From: "Christopher R. Bryant" <cbryant@lawbc.com> 

 To: Chuck French/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

 Cc: Homer Hine <HHine@rsrcorp.com>, Mike Buckantz <MBuckantz@rsrcorp.com>, "Lynn L. 

Bergeson" <lbergeson@lawbc.com> 

 Date: 02/14/2011 12:17 PM 

 Subject: Production-Based Limit & D/F Limits 

Chuck, 

RSR wanted to follow up with you on two issues EPA raised last week regarding its risk and technology 

review of the MACT standards for secondary lead smelters: (1) Whether the concentration-based 

emission limit for process sources at secondary lead smelters should be changed to a production-based 

limit; and (2) How/whether EPA should address dioxin and furan emissions from secondary lead 

smelters. 

Production-Based Limit 

RSR does not support a production-based limit for process sources. Under applicable EPA rules (Section 

112(h)), EPA has five options for numerical emission standards or limits: 

 1. Mass concentration (mass per unit volume) 

 2. Volume concentration (volume per unit volume) 

 3. Mass emission rate (mass per unit time) 

 4. Process emission rate (mass per unit of production or other process parameter) 

 5. Percent reduction 

RSR believes that of these choices available to EPA, mass per unit of time is the only standard units that 

should be considered, because it is the only choice that reflects actual emissions and is the true measure 

of a process’s emissions. Typical stack testing and CEM’s techniques employ methods for collection of 

data which provide both flow rate (volume per unit time) and mass within that unit of time, i.e., mass 

per unit of operational time which is the true amount of emissions from a process. In addition, 

compliance or noncompliance with the mass per unit time standard for lead emission sources should 

require determinations based on stack testing procedures that are designed to produce results not 

subject to test and/or analytical detection limits being utilized in calculations for compliance. 

Furthermore, all reagents and testing techniques should demonstrate a "blank" result significantly lower 

than reported emission values such that testing/analytical error/contamination are not reported as 

emissions. The regulation should require that a test protocol be submitted to, and approved by, air 

quality agencies delegated authority to enforce the regulation. The protocol should address the stack 

testing procedures and procedural issues presented here. 

We do not support a mass per unit of production standard for many reasons. Primarily, and as noted 

above, a production standard will not reflect actual emissions. Also, very few emissions can be 

determined by this concept because most processes have control devices prior to the release of 

emissions. Properly designed control devices are constant output devices, thus independent of process 
production rates. Multiple sequential control devices typically increase this independence by orders of 

magnitude. Thus, unless the emission in question is uncontrolled, this measurement is of little or no 

value in describing or measuring actual emissions. 

Similarly, RSR does not support the other options available to EPA, and would be happy to amplify our 

reasons. We believe that if EPA revises the standard for process sources, the only viable option is to 

revise the standard to a mass emission rate (mass per unit of time). 

Dioxin and Furan (D/F) Emissions 

The concern of a lower emission standard is one of accuracy in the ability to measure small quantities of 

dioxins and furans. Compliance or noncompliance with the standard or dioxin and furan emission 

sources should require determinations based on stack testing procedures designed to produce results 

not subject to test and/or analytical detection limits being utilized in calculations for compliance. 

Furthermore, all reagents and testing techniques should demonstrate a "blank" result significantly lower 

than reported emission values such that testing/analytical error/contamination are not reported as 

emissions. The regulation should require that a test protocol be submitted to, and approved by, air 

quality agencies delegated authority to enforce the regulation. The protocol should address the stack 

testing procedures and procedural issues presented here. 

Please let me know if you have any questions. 

Thanks, 

Chris 

Christopher R. Bryant 

BERGESON & CAMPBELL, P.C. 

1203 Nineteenth Street, NW 

Suite 300 

Washington, D.C. 20036-2401 

cbryant@lawbc.com 

(202) 557-3818 (phone) 

(202) 355-8281 (cell) 

(202) 557-3836 (fax) 

Please visit our Web Site at 

http://www.lawbc.com 

This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, 

please advise by return e-mail and delete immediately without reading or forwarding to others.