECYCLING

FRISCO TX 0.32A 2

EXIDE TECH/READING 

SMELTER

READING PA 0.25 2

QUEMETCO INC INDUSTRY CA 0.17 1

EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES MUNCIE IN 0.15 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

 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 40 in a million 

predominantly due to fugitive dust emissions of arsenic and cadmium 

(as compared to 50 in a million based on the risk assessment to 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 31 of 168

support the proposed rule); notably the MIR due to MACT allowable 

emissions remains 200 in a million predominantly from stack emissions 

of arsenic. In addition, the updated worst-case acute hazard quotient 

(HQ) value is 20 at two facilities (based on the REL for arsenic), 

driven by both stack and fugitive dust emissions of arsenic (as 

compared to an acute HQ value of 30 based on the REL for arsenic at 

one facility driven by emissions from stacks). Finally, in the risk 

assessment to support the final rulemaking, it is estimated 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 to support the proposed rule). Notably, the reduction in 

multipathway risks resulted from updated emissions information 

received during the public comment period.

Taking into account all the results of the final risk assessment, 

and similar to the proposed rulemaking, we conclude that risks due to 

emissions from this source category are unacceptable. Our conclusion 

is primarily based on lead risk but also considers other risk metrics 

such as cancer and non-cancer risks associated with actual and 

allowable stack emissions. Thus, we note that stack and fugitive 

emissions Aof lead must be reduced to assure that lead concentrations 

in ambient air beyond the facility fenceline do not exceed the lead 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 32 of 168

NAAQS. Therefore, we are finalizing the requirement that facilities 

must locate the following fugitive emissions sources in a total 

enclosure that is 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, and areas where dust 

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

AHowever, 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 the property 

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

total enclosures. See 76 FR at 29056. We are finalizing the proposed 

requirement for facilities to conduct fugitive emission work practices 

as well as to enclose fugitive emission sources. However, as described 

in section IV.C of this preamble, we are promulgating a revised list 

of required work practices based on a number of comments received 

regarding the necessity and efficacy of the work practices presented 

in the proposed rule.

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.

B. Changes to the Technology Review Performed Under Conducted Pursuant 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 33 of 168

to CAA Section 112(d)(6)

Based on the technology review under 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 commentA on this issue and are adopting the 

limits as proposed. 

Under 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 of their process fugitive 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 34 of 168

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 lead emissions pursuant to 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 at 29056. We are finalizing the proposed requirement for facilities 

to conduct fugitive emission work practices as well as to enclose 

fugitive emission sources. However, as described in section IV.C of 

this preamble, we are promulgating a revised list of required work 

practices based on a number of comments received regarding the 

necessity and efficacy of the work practices presented in the proposed 

rule.

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 sections 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6), these standards rest on 

independent statutory authorities and independent rationales. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 35 of 168

Consequently, these standards remain independent and legally severable.A

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 data-gathering and 

analysis for this furnace type.

• The EPA is adding a limit for THC and D/F for collocated blast 

and reverberatory furnaces when the reverberatory furnace is not 

operating for units constructed after June 9, 1994, and is 

correcting the D/F limits for blast furnaces for units that 

commenced construction after June 9, 1994. We also added a THC 

and D/F 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 36 of 168

rule to clarify requirements for enclosures and work practices.

• 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 (76 FR at 29072) was 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 37 of 168

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 at 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 at 29072) has been modified to 

clarify that activities required for inspection of fabric filters 

and maintenance of filters that are in need of removal and 

replacement are not required to be conducted inside of total 

enclosures.

• Lead ingot product handling, storm water and wastewater 

treatment, intact battery storage areas, and clean battery casing 

plastic handling activities are not subject to the total 

enclosure requirement.

4. Fugitive Emission Work Practice Requirements

• The proposed maintenance requirements (76 FR at 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 any gaps, breaks, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 38 of 168

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 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 work practice (See 76 FR at 29073) has been 

removed from the list of required fugitive emission work 

practices.

• The specific water application rate of 0.48 gallons per square 

yard (See 76 FR at 29073) has been removed from the road washing 

requirement.

• The battery storage area inspection frequency (See 76 FR at 

29073) has been changed from twice per day to twice per week.

• The requirement to collect wash water in a container that is not 

open to the atmosphere (See 76 FR at 29073) has been removed.

• The proposed rule (See 76 FR at 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 39 of 168

and covered in a manner that prevents spillage or dust formation.

• The requirement for cleaning after an accidental release (See 76 

FR at 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 at 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.A

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

CEMS installed for THC. 

• The time between D/F testing (See 76 FR at 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 at 29072) 

were changed from “under such conditions as the Administrator 

specifies...” to “maximum representative operating conditions for 

the process”.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 40 of 168

• 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 and D/F emission limits during periods 

of startup and shutdown.

• We modified the proposed plastic separation work practice 

requirement (See 76 FR at 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 red-line 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. 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 41 of 168

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 μg/m3 (1987) to 0.06 μg/m3 (1993) after all of the point source 

and fugitive emission controls were in place. The benefits of 

requiring total enclosures as demonstrated by the ambient monitoring 

results were clearly apparent to the Department and surrounding 

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

of allowing partial enclosures with an air monitoring requirement 

option in this rulemaking.”

Another commenter stated “We do not support allowing partial 

enclosures with an air monitoring requirement option, since the total 

enclosures have been shown to be extremely effective in reducing 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 42 of 168

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 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 section 

112 (f) and because it is technically appropriate 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 43 of 168

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 the docket. 

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 demonstrates that this measure is clearly 

cost effective and 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 to ensure that there are no requirements that 

pose safety hazards or 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 NAAQS. The 

monitoring data and ICR responses indicated that the facilities who 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 44 of 168

have totally enclosed their processes are generally achieving ambient 

concentrations substantially lower than those who have not totally 

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

that all facilities would have to construct total enclosures, our 

analysis does not indicate additional cost burden associated with 

requiring total enclosures without the alternative for ambient 

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

supported the proposed rule (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0344-0040). 

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 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 45 of 168

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 46 of 168

pressure measurements at prescribed intervals would provide a viable 

monitoring option. 

Response: We agree with the commenters that monitoring of both 

building differential pressure and in-draft velocity at building 

openings is unnecessary. However, we disagree that continuous 

monitoring of differential pressure is overly prescriptive. We believe 

that monitoring of building 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 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 removed 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.

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 47 of 168

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 commenter’s 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”.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 48 of 168

Response: We agree that the 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. 

B. Work Practice Standard Requirements

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 49 of 168

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 maintenance 

practices in the proposed rule 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 50 of 168

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. 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 51 of 168

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 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 52 of 168

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 53 of 168

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.

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.

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 54 of 168

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. 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 55 of 168

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 

twice per week with removal of broken batteries within 72 hours of 

detection. We have also clarified that the inspection requirement does 

not apply to battery storage areas that are in a total enclosure. We 

do not believe that an exemption for storage of batteries in trucks 

and railcars is necessary since the inspection frequency was reduced 

to twice 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 56 of 168

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 leak-proof 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 to read as 

follows: 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 57 of 168

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 content below the threshold of 100 ppm (measured via TCLP 

lead test results <5 mg/l) is 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 58 of 168

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 work practice standard under section 112(d)(6). 

C. 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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 59 of 168

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 60 of 168

The commenter also stated that JCI and RSR differ in raw 

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

application for its Middletown facility indicates that RSR may process 

automotive, industrial, and specialty-type lead-acid batteries as well 

as lead bearing materials received from lead-acid battery 

manufacturing plants and scrap metal in its reverberatory furnace. 

JCI’s furnace feed is from automotive and marine batteries and from 

lead bearing materials from other JCI facilities. The commenter 

contends that, since the EPA considered no data representative of a 

rotary furnace operation such as that which will be operated at the 

JCI Florence Recycling Center, a numeric limit for this category 

cannot be assigned.

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

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

included only two successful test runs and therefore must be 

considered inadequate for setting emission limits since 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 61 of 168

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% confidence limit (CL) 

represents a range for which there is 99% 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% 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 62 of 168

batteries. More basically, the EPA simply has insufficient data on 

which to promulgate organic HAP standards for rotary furnaces. The 

proposed standard was based on less than one single complete test, 

consisting only of two test runs from the natural gas fueled furnace 

processing slag. (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. See 76 FR at 

29049. 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 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. 

D. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 63 of 168

for the blast and reverberatory furnace fugitive emissions to 0.32 tpy based 

on the assumption that fugitives wouldn’t 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 stated 

that the EPA then 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: We recognize the error in the calculation of the 

fugitive emissions from Exide’s Frisco facility and have adjusted the 

emissions estimates for each facility accordingly. 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). 

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 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 64 of 168

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, less than 1 in 

a million. The commenter further requested that the EPA disclose its 

multipathway risk calculation methodology and allow for public noticeand-comment. AOne commenter expressed concern that the EPA’s 

overestimation of 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 considered 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. Considering this updated 

emissions information, the EPA estimates that multipathway risk 

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

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 65 of 168

disclosed its multipathway risk methodology; the commenter’s 

assertions to the contrary are simply mistaken. 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. 76 FR at 29055/2. 

The new analysis indicates that this already acceptable level of risk 

is less than estimated and less than one in a million, but (obviously) 

does not alter the conclusion. Thus, further comment on this issue 

would not have practical effect on the rule. 

E. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 66 of 168

source provisions that do not require installation of a CEMS.

Response: The term “modified source” appeared in the proposed 

rule at 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 67 of 168

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 application of these terms has been clarified 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 section 

112(c) source category or subcategory for which a section 112(d) 

standard or other relevant standard is established pursuant to section 

112 of the Act unless a different definition is warranted based on a 

published justification as to why this definition would result in 

significant administrative, practical, or implementation problems and 

why the different definition would resolve those problems. We have 

adopted a definition of “affected source” in this rulemaking as any of 

the listed individual sources at a secondary lead smelter. This 

application of the term “affected source” is the same as was used in 

the 1997 NESHAP for secondary lead. The term “affected source” is used 

in the final rule primarily in the context of new sources. This 

definition is appropriate for the secondary lead source category 

because the primary 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 68 of 168

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 rule. A building that is 

constructed for the purpose of controlling fugitive emissions from an 

existing source is not considered 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 69 of 168

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 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 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 

the definition of “materials storage and handling area”.

The specific definition of lead bearing material chosen ensures 

that all materials that contain substantial amounts of lead are 

included while minimizing additional testing burden for facilities who 

must determine what does or doesn’t meet the definition. Imposing a 

different threshold for defining material as “lead bearing” could 

impose duplicative or conflicting requirements between subpart X and 

other regulatory regimes. Secondary lead smelters are already required 

to determine whether materials meet the definition we’ve chosen for 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 70 of 168

compliance with RCRA requirements related to how material is handled 

and disposed of.

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).
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 71 of 168

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” 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 72 of 168

is not defined in the rule. The commenters recommended that the EPA 

use the CERCLA reportable quantity threshold of 10 pounds to define an 

accidental release of lead-containing dust. Two commenters recommended 

that the requirement to initiate cleaning within one hour of a release 

be changed to require that the facility initiate cleaning activities 

within one hour after discovery of an accidental release.

Response: We accept the commenters’ suggestion to use the CERCLA 

reportable quantity threshold of 10 pounds to define an accidental 

release of lead-containing dust. We also accept the commenters’ 

suggestion to require initiation of cleaning within one hour of 

discovery of an accidental release.

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 73 of 168

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%, and produce visible fugitive emissions when handled or 

transported.

Response: 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 a lead content of equal to or greater than 100 ppm as 

measured by EPA method 1311 (TCLP solution concentration 5 mg/l). This 

is equivalent to the toxicity characteristic standard for a hazardous 

waste containing lead as defined at 40 CFR §261.24.

Comment: One commenter noted that section 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 section 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 section 63.544(d). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 74 of 168

Comment: One commenter noted that proposed section 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 operation. Parametric monitoring 

requirements, based on parameters measured during the performance 

test, would then reasonably reflect this operating variability and 

afford the source flexibility in its day-to-day operation. Cf. Cement 

Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.855, 866-67 (D.C. Cir. 2001) 

(upholding use of such data to set MACT standards under 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 Part 63, not Part 60.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 75 of 168

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 section 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 section 63.543(c) 

accordingly.

F. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 76 of 168

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 five 

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 section 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 not required if a THC CEMS is used.

Comment: Three commenters stated that the EPA should allow 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 77 of 168

facilities to use EPA Method 12 for lead compounds to calculate 

compliance with the process vent limitations in order to be consistent 

with testing requirements that exist in many facility permits.

Response: We agree that facilities should be given the option of 

using EPA Method 12. The regulatory text has been edited accordingly.

Comment: Three commenters stated that the BLDS exemption for 

baghouses equipped with HEPA filters should be retained. One commenter 

stated that to install BLDS’s on HEPA filtered stacks is excessive and 

unwarranted. The commenter also believes that annual stack testing for 

sources equipped with HEPA filtration is not necessary. Another 

commenter argued that the cost associated with using BLDS is not 

commensurate with their limited ability. The commenter stated that 

BLDS’s are inherently reactive whereas baghouses equipped with HEPA 

filtration actually prevent emissions in the event of a bag failure. 

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 78 of 168

Response: We agree with the commenters that baghouses equipped 

with HEPA filters do not need bag leak detection systems as well. The 

HEPA filter provides the indicia of superior performance. 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.

G. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

Comment: One commenter expressed concerns related to the total 

hydrocarbon (THC) standard during start-up periods. According to the 

commenter, it will be impossible to meet the minimum temperature at 

which compliance with the THC standard has been demonstrated during 

startup of a furnace. The blast furnace crucible must be heated for up 

to 12 hours before raw materials can be charged. The reverberatory 

furnace cold startups occur over an extended period also. There is no 

introduction of feedstock during the warm-up process and, therefore, 

no emissions of process-related THC emissions. Emissions during this 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 79 of 168

time period will consist entirely of combustion products associated with the fuels natural gas and 

foundry coke. The afterburner or post combustion system are equipped with rudimentary burners that 

provide supplementary heat but rely on the excess heat contained within 

the combined furnace exhaust gases during production operations to 

achieve an afterburner temperature that assures the efficient 

combustion of the process off-gases. The afterburner supplementary 

burners are not sufficient to maintain the required temperature during 

furnace startup and shutdown sequences. The proposed revisions to 

Subpart X should include definitions of startup and shutdown for 

collocated blast and reverberatory furnaces that clearly define when 

alternative THC standards would apply and how compliance with an 

alternative standard is monitored. 

Response: The EPA has revised this final rule to require 

sources to meet a work practice standard that requires the development 

of standard operating procedures designed to minimize emissions of THC 

and D/F for each start-up scenario anticipated for all units subject 

to THC and D/F emission limits. We considered whether 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 and D/F emissions during periods of 

startup and shutdown. These challenges make establishing and complying 

with numerical emissions limits impracticable. 

There are multiple factors informing this decision. The furnaces 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 80 of 168

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, many stack gas characteristics 

including temperature, flow rate, pollutant and flow stratification, 

molecular weight and moisture content of the gas change far more 

dramatically and rapidly than they would during normal operating 

conditions. These changing parameters must be accounted for during 

stack tests and require near-constant measurements and adjustment 

during multiple contiguous test runs (i.e., more than the typical 

three test runs required for compliance determination under normal 

operating conditions). In terms of staff scheduling, test crews would 

have to be on-site and ready to begin 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. Scheduling such testing to coincide with the 

beginning of shutdown periods, which are less predictable than startup 

operations, 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. 

In addition to the technical problems of collecting 

representative samples in stratified stack conditions, sampling for 

dioxins and furans must be isokinetic and sampling for THC 

concentrations must be proportional in order to assure representative 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 81 of 168

results. Maintaining isokinetic or other proportional sampling when 

stack gas flows range from zero to nearly full load conditions during 

either startup or shutdown with measurement equipment commonly applied 

for this testing would be an extremely difficult measurement challenge 

and very likely lead to unacceptable test runs. For these technical 

and economic reasons, we have determined that conducting manual test 

methods during these secondary lead furnace startup or shutdown 

periods to be impracticable in the context of section 112(h)(2)(B) of 

the Clean Air Act. As a result, we have established a separate work 

practice standard for emissions of D/F and THC during periods of 

startup and shutdown.

This startup and shutdown work practice applies only to the THC 

and dioxin and furan 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. 

Therefore, we have established the separate work practice standard for 

periods of startup and shutdown. 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 82 of 168

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, for a total reduction of more than 90% over the last 15 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 83 of 168

years.A The final rule will result in estimated lead emissions 

reductions of 6.9 tpy from process and process fugitive sources and 

6.4 tpy from fugitive dust sources over the 2009 baseline. AThe 

expected reduction in total metal HAP is 8.7 tpy from process and 

process fugitive sources and 7.2 tpy from fugitive dust sources. We 

estimate that these controls will also reduce emissions of particulate 

matter (PM) Aby 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 

some emissions reductions will occur due to increased temperatures of 

afterburners Aand 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 baghouses on enclosures. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 84 of 168

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 85 of 168

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 upgrade 

the baghouse with new bags and additional maintenance or completely 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 86 of 168

replace the baghouse, depending on the age of the baghouse (as 

explained further below). This cost estimate presents an upper-end 

estimate of the cost impacts of the final rule that assumes facilities 

will strive to operate well below the standard to ensure process 

variability does not cause emission rates approaching the maximum 

level allowed by the standard. If the baghouse was less than 10 years 

old and the lead concentration in the outlet was not appreciably over 

one half the standard (i.e. 0.5 mg/dscm), we assumed that the baghouse 

would require maintenance and bag replacement. If the baghouse was 

more than 10 years old and the lead concentration was appreciably over 

the standard, we assumed the baghouse would be replaced. We then 

compared each facility’s emissions with the flow-weighted, facilitywide 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 $12.6 million, and total annual costs were estimated to 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 87 of 168

be approximately $3.0 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 section 112 

(d)(6). See Draft Cost Impacts for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source 

Category, available in the docket, 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 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 for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source 

Category, available in the docket. 

Table 5. Estimated Costs and Reductions for the Promulgated Standards 

in this Action

Final 

Amendment

Estimated 

Capital 

Estimated 

Annual 

Total HAP 

Emissions 

Reductions 

Cost Effectiveness 

in $ per ton total 

HAP reduction 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 88 of 168

Cost 

($MM)

Cost 

($MM)

(tons per year) ($ per pound)

Revised stack 

lead 

emissions 

limit

12.6 3.0 8.7 (of metal 

HAP)

$0.34 MM per ton 

($170 per pound)

Total 

enclosure of 

fugitive 

emissions 

sources

38 6.4 5.2 (of metal 

HAP)

$1.0 MM per ton

($500 per pound)

Fugitive 

control work 

practices

0 3.0 2.0 (of metal 

HAP)

$1.5 MM per ton 

($750 per pound)

THC and D/F 

concentration 

limits

0 0.3 29.61 $0.01 MM per ton

Additional 

testing and 

monitoring

0.3 0.79 N/A N/A

1Based on total organic HAP reductions as a co-benefit of compliance with 

standards for dioxins and furans.

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. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 89 of 168

information, please refer to the Economic Impact Analysis for this 

rulemaking that is in the public docket.

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, as described in the EPA’s 2008 Regulatory Impact Analysis 

(RIA) that was completed for the lead NAAQS (which is available in the 

docket for this action and also on the EPA’s website) populations aged 

less than age 7 would receive significant benefits from reductions in 

lead exposure (for example: averted IQ loss among children less than 7 

years of age). 

As noted in that RIA, there were also several other lead-related 

health effects 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 significant benefits to both children 

and adult populations, but these benefits cannot be quantified due to 

resource and data limitations. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 90 of 168

not adopted to implement the lead NAAQS, and rest on legal and policy 

justifications which are unrelated to the requirements for adopting, 

revising, and implementing a NAAQS (e.g. sections 112 (d) (2), (3), 6; 

section 112 (f)(2) as opposed to sections 107-110), nonetheless these 

rules will aid in the attainment of the lead NAAQS and this is a 

tangible benefit of the rules.

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 reductions in PM 2.5 emissions as a co-benefit of 

the HAP reductions annually. See Development of the RTR Emissions 

Dataset for the Secondary Lead Smelting Source Category, which is 

available in the docket for information on how the PM2.5 co-benefits 

were calculated based on total PM reductions. These PM 2.5 reductions 

would result in an average of about $19.5 to $31.5 million in benefits 

per year. Finally, the final rule will provide human health benefits 

through reductions in arsenic and cadmium emissions. 

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 91 of 168

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 92 of 168

temperature on these units. We believe temperature monitors currently 

exist in these locations and that the facilities will not incur a 

capital cost due to this requirement. Additionally, increased 

monitoring is required for demonstrating negative pressure in all 

total enclosures. 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 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 93 of 168

It is important to note that the EPA has no basis currently for 

estimating the number of malfunctions that would qualify for an 

affirmative defense. Current historical records would be an 

inappropriate basis, as source owners or operators previously operated 

their facilities in recognition that they were exempt from the 

requirement to comply with emissions standards during malfunctions. Of 

the number of excess emissions events reported by source operators, 

only a small number would be expected to result from a malfunction 

(based on the definition above), and only a subset of excess emissions 

caused by malfunctions would result in the source choosing to assert 

the affirmative defense. Thus we believe the number of instances in 

which source operators might be expected to avail themselves of the 

affirmative defense will be extremely small. For this reason, we 

estimate no more than 2 or 3 such occurrences for all sources subject 

to subpart X over the 3-year period covered by this ICR. We expect to 

gather 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 94 of 168

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 95 of 168

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 96 of 168

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 that are based on 

a weighted average approach and have been established at the least 

stringent levels that we estimate will still result in acceptable 

risks to public health. Thus, the promulgated stack limits are based 

on the least costly approach that will still provide an ample margin 

of safety for human health and the environment. 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 

the small business analysis that is in the docket.

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 97 of 168

of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.

This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 

203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains 

no requirements that apply to such governments nor does it impose 

obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 

of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. These final 

rules primarily affect private industry, and do not impose 

significant economic costs on State or local governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. 

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 98 of 168

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. Modeled ambient air lead concentrations 

from about 10 of the 15 facilities in this source category are in 

excess of the NAAQS for lead, which was set to “provide increased 

protection for children and other at-risk populations against an array 

of adverse health effects, most notably including neurological effects 

in children, including neurocognitive and neurobehavioral effects” (73 

FR 67007). 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%) is 3 

percentage points higher than the corresponding national percentage 

for this demographic group (of 27%). 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 IV.A of this 

preamble and The Residual Risk Assessment for the Secondary Lead 

Smelting Source Category, which is available in the docket for this 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 99 of 168

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.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in 

its regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards 

(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, 

and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. 

NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.

This action involves technical standards. The EPA requires use of 

ASME PTC 19.10-1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,” for its manual 

methods of measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the 

exhaust gas. These parts of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are acceptable 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 100 of 168

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 section 63.7(f) and section 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-
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 101 of 168

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 SocioEconomic Factors for Populations Living Near Secondary Lead Smelting 

Facilities which can be found in the docket for this rulemaking. The 

actions in today’s final rule will significantly decrease the risks 

due to HAP emissions from this source category for all demographic 

groups and mitigate any disproportionate risks due to those emissions.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 102 of 168

K. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by 

the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 

generally provides that, before a rule may take effect, the agency 

promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 

of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 

General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing 

this final rule and other required information to the United States 

Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the 

final rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This 

action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final 

rules will be effective on [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION].
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 103 of 168

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and 

procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

______________

Dated: XXXXX XX, 2011.

________________________

Lisa P. Jackson,

Administrator.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 104 of 168

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. Part 63 is amended by revising subpart X to read as follows: 

Subpart X--National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air 

Pollutants From Secondary Lead Smelting

§63.541 Applicability.

§63.542 Definitions.

§63.543 What are my standards for process vents?

§63.544 What are my process enclosure standards?

§63.545 What are my standards for fugitive dust sources?

§63.546 Compliance dates.

§63.547 Test methods.

§63.548 Monitoring requirements.

§63.549 Notification requirements.

§63.550 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

§63.551 Implementation and enforcement.

§63.552 Affirmative Defense for Exceedance of Emissions Limit 

During Malfunction

Table 1 to Subpart X of Part 63—General Provisions Applicability 

to Subpart X 

Table 2 to Subpart X of Part 63—Emissions limits for Secondary 

Lead Smelting Furnaces

Table 3 to Subpart X of Part 60—Toxic Equivalency Factors

Subpart X—National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air 

Pollutants From Secondary Lead Smelting

§63.541 Applicability.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 105 of 168

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 106 of 168

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 leadacid batteries are broken, crushed, or disassembled and separated 

into components.

Blast furnace means a smelting furnace consisting of a 

vertical cylinder atop a crucible, into which lead-bearing charge 

materials are introduced at the top of the furnace and combustion 

air is introduced through tuyeres at the bottom of the cylinder, 

and that uses coke as a fuel source and that is operated at such 

a temperature in the combustion zone (greater than 980 °C) that 

lead compounds are chemically reduced to elemental lead metal.

Blast furnace charging location means the physical opening 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 107 of 168

through which raw materials are introduced into a blast furnace.

Collocated blast furnace and reverberatory furnace means 

operation at the same location of a blast furnace and a 

reverberatory furnace where the vent streams of the furnaces are 

mixed before cooling, with the volumetric flow rate discharged 

from the blast furnace being equal to or less than that 

discharged from the reverberatory furnace.

Dryer means a chamber that is heated and that is used to 

remove moisture from lead-bearing materials before they are 

charged to a smelting furnace.

Dryer transition equipment means the junction between a 

dryer and the charge hopper or conveyor, or the junction between 

the dryer and the smelting furnace feed chute or hopper located 

at the ends of the dryer.

Electric furnace means a smelting furnace consisting of a 

vessel into which reverberatory furnace slag is introduced and 

that uses electrical energy to heat the reverberatory furnace 

slag to such a temperature (greater than 980 °C) that lead 

compounds are reduced to elemental lead metal.

Fugitive dust source means a stationary source of hazardous 

air pollutant emissions at a secondary lead smelter that is not 

associated with a specific process or process fugitive vent or 

stack. Fugitive dust sources include, but are not limited to, 

roadways, storage piles, materials handling transfer points, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 108 of 168

materials transport areas, storage areas, process areas, and 

buildings.

Furnace and refining/casting area means any area of a 

secondary lead smelter in which:

(1) Smelting furnaces are located; or

(2) Refining operations occur; or

(3) Casting operations occur.

Lead alloy means an alloy in which the predominant component 

is lead.

Lead bearing material means material with a lead content 

equal to or greater than 100 ppm as measured by EPA Method 1311 

(toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) solution 

concentration 5 mg/l).

Leeward wall means the furthest exterior wall of a total 

enclosure that is opposite the windward wall. 

Maintenance activity means any of the following routine 

maintenance and repair activities that could generate fugitive 

lead dust: 

(1) Replacement or repair of refractory, or any internal or 

external part of equipment used to process, handle or control 

lead-containing materials. 

(2) Replacement of any duct section used to convey leadcontaining exhaust. 

(3) Metal cutting or welding that penetrates the metal 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 109 of 168

structure of any equipment, and its associated components, used 

to process lead-containing material such that lead dust within 

the internal structure or its components can become fugitive lead 

dust. 

(4) Resurfacing, repair or removal of ground, pavement, 

concrete, or asphalt. 

Materials storage and handling area means any area of a 

secondary lead smelter in which lead-bearing materials 

(including, but not limited to, broken battery components, 

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 a new source. 

Partial enclosure means a structure comprised of walls or 

partitions on at least three sides or three-quarters of the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 110 of 168

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 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 111 of 168

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 

°C) that lead compounds are chemically reduced to elemental lead 

metal.

Rotary furnace (also known as a rotary reverberatory 

furnace) means a furnace consisting of a refractory-lined chamber 

that rotates about a horizontal axis and that uses one or more 

flames to heat the walls of the furnace and lead-bearing scrap to 

such a temperature (greater than 980 °C) that lead compounds are 

chemically reduced to elemental lead metal.

Secondary lead smelter means any facility at which leadbearing scrap material, primarily, but not limited to, lead-acid 

batteries, is recycled into elemental lead or lead alloys by 

smelting.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 112 of 168

Smelting means the chemical reduction of lead compounds to 

elemental lead or lead alloys through processing in hightemperature (greater than 980 °C) furnaces including, but not 

limited to, blast furnaces, reverberatory furnaces, rotary 

furnaces, and electric furnaces.

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 

which is most impacted by the wind in its most prevailing 

direction determined by a wind rose using available data from the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 113 of 168

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:

∑

∑=

×

= n

i

i

n

i

i i

FWA

F

F C

C

1

(Eq. 1)

Where: 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 114 of 168

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. 

(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 0.2 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 (THC) and dioxins and furans (D/F) from furnace 

sources specified in Table 2 of this subpart.

(d) If you combine furnace emissions from multiple types of 

furnaces and these furnaces do not meet the definition of 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 115 of 168

collocated blast and reverberatory furnaces, you must calculate 

your emissions limit for the combined furnace stream using 

Equation 2.

∑

∑=

×

= n

i

i

n

i

i ELi

EL

F

F C

C

1

(Eq. 2)

Where: 

CEL = Flow-weighted average emissions limit (concentration) 

of combined furnace vents.

n = Number of furnace vents.

Fi = Flow rate from furnace vent i in dry standard cubic 

feet per minute.

CELi = Emissions limit (concentration) of pollutant in furnace 

vent i as specified in Table 2 of this subpart.

(e) If you combine furnace emissions with the furnace 

charging process fugitive emissions and discharge them to the 

atmosphere through a common emissions point, you must demonstrate 

compliance with the applicable total hydrocarbons concentration 

limit specified in paragraph (c) of this section at a location 

downstream from the point at which the two emissions streams are 

combined.

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 116 of 168

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 (g)(1) or (g)(2) 

of this section.

(1) Conduct an annual performance test for lead compounds 

from each process vent (no later than 12 calendar months 

following the previous compliance test), unless you install and 

operate a CEMS meeting the requirements of §63.8. 

(2) If an annual compliance test demonstrates that a 

process vent emitted lead compounds at 0.1 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 117 of 168

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 118 of 168

Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 

conditions of performance tests.

(k) At all times, you must operate and maintain any 

affected source, including associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with 

safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing 

emissions. Determination of whether such operation and 

maintenance procedures are being used will be based on 

information available to the Administrator that may include, but 

is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and 

maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance 

records, and inspection of the source.

 (l) If you own or operate a unit subject to emission limits 

in Table 2 of this subpart, you must minimize the unit’s startup 

and shutdown periods following the manufacturer’s recommended 

procedures, if available. You must develop and follow standard 

operating procedures designed to minimize emissions of total 

hydrocarbon and dioxins and furans or each start-up 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 hydrocarbon 

and dioxins and furans.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 119 of 168

(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 blast furnace.

§63.544 What are my process enclosure standards?

(a) You must locate the fugitive emissions sources listed 

in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(9) of this section in a total 

enclosure that is maintained at negative pressure at all times 

and vented to a control device designed to capture lead 

particulate. The total enclosure must meet the requirements 

specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section. 

(1) Smelting furnaces.

(2) Smelting furnace charging areas.

(3) Lead taps, slag taps, and molds during tapping.

(4) Battery breakers.

(5) Refining kettles, casting areas.

(6) Dryers.

(7) Agglomerating furnaces and agglomerating furnace 

product taps.

(8) Material handling areas for any lead bearing materials 

(drosses, slag, other raw materials). 

(9) Areas where dust from fabric filters, sweepings or used 

fabric filters are processed. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 120 of 168

(b) Total enclosures are not required in the following 

areas: lead ingot product handling areas, stormwater and 

wastewater treatment areas, intact battery storage areas, areas 

where lead bearing material is stored in closed containers or 

enclosed mechanical conveyors, and areas where clean battery 

casing material is handled. 

(c) You must construct and operate total enclosures for the 

sources listed in paragraph (a) of this section as specified in 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section. The total enclosure 

must be free of significant cracks, gaps, corrosion or other 

deterioration that could cause lead bearing material to be 

released from the primary barrier. Measures must be in place to 

prevent the tracking of lead bearing material out of the unit by 

personnel or by equipment used in handling the material. An area 

must be designated to decontaminate equipment and any rinsate 

must be collected and properly managed.

(1) You must ventilate the total enclosure continuously to 

ensure negative pressure values of at least 0.013 mm of mercury 

(0.007 inches of water). 

(2) You must maintain an inward flow of air through all 

natural draft openings. 

(d) You must inspect enclosures and facility structures 

that contain any lead-bearing materials at least once per month. 

You must repair any gaps, breaks, separations, leak points or 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 121 of 168

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 (SOP) manual that describes 

in detail the measures that will be put in place and implemented 

to control the fugitive dust emissions from the sources listed in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(7) of this section.

(1) Plant roadways.

(2) Plant buildings.

(3) Accidental releases.

(4) Battery storage area.

(5) Equipment maintenance.

(6) Material storage areas.

(7) Material handling areas.

(b) You must submit the standard operating procedures 

manual to the Administrator or delegated authority for review and 

approval when initially developed and any time changes are made. 

(c) The controls specified in the standard operating 

procedures manual must at a minimum include the requirements 

specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(7) of this section. 

(1) Cleaning. Where a cleaning practice is specified, you 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 122 of 168

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 the CERCLA 

reportable quantity for lead. 

(4) Battery storage areas. You must inspect any batteries 

that are not stored in a total enclosure twice 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 123 of 168

areas. The vehicle wash must include washing of tires, 

undercarriage and exterior surface of the vehicle followed by 

vehicle inspection. You must collect all wash water and send the 

wash water to a wastewater treatment facility. 

(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 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; 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 124 of 168

(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 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 125 of 168

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 

[DATE TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(b) For affected sources that commenced construction or 

reconstruction after May 19, 2011, you must demonstrate 

compliance with the requirements of this subpart by [DATE TWO

YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER] or upon startup of operations, whichever is 

later.

§63.547 Test methods.

(a) You must use the test methods from appendix A of part 

60 as listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section 

to determine compliance with the emissions standards for lead 

compounds specified in §63.543(a) 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 126 of 168

positive pressure fabric filters, to measure volumetric flow 

rate.

(3) EPA Method 3, 3A, or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 

to determine the dry molecular weight of the stack gas.

(4) EPA Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 to 

determine moisture content of the stack gas.

(5) EPA Method 12 or Method 29 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A-8 to determine compliance with the lead compound emissions 

standards. The minimum sample volume must be 2.0 dry standard 

cubic meters (70 dry standard cubic feet) for each run. You must 

perform three test runs and you must determine compliance using 

the average of the three runs.

(b) You must use the following test methods in appendix A 

of part 60 listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this 

section, as specified, to determine compliance with the 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 127 of 168

moisture content of the stack gases. 

(4) EPA Method 25A at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 to 

measure total hydrocarbons emissions. The minimum sampling time 

must be 1 hour for each run. You must perform a minimum of three 

test runs. You must calculate a 1-hour average total 

hydrocarbons concentration for each run and use the average of 

the three 1-hour averages to determine compliance. 

(c) You must correct the measured total hydrocarbons 

concentrations to 4 percent carbon dioxide as specified in 

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

(1) If the measured percent carbon dioxide is greater than 

0.4 percent in each compliance test, you must determine the 

correction factor using Equation (2) of this section.

2

4.0

CO

F =

(Eq. 2)

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 128 of 168

concentration by multiplying the measured total hydrocarbons 

concentration by the correction factor (F) determined for each 

compliance test.

(d) You must use the following test methods in appendix A 

of part 60 listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(5) of this 

section, as specified, to determine compliance with the emissions 

standards for dioxins and furans specified in §63.543(c).

(1) EPA Method 1 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 to select 

the sampling port location and the number of traverse points.

(2) EPA Method 2 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1 or EPA 

Method 5D at 40 CFR par 60, appendix A-3, section 8.3 for 

positive pressure fabric filters to measure volumetric flow rate.

(3) EPA Method 3A or 3B at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2 to 

determine the oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations of the 

stack gas.

(4) EPA Method 4 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 to 

determine moisture content of the stack gas.

(5) EPA Method 23 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 to 

determine the dioxins and furans concentration.

(e) You must determine the dioxins and furans toxic 

equivalency by following the procedures in paragraphs (e)(1) 

through (e)(3) of this section.

(1) Measure the concentration of each dioxins and furans 

congener shown in Table 3 of this part using EPA Method 23 at 40 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 129 of 168

CFR part 60, appendix A-7. You must correct the concentration of 

dioxins and furans in terms of toxic equivalency to 7 percent O2

using Equation (3) of this section.

(20.9 % 2)

(20.9 7)

O

Cmeas Cadj

−

−

=

(Eq. 3)

where:

Cadj = Dioxins and furans concentration adjusted to 7 

percent oxygen.

Cmeas = Dioxins and furans concentration measured in 

nanograms per dry standard cubic meter.

(20.9–7) = 20.9 percent oxygen − 7 percent oxygen (defined 

oxygen correction basis).

20.9 = Oxygen concentration in air, percent.

%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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 130 of 168

detection and corrective action plans for all baghouses (fabric 

filters or cartridge filters) that are used to control process 

vents, process fugitive, or fugitive dust emissions from any 

source subject to the lead emissions standards in §§63.543, 

63.544, and 63.545, including those used to control emissions 

from building ventilation. 

(b) You must submit the standard operating procedures 

manual for baghouses required by paragraph (a) of this section to 

the Administrator or delegated authority for review and approval.

(c) The procedures that you specify in the standard 

operating procedures manual for inspections and routine 

maintenance must, at a minimum, include the requirements of 

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

(1) Daily monitoring of pressure drop across each baghouse 

cell.

(2) Weekly confirmation that dust is being removed from 

hoppers through visual inspection, or equivalent means of 

ensuring the proper functioning of removal mechanisms.

(3) Daily check of compressed air supply for pulse-jet 

baghouses.

(4) An appropriate methodology for monitoring cleaning 

cycles to ensure proper operation.

(5) Monthly check of bag cleaning mechanisms for proper 

functioning through visual inspection or equivalent means.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 131 of 168

(6) Monthly check of bag tension on reverse air and shakertype baghouses. Such checks are not required for shaker-type 

baghouses using self-tensioning (spring loaded) devices.

(7) Quarterly confirmation of the physical integrity of the 

baghouse through visual inspection of the baghouse interior for 

air leaks.

(8) Quarterly inspection of fans for wear, material 

buildup, and corrosion through visual inspection, vibration 

detectors, or equivalent means.

(9) Except as provided in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this 

section, continuous operation of a bag leak detection system, 

unless a system meeting the requirements of paragraph (m) of this 

section for a continuous emissions monitoring system is installed 

for monitoring the concentration of lead. 

(d) The procedures you specify in the standard operating 

procedures manual for baghouse maintenance must include, at a 

minimum, a preventative maintenance schedule that is consistent 

with the baghouse manufacturer's instructions for routine and 

long-term maintenance.

(e) The bag leak detection system required by paragraph 

(c)(9) of this section, must meet the specification and 

requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(8) of this section.

(1) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the 

manufacturer to be capable of detecting particulate matter 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 132 of 168

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 133 of 168

a 365 day period unless such adjustment follows a complete 

baghouse inspection that demonstrates that the baghouse is in 

good operating condition.

(7) For negative pressure, induced air baghouses, and 

positive pressure baghouses that are discharged to the atmosphere 

through a stack, you must install the bag leak detector 

downstream of the baghouse and upstream of any wet acid gas 

scrubber.

(8) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's 

instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.

(f) You must include in the standard operating procedures 

manual required by paragraph (a) of this section a corrective 

action plan that specifies the procedures to be followed in the 

case of a bag leak detection system alarm. The corrective action 

plan must include, at a minimum, the procedures that you will use 

to determine and record the time and cause of the alarm as well 

as the corrective actions taken to minimize emissions as 

specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section.

(1) The procedures used to determine the cause of the alarm 

must be initiated within 30 minutes of the alarm.

(2) The cause of the alarm must be alleviated by taking the 

necessary corrective action(s) that may include, but not be 

limited to, those listed in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through 

(f)(2)(vi) of this section.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 134 of 168

(i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken 

filter elements, or any other malfunction that may cause an 

increase in emissions.

(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.

(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media, or 

otherwise repairing the control device.

(iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment.

(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or 

otherwise repairing the bag leak detection system.

(vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate 

emissions.

(g) Baghouses equipped with HEPA filters as a secondary 

filter used to control emissions from any source subject to the 

lead emission standards in §65.543(a) or (b), are exempt from the 

requirement to be equipped with a bag leak detection system. You 

must monitor and record the pressure drop across each HEPA filter 

system daily. If the pressure drop is outside the limit(s) 

specified by the filter manufacturer, you must take appropriate 

corrective measures, which may include but not be limited to 

those given in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this section.

(1) Inspecting the filter and filter housing for air leaks 

and torn or broken filters.

(2) Replacing defective filter media, or otherwise repairing 

the control device. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 135 of 168

(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 (j)(4) of this section to demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the total hydrocarbons and dioxins and 

furans emissions standards.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 136 of 168

(1) Continuous temperature monitoring. You must install, 

calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate a device to monitor 

and record the temperature of the afterburner or furnace exhaust 

streams consistent with the requirements for continuous 

monitoring systems in subpart A of this part.

(2) Prior to or in conjunction with the initial performance 

or compliance test to determine compliance with §63.543(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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 137 of 168

(iv) The reference method must be a National Institute of 

Standards and Technology calibrated reference thermocouplepotentiometer system or an alternate reference, subject to the 

approval of the Administrator.

(3) You must monitor and record the temperature of the 

afterburner or the furnace exhaust streams every 15 minutes 

during the initial performance or compliance test for total 

hydrocarbons and dioxins and furans and determine an arithmetic 

average for the recorded temperature measurements.

(4) To demonstrate continuous compliance with the standards 

for total hydrocarbons and dioxins and furans, you must maintain 

an afterburner or exhaust temperature such that the average 

temperature in any 3-hour period does not fall more than 28 °C 

(50 °F) below the average established in paragraph (j)(3) of this 

section. 

(k) You must install, operate, and maintain a digital 

differential pressure monitoring system to continuously monitor 

each total enclosure as described in paragraphs (k)(1) through 

(k)(5) of this section.

(1) You must install and maintain a minimum of one building 

digital differential pressure monitoring system at each of the 

following three walls in each total enclosure that has a total 

ground surface area of 10,000 square feet or more:

(i) The leeward wall.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 138 of 168

(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 mm 

mercury (0.005 to 0.11 inches of water) with a minimum accuracy 

of plus or minus 0.001 mm mercury (0.0005 inches of water). 

(4) You must equip each digital differential pressure 

monitoring system with a continuous recorder. 

(5) You must calibrate each digital differential pressure 

monitoring system in accordance with manufacturer’s 

specifications at least once every 12 calendar months or more 

frequently if recommended by the manufacturer. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 139 of 168

 (l) Except as provided in (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 of 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 of performance 

specifications for lead CEMS.

(2) Prior to promulgation of performance specifications for 

CEMS used to measure lead concentrations, you must use the 

procedure described in §63.543 (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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 140 of 168

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 141 of 168

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 of subpart A, General Provisions. 

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 [DATE ONE YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 142 of 168

THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. For sources that commenced construction 

or reconstruction after [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 

PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must submit this 

notification no later than 180 days before startup of the 

constructed or reconstructed secondary lead smelter, but no 

sooner than [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. For an affected source that has received a 

construction permit from the Administrator or delegated authority 

on or before [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER], you must submit this notification no later 

than [DATE ONE YEAR AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER].

§63.550 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

(a) You must comply with all of the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements specified in §63.10 of the General 

Provisions that are referenced in Table 1 to this subpart.

(1) Records must be maintained in a form suitable and 

readily available for expeditious review, according to 

§63.10(b)(1). However, electronic recordkeeping and reporting 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 143 of 168

action, report, or record, according to §63.10(b)(1). 

(b) The standard operating procedures manuals required in 

§63.545(a) and §63.548(a) must be submitted to the Administrator 

in electronic format for review and approval of the initial 

submittal and whenever an update is made to the procedure.

(c) You must maintain for a period of 5 years, records of 

the information listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(13) of 

this section.

(1) Electronic records of the bag leak detection system 

output.

(2) An identification of the date and time of all bag leak 

detection system alarms, the time that procedures to determine 

the cause of the alarm were initiated, the cause of the alarm, an 

explanation of the corrective actions taken, and the date and 

time the cause of the alarm was corrected. 

(3) All records of inspections and maintenance activities 

required under §63.548(c) as part of the practices described in 

the standard operating procedures manual for baghouses required 

under §63.548(a).

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 144 of 168

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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 145 of 168

(12) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction 

to minimize emissions in accordance with §63.543(k), including 

corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air 

pollution control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual 

manner of operation. 

(13) Records of any periods of startup or shutdown of a 

furnace and actions taken to minimize emissions during that 

period in accordance with §63.543(l). 

(d) You must comply with all of the reporting requirements 

specified in §63.10 of the General Provisions that are referenced 

in Table 1 to this subpart. 

(1) You must submit reports no less frequent than specified 

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

(2) Once a source reports a violation of the standard or 

excess emissions, you must follow the reporting format required 

under §63.10(e)(3) until a request to reduce reporting frequency 

is approved by the Administrator.

(e) In addition to the information required under the 

applicable sections of §63.10, you must include in the reports 

required under paragraph (d) of this section the information 

specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(14) of this section.

(1) Records of the concentration of lead in each process 

vent, and records of the rolling 12-month flow-weighted average 

concentration of lead compounds in vent gases calculated monthly 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 146 of 168

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.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 147 of 168

(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 §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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 148 of 168

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 (i) 

through (iii) below.

(i) As of January 1, 2012 and within 60 days after the date 

of completing each performance test, as defined in §63.2 and as 

required in this subpart, you must submit performance test data, 

except opacity data, electronically to EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange by using the Electronic Reporting Tool (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html/). Only data 

collected using test methods compatible with the Electronic 

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 (14)(i) of 

this section. Only data collected using test methods compatible 

with the Electronic Reporting Tool are subject to this 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 149 of 168

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 150 of 168

cannot be transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.

(c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, 

local, or tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) 

through (c)(4) of this section.

(1) Approval of alternatives to the requirements in 

§§63.541, 63.543 through 63.544, §63.545, and §63.546.

(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under 

§63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), as defined in §63.90, and as required in 

this subpart.

(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under 

§63.8(f), as defined in §63.90, and as required in this subpart.

(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and 

reporting under §63.10(f), as defined in §63.90, and as required 

in this subpart.

§63.552 Affirmative Defense for Exceedance of Emissions Limit 

During Malfunction

In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth 

in this subpart, you may assert an affirmative defense to a claim 

for civil penalties for exceedances of such standards that are 

caused by malfunction, as defined at §63.2. Appropriate 

penalties may be assessed, however, if you fail to meet your 

burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative 

defense. The affirmative defense shall not be available for 

claims for injunctive relief.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 151 of 168

(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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 152 of 168

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 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 153 of 168

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

* * * * *

63.6(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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 154 of 168

63.6(f)(1) No

63.6(g) Yes

63.6(h) No No opacity limits in 

rule.

63.6(i) Yes

63.6(j) Yes

§63.7(a)-(d) Yes

§63.7(e)(1) No See 63.543(j)

§63.7(e)(2)-(e)(4) Yes

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

63.8(a)-(b) Yes

63.8(c)(1)(i) No See 63.543(k) for 

general duty 

requirement. 

63.8(c)(1)(ii) Yes

63.8(c)(1)(iii) No

63.8(c)(2)-(d)(2) Yes

63.8(d)(3) Yes, except 

for last 

sentence

63.8(e)-(g) Yes

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

ough (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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 155 of 168

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

* * * * *
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 156 of 168

Table 2 to Subpart X of Part 63-–Emissions limits for Secondary 

Lead Smelting Furnaces

For vents from these 

processes***

You must meet the following emissions 

limits***

Total Hydrocarbon

ppm by volume 

expressed as propane 

corrected to 4 

percent carbon 

dioxide

Dioxin and Furan 

(dioxins and 

furans) 

nanograms/dscm 

expressed as TEQ 

corrected to 7 

percent O2

Collocated blast and 

reverberatory 

furnace (new and 

existing)

20 ppmv 0.50 ng/dscm

Collocated blast and 

reverberatory 

furnace when the 

Reverberatory 

furnace is not 

operating (existing)

360 ppmv 170 ng/dscm

Collocated blast and 

reverberatory 

furnace when the 

reverberatory 

furnace is not 

operating for units 

that commence 

construction after 

June 9, 1994

70 170

Blast furnace 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 10

Reverberatory and 

electric furnace

12 ppmv 0.20 ng/dscm

Reverberatory and 

electric furnace 

that commence 

construction or 

reconstruction after 

May 19, 2011

12 ppmv 0.10 ng/dscm

Rotary furnaces (new 

and existing)

610 ppmv 1.0 ng/dscm
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft (11/21/2011) – Do Not Cite, Quote or 

Release During Review***

Page 157 of 168

Table 3 to Subpart X of Part 63 – Toxic Equivalency Factors

Dioxin/furan congener Toxic equivalency factor

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzop-dioxin1

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated 

dibenzo-p-dioxin

0.5

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated 

dibenzo-p-dioxin

0.1

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated 

dibenzo-p-dioxin

0.1

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated 

dibenzo-p-dioxin

0.1

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated 

dibenzo-p-dioxin

0.01

octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin 0.001

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated 

dibenzofuran

0.1

2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorinated 

dibenzofuran

0.05

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated 

dibenzofuran

0.5

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated 

dibenzofuran

0.1

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated 

dibenzofuran

0.1

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated 

dibenzofuran

0.1